I think it's not as complicated as that rxsantos.
See if this were to happen:
instead of how much it took to manufacture it and how useful is.
Then the issue becomes a similar problem of how do you define useful and what if the manufacturers added all kinds of ads to it which counts in how much it costs?
In capitalism the value of a product is based on how much people think is worth
Is one of the simpler philosophies to beat out such propaganda because the free market while imperfect is better at determining value than the slower more disconnected arms of the government or of those with the riches to manipulate such powers.
In the political context, this won't happen because:
From political ,we elect crooks every year based on propaganda
Propaganda can't keep third party issues from joining the debates because the people are more empowered to make sure their issues get in.
Only by keeping the fools from participating can the media and political propaganda machine be able to maintain a two party system because then they can pad up the "wise".
One may even argue that there are more wise people than foolish people.
For the fools often can know that they are fools but the wise are often not invested in assisting the fools.
Again, it goes back to what someone said from Quora about a hairpin bend:
Libertarians, in my perception, are stuck in what I term a "hairpin bend". That is, the people who are less wise than them are frequently indistinguishable from the people who are more wise than them.http://www.quora.com/Why-...they-know-all-the-answers
There's a large class of people who disagree with libertarianism because they're clueless about economics, misunderstand the basic tenets and make stupid arguments. There's another, smaller group of people who understand perfectly well how libertarianism works and choose to reject it for intelligent, well thought out reasons. From the outside, both will have roughly the same range of political beliefs.
So what happens is some people from the first group will have an epiphany, they will finally get libertarianism and they will become a loyal convert. For some fraction of the group who become libertarians, they will have a second epiphany, realize the various fundamental flaws that make it a fundamentally unworkable system and leave libertarianism for a more mainstream political philosophy.
As you get a boiling off of the most enlightened members, the hairpin bend becomes a concentration of a certain type of person. This, in a large part, IMHO, explains the uniformity of personality of libertarians compared to many other social groups.
Every time you have a hairpin bend, you tend to see this similar phenomena and it can often be used as a diagnosis for where hairpin bends exist.
Note: There may well exist further hairpin bends further up the wisdom chain and it does seem some people have an epiphany back into libertarianism. This is mainly a critique of the "naive libertarianism" viewpoint.
I blogged about it but I just can't help sharing this word. It's just so good at pointing out issues like this in a simple metaphor.
Some fools try to swerve towards the other end but the wise try to keep those fools swerving (with the hopes of forming a loop) from reaching the other end because they just want to stay as it is and keep the status quo intact and the wise men are so much more plentier that when things do change, it is only because the wisest men became even wiser but nonetheless the hairpin bend is never fully formed into a loop where the wisest can have access to the most foolish. (Even the internet with it's ease of publishing has trolls and elitists who are secretly satisfied that everything is nearly the same and only complain when their needs are the ones being trampled.)