Free Market

[lizbethrose]

What's your definition of a 'free market,' a 'free market economy,' and/or 'free market' capitalism. Three different subjects, I know, but are they, to you, interrelated?

I have my own thoughts,, but I'd like yours for comparison.

[uglypeoplefucking]

like all concepts that entail freedom, a "free market" is an ideal. as you've said elsewhere, there's no such thing as a purely free market, and i would add that if we take the idea with anything even approaching a literal interpretation then it is a practical impossibility, if not an outright contradiction.

i'd say it's basically a rhetorical device for various political factions - at least as it is generally used.

[jonquil]

In this country and for globalists "free" market is a euphemism for
corporatist extracting and controlling resources everywhere in
the interests of the 1%, without regard to the country being
exploited or the people, including children, being used for slave
and low-wage labor under deplorable conditions.

What we should be talking about is fair trade and economic
practices that promote health and well-being of everyone
and the environment.

[lizbethrose]

I agree, jonquil.

A 'free market' should instigate competition. Given globalization, there is no competition. So what if the shorts you bought are three times too big (although they're supposedly your size,) so what if the length of the inseam differs from left to right, so what if the zipper has been put in as left-handed rather than right-handed. They were made in Sri Lanka!

An American consumer can't get away from that, nor can European consumers.

Vive la free market!

[Moreno]

What's your definition of a 'free market,' a 'free market economy,' and/or 'free market' capitalism. Three different subjects, I know, but are they, to you, interrelated?

I have my own thoughts,, but I'd like yours for comparison.

a freed up market often means that corporations subverted the democratic (or dictatorship) created nationals laws of some country and forced them to accept policies the corporations want. This can also happen, for example, when the IMF or some other similar organization, loans money to a dictator - often when it is likely this person will not use the money correctly or even for proposed projects that are not in the best interests of the country. Then later, the loans are not paid, and so the country's policies get dictated by the IMF such that local products can no longer be protected or supported by the government or the people.

A great read on this latter 'free market creation process' is

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Econo ... 1576753018

written by a man who used to work for the various organizations trying to get international control of local economies through really some of the most immoral activities imaginable.

Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine is a more comprehensive look at the 'opening up of markets' including how disasters, like the 2004 Tsunami were used to 'open markets' and take land away from indigenous people, poor people, fishermen living on valuable coastal real estate and so on. Advisors swoop in and make 'free markets' following disasters. Talk about parasites.

[Sword of Apollo]

What's your definition of a 'free market,' a 'free market economy,' and/or 'free market' capitalism. Three different subjects, I know, but are they, to you, interrelated?

I have my own thoughts,, but I'd like yours for comparison.

My definition of a free market is a governmental jurisdiction (or set of them) in which the initiation--or threat--of physical force, and fraud are legally banned for both individuals and the government. The "freedom" in "free market" is freedom from the initiation of force and fraud by others. (This applies fully to adults, while children can legally be forced to do certain things by their parents, just as now.) The government's sole function is to protect people from the initiation of force/fraud by others, to retaliate against the initiators, and to resolve intractable disputes that would otherwise have to be resolved by individuals resorting to force. (Fraud is an equivalent of force, because, when employed, it also causes people to enter into agreements without their informed consent.)

This can be equivalently stated as: a free market is one in which the individual rights to life, liberty and property are protected from violation by anyone, and in which this is the government's sole function. A part of liberty is the freedom to enter into mutually-agreed-upon, legally binding contracts.

By this definition, there is not a country on the planet that is--or has been--a completely free market. The closest thing to a completely free market (laissez-faire capitalism) was the United States from 1865 to about 1900. The result of near-laissez-faire was that real wages (monetary wages divided by price index) and the general standard of living increased dramatically over the course of the 19th Century in the US and Britain. (Unequally, yes, but everyone's standard of living got better. Child mortality was cut by 66% in England from 1840 to 1910. Industrialization as a benefit to the general standard of living required freedom; compare industrialization in the US to that in the USSR.) By about 1940, near-laissez-faire capitalism had finally put an end to the millennia-old practice of child labor, in the US.

But, even during this time, there was government regulation (coercion) that would not occur in pure laissez-faire capitalism, such as government banking, land holding/grants, subsidies, monopoly grants, etc. (See Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Rand.)

Today, American capitalism is very heavily regulated, (coerced) with the Federal Reserve, socialized health care, (Medicare) the FTC, FAA, the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world, housing loan subsidies, zoning laws, coercive city ordinances, and on and on and on. Third world countries generally are not effective in protecting individual rights, and so are not examples of free markets. They either have a lot of regulations that allow corrupt government officials to effectively extort money from people, or they are governed by military juntas who can kill whomever they want without fear of retaliation, or they are anarchies that allow roving "militias" (i.e. gangs) to execute people in the streets.

The world could use freer markets, especially in the wake of the government-caused financial crisis.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Why on Earth should the government's only role in society be to use force and coercion (by passing and enforcing laws) to prevent the use of force and coercion? There's no way such an assertion even makes sense.

[uglypeoplefucking]

This can be equivalently stated as: a free market is one in which the individual rights to life, liberty and property are protected from violation by anyone, and in which this is the government's sole function. A part of liberty is the freedom to enter into mutually-agreed-upon, legally binding contracts.

There are no legally binding contracts that don't entail at least the threat of force or coercion, if only by proxy. You are basically saying that force and coercion are wrong, but then sneaking in the implication that they are fine as long as they assist (some) people in acquiring capital.

[SIATD v2]

By this definition, there is not a country on the planet that is--or has been--a completely free market. The closest thing to a completely free market (laissez-faire capitalism) was the United States from 1865 to about 1900.

Would you care to defend this rather outrageous assertion?

The result of near-laissez-faire was that real wages (monetary wages divided by price index) and the general standard of living increased dramatically over the course of the 19th Century in the US and Britain. (Unequally, yes, but everyone's standard of living got better. Child mortality was cut by 66% in England from 1840 to 1910. Industrialization as a benefit to the general standard of living required freedom; compare industrialization in the US to that in the USSR.) By about 1940, near-laissez-faire capitalism had finally put an end to the millennia-old practice of child labor, in the US.

Yet black people were still treated as cattle and women couldn't vote. But you had a gold backed currency, and you herded Libertarians like gold backed currencies, so everything must have been good!

Third world countries generally are not effective in protecting individual rights, and so are not examples of free markets.

This is where mainstream American Libertarianism (Ron Paul/Ayn Rand/the John Birch Society nexus) breaks down into total contradictions. A free market doesn't give a toss about protecting individual rights, because the existence of those rights and the actions of protecting them would constitute a limitation on the free market...

[Sword of Apollo]

Why on Earth should the government's only role in society be to use force and coercion (by passing and enforcing laws) to prevent the use of force and coercion? There's no way such an assertion even makes sense.

The laws in a laissez-faire capitalist society only result in government coercion when they are broken. The only laws enacted are those that ban coercion (or its effective equivalent, such as fraud.) Thus, the only time the government uses force is to retaliate against those who have already initiated force. It is the initiation of force that is banned. The difference between an initiator and a retaliator is the difference between the bank robber, and the police officers that arrest the bank robber after he has robbed a bank.

There are no legally binding contracts that don't entail at least the threat of force or coercion, if only by proxy. You are basically saying that force and coercion are wrong, but then sneaking in the implication that they are fine as long as they assist (some) people in acquiring capital.

When people voluntarily enter a legally binding contract, they are saying, in effect, "If the other party upholds their end of the contract and I do not uphold mine, I give my consent that the government may extract a penalty from me, and transfer it to them. I understand that this consent may not be withdrawn, so long as the contract holds." No one forced the individual into this position; he willingly accepted the terms. Any force applied to him later in accordance with the terms of the contract is just and proper by his own judgment, and was only made possible by his free judgment and consent.

By this definition, there is not a country on the planet that is--or has been--a completely free market. The closest thing to a completely free market (laissez-faire capitalism) was the United States from 1865 to about 1900.

Would you care to defend this rather outrageous assertion?

If you can find a country that had an organized government, where the government only protected individual rights as I have described, and enacted no coercive regulations, no subsidies, no bans on any activity that did not violate the right of others, then I will retract my statement and study that country with great interest. In making that statement, I am not claiming to have proven a negative--that there never has been such a country--but that I know of no evidence of it, despite the ease with which evidence of modern countries may be found.

Yet black people were still treated as cattle and women couldn't vote. But you had a gold backed currency, and you herded Libertarians like gold backed currencies, so everything must have been good!

I never said everything was perfect. What I consider "perfect" in this context is a laissez-faire system with universally equal protection of individual rights. What we had was nearly laissez-faire capitalism. It was greatly beneficial, but not without its faults, including segregation laws and the lack of female suffrage.

Third world countries generally are not effective in protecting individual rights, and so are not examples of free markets.

This is where mainstream American Libertarianism (Ron Paul/Ayn Rand/the John Birch Society nexus) breaks down into total contradictions. A free market doesn't give a toss about protecting individual rights, because the existence of those rights and the actions of protecting them would constitute a limitation on the free market...

What is "free" about a market in which people can be enslaved without legal protection? We have to clearly define what we mean when we say "freedom" in referring to the "free market." What are people free from? Freedom, in this context, is freedom from the initiation of physical force or its equivalents. This includes things like slavery, extortion, theft, murder, fraud, etc. The protection of individual rights is, as I said, the equivalent of banning the initiation of force by anyone.

You'll note here that individual rights do not mean the "right" to be provided something at someone else's expense without their voluntary consent. The right to property does not mean that someone must be compelled to provide you with property when you need it. It is the right to keep property that you earn through your own effort and voluntary trade with others. There is no "right" to healthcare, if such a "right" means that others are forced to treat you when you need it. That is a violation of the provider's rights to liberty and property.

So rights, in the sense that I am using the term, are a ban on the initiation of physical force. The only way someone can violate these rights is to use some form of coercion. There is no contradiction here. The protection of actual rights is not a "limitation" on a free market, but the protection and maintanence of a free market; i.e. a market free from the initiation of physical force.

[SIATD v2]

By this definition, there is not a country on the planet that is--or has been--a completely free market. The closest thing to a completely free market (laissez-faire capitalism) was the United States from 1865 to about 1900.

Would you care to defend this rather outrageous assertion?

If you can find a country that had an organized government, where the government only protected individual rights as I have described, and enacted no coercive regulations, no subsidies, no bans on any activity that did not violate the right of others, then I will retract my statement and study that country with great interest. In making that statement, I am not claiming to have proven a negative--that there never has been such a country--but that I know of no evidence of it, despite the ease with which evidence of modern countries may be found.

I meant the assertion that the closest thing to a completely free market that has ever existed was the United States circa 1865-1900.

Yet black people were still treated as cattle and women couldn't vote. But you had a gold backed currency, and you herded Libertarians like gold backed currencies, so everything must have been good!

I never said everything was perfect. What I consider "perfect" in this context is a laissez-faire system with universally equal protection of individual rights. What we had was nearly laissez-faire capitalism. It was greatly beneficial, but not without its faults, including segregation laws and the lack of female suffrage.

It wasn't a free society that protected individual rights - the rights of women and blacks (more than half of the population) were not considered particularly relevant. To hold up that time and place in history as being good because it was 'nearly laissez faire capitalism' is absurd.

What is "free" about a market in which people can be enslaved without legal protection? We have to clearly define what we mean when we say "freedom" in referring to the "free market." What are people free from? Freedom, in this context, is freedom from the initiation of physical force or its equivalents. This includes things like slavery, extortion, theft, murder, fraud, etc. The protection of individual rights is, as I said, the equivalent of banning the initiation of force by anyone.

And yet, in order to ban anything one is initiating force...

You'll note here that individual rights do not mean the "right" to be provided something at someone else's expense without their voluntary consent. The right to property does not mean that someone must be compelled to provide you with property when you need it. It is the right to keep property that you earn through your own effort and voluntary trade with others. There is no "right" to healthcare, if such a "right" means that others are forced to treat you when you need it. That is a violation of the provider's rights to liberty and property.

In order to determine property one is initiating force (for example, building a fence).

So rights, in the sense that I am using the term, are a ban on the initiation of physical force. The only way someone can violate these rights is to use some form of coercion. There is no contradiction here. The protection of actual rights is not a "limitation" on a free market, but the protection and maintanence of a free market; i.e. a market free from the initiation of physical force.

Tell me, in your gloriously laissez faire system where women and blacks don't matter because if you treat them like shit then you defend that with a 'nothing is perfect' shrug of your shoulders, what happens when someone is accused of a crime? Do you even have crimes? Courts? Judges? Juries?

[uglypeoplefucking]

The laws in a laissez-faire capitalist society only result in government coercion when they are broken. The only laws enacted are those that ban coercion (or its effective equivalent, such as fraud.) Thus, the only time the government uses force is to retaliate against those who have already initiated force. It is the initiation of force that is banned. The difference between an initiator and a retaliator is the difference between the bank robber, and the police officers that arrest the bank robber after he has robbed a bank.

What about the impositions of property laws upon the bank robber? Those are coercive and initiated. i'm not saying they are unecessary, i'm just saying that it starts to get ambiguous when you try to determine who initiated what, and so justifying force and coercion that way is pretty arbitrary. What qualifies as "retalitory" force will vary depending on who you ask.

i think this means that the moral argument that force and coercion are in themselves wrong (always followed by an "except") kind of falls apart. We should just accept force and coercion as facts of life, instead of building utopic visions of a society that somehow functions without them. Of course, accepting them as facts of life entails the acceptance of at least some government intrusion and imposition upon our lives . . . and businesses.

When people voluntarily enter a legally binding contract, they are saying, in effect, "If the other party upholds their end of the contract and I do not uphold mine, I give my consent that the government may extract a penalty from me, and transfer it to them. I understand that this consent may not be withdrawn, so long as the contract holds." No one forced the individual into this position; he willingly accepted the terms. Any force applied to him later in accordance with the terms of the contract is just and proper by his own judgment, and was only made possible by his free judgment and consent.

There's no such thing as "free judgment and consent". These things are a weird mishmash of religious and libertarian fantasies. In any case, it's one thing to accept the terms of a contract, it's another thing entirely to agree to the assertion that those terms are "just and proper".

[Smears]

The drug producing and dealing markets, if properly managed can enjoy an almost completely unrestricted freedom. Only regulation is don't get caught. I see my friends work so hard for such pathetic money at "real" jobs that it makes me sick.

[uglypeoplefucking]

The drug producing and dealing markets, if properly managed can enjoy an almost completely unrestricted freedom. Only regulation is don't get caught. I see my friends work so hard for such pathetic money at "real" jobs that it makes me sick.

The only problem with the drug markets is that they give rise to, and sustain, violence and murder. Not saying every drug entrepeneur is a violent murderer, only that you don't see people regularly getting murdered because they were involved in say the bookselling industry.

[ScavengingVulture]

Free market? Free reign to enslave and terrorize people nationally or abroad.

[matty]

I don't think the "free from coercion" definition is a bad one, per se, it's just being selectively applied (as though governments were the only entities engaged in economic coercion). Of course, the potential for an absolutely free market in line with that definition is somewhere approaching nil, much like the potential for a completely controlled economy.

[SIATD v2]

I don't think the "free from coercion" definition is a bad one, per se, it's just being selectively applied (as though governments were the only entities engaged in economic coercion). Of course, the potential for an absolutely free market in line with that definition is somewhere approaching nil, much like the potential for a completely controlled economy.

Very important point.

[ScavengingVulture]

Nothing is free unless you are a part of the robber baron class and it's associates.

Free markets is a oxymoron.

[Smears]

A truly free market is one where anyone can do anything he wants, and whoever ends up with all the money is the winner. Isn't that what happens in America? When I say anyone do anything, I mean even if a few guys figure out a way to fuck everyone else out of everything, they're free to do it.

[lizbethrose]

A truly free market is one where anyone can do anything he wants, and whoever ends up with all the money is the winner. Isn't that what happens in America? When I say anyone do anything, I mean even if a few guys figure out a way to fuck everyone else out of everything, they're free to do it.

You're coming awfully close to a laissez faire market--a free market that, if left alone and without government regulation, will correct itself in the long run. Needless to say, there's never been a free, laissez faire market because such wouldn't work outside of someone's pipe dream. There will always be some protectionism in the form of tariffs and/or restrictive quotas (among other regulatory tools) in order to protect a country's economic interests. That protectionism is built into our Constitution (Article I, section 9--off the top of my head.)

Given this and the Keynesian theory of a mixed economy, I'll go back to the OP and ask again: what do you think a free market is? I'll add another question--what do you think a free market should be?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.












.............................................









.

[Moreno]

A truly free market is one where anyone can do anything he wants, and whoever ends up with all the money is the winner. Isn't that what happens in America? When I say anyone do anything, I mean even if a few guys figure out a way to fuck everyone else out of everything, they're free to do it.

Which means that at truly free market is not or at very least rapidly leads to a lack of freedom for most people.

[Moreno]

The drug producing and dealing markets, if properly managed can enjoy an almost completely unrestricted freedom. Only regulation is don't get caught. I see my friends work so hard for such pathetic money at "real" jobs that it makes me sick.

The only problem with the drug markets is that they give rise to, and sustain, violence and murder.

Sort of like the oil markets, amongst others.

[ilikenamitha]

What's your definition of a 'free market,' a 'free market economy,' and/or 'free market' capitalism. Three different subjects, I know, but are they, to you, interrelated?

I have my own thoughts,, but I'd like yours for comparison.

Goods and services are traded without state intervention, ownership or regulation.