4 ms·

In the 'free-market' capitalist democracy most of the western world lives in, you can have some (varying degree of) influence on what the government does but no

In the 'free-market' capitalist democracy most of the western world lives in, you can have some (varying degree of) influence on what the government does but not a whole lot on what private companies do. If you are afraid of the government you should be terrified of Google/Facebook/etc. I put 'free' in quotes because complete freedom for one person is slavery for another, so it is never completely clear to me what people actually want when they talk about free society or free markets.

jkepler 7y ago
> I put 'free' in quotes because complete freedom for one person is slavery for another, so it is never completely clear to me what people actually want when they talk about free society or free markets. My understanding is that free markets must be non-coersive and non-violent, where all participants exercise freedom in how they act or not within the marketplace. Otherwise, if we allow any form of coersion (including any price controls) we have at least some slavery, not a free markets.
- Swenrekcah 7y ago
  I can agree with that definition. But then again in order to ensure that you would need regulations and enforcement, so then some others might say it's not a free market. When I read my previous comment again I see it can come off as a bit preachy, I'm actually all for regulated free markets and regulated capitalism. But I also hate regulations that are only for the benefit of entrenched players, like for example when you need a license to call yourself a hairdresser or something. I do support the need for a license to call yourself a doctor or structural engineer, so it's a tricky path.
  - jkepler 7y ago
    I agree that in the real world, while it's vital to promote freedom, I can't agree fully with anarchist friends. Looking at history, we will always need some form of government or regulation, because human brokenness runs deep. Yet, where we can decentralized power, I think we should (and suspect you'd agree), as this minimized the damage abuse of authority (or regulatory capture) can cause. In the hands of humans, liberty and justice are always proximate, not ultimate (though I think they can be real).
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  When people write 'free market' I always want to know the limits of it. Can I sell dangerous products? Can I lie about my product? Am I obligated to explain the negative consequences of using my products? Can I sell drugs to kids? For most people there comes a point where they say 'hang on, you are not allowed to do that!' And then the regulation debate starts.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  >> I put 'free' in quotes because complete freedom for one person is slavery for another, so it is never completely clear to me what people actually want when they talk about free society or free markets. > My understanding is that free markets must be non-coersive and non-violent, where all participants exercise freedom in how they act or not within the marketplace. Otherwise, if we allow any form of coersion (including any price controls) we have at least some slavery, not a free markets. I don't think you're really answering the GP's question. You could have a literal slave market that's totally free, non-violent, and non-coercive, because in that market, the slaves are products, not market participants. If you don't want stuff like slave trading, then you need to put limits on the free market, so an important question is what limits (if any) does the speaker want on the "free market."
helpPeople 7y ago
Totally different. Facebook and Google need to make money. Government collects taxes. There is an unavoidable obligation for companies to provide value.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  There is an unavoidable obligation for companies to make money. That may or may not involve providing value to you, or any net value at all. There are plenty of companies that provide negative value to some of their stakeholders. If you imagine adding up all the value provided to the primary and secondary stakeholders, for some companies this sum arguably ends up being negative. Business models where that sum ends up strongly negative tend to be banned quickly, though.
barry-cotter 7y ago
> In the 'free-market' capitalist democracy most of the western world lives in, you can have some (varying degree of) influence on what the government does but not a whole lot on what private companies do. You also have vastly more freedom over whether to deal with any specific company or not than you do with the government, and they either genuinely don’t care about you so they’ll leave you alone, or they want your money so they’ll try to please you. If the government worked as well as Google, a company with legendarily bad customer service that would probably be an improvement for most over now. Given the choice between exit and voice the former is vastly better at getting good results.

jkepler 7y ago

> I put 'free' in quotes because complete freedom for one person is slavery for another, so it is never completely clear to me what people actually want when they talk about free society or free markets. My understanding is that free markets must be non-coersive and non-violent, where all participants exercise freedom in how they act or not within the marketplace. Otherwise, if we allow any form of coersion (including any price controls) we have at least some slavery, not a free markets.

Swenrekcah 7y ago
I can agree with that definition. But then again in order to ensure that you would need regulations and enforcement, so then some others might say it's not a free market. When I read my previous comment again I see it can come off as a bit preachy, I'm actually all for regulated free markets and regulated capitalism. But I also hate regulations that are only for the benefit of entrenched players, like for example when you need a license to call yourself a hairdresser or something. I do support the need for a license to call yourself a doctor or structural engineer, so it's a tricky path.
- jkepler 7y ago
  I agree that in the real world, while it's vital to promote freedom, I can't agree fully with anarchist friends. Looking at history, we will always need some form of government or regulation, because human brokenness runs deep. Yet, where we can decentralized power, I think we should (and suspect you'd agree), as this minimized the damage abuse of authority (or regulatory capture) can cause. In the hands of humans, liberty and justice are always proximate, not ultimate (though I think they can be real).
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
When people write 'free market' I always want to know the limits of it. Can I sell dangerous products? Can I lie about my product? Am I obligated to explain the negative consequences of using my products? Can I sell drugs to kids? For most people there comes a point where they say 'hang on, you are not allowed to do that!' And then the regulation debate starts.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
>> I put 'free' in quotes because complete freedom for one person is slavery for another, so it is never completely clear to me what people actually want when they talk about free society or free markets. > My understanding is that free markets must be non-coersive and non-violent, where all participants exercise freedom in how they act or not within the marketplace. Otherwise, if we allow any form of coersion (including any price controls) we have at least some slavery, not a free markets. I don't think you're really answering the GP's question. You could have a literal slave market that's totally free, non-violent, and non-coercive, because in that market, the slaves are products, not market participants. If you don't want stuff like slave trading, then you need to put limits on the free market, so an important question is what limits (if any) does the speaker want on the "free market."

helpPeople 7y ago

Totally different. Facebook and Google need to make money. Government collects taxes. There is an unavoidable obligation for companies to provide value.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
There is an unavoidable obligation for companies to make money. That may or may not involve providing value to you, or any net value at all. There are plenty of companies that provide negative value to some of their stakeholders. If you imagine adding up all the value provided to the primary and secondary stakeholders, for some companies this sum arguably ends up being negative. Business models where that sum ends up strongly negative tend to be banned quickly, though.

barry-cotter 7y ago

> In the 'free-market' capitalist democracy most of the western world lives in, you can have some (varying degree of) influence on what the government does but not a whole lot on what private companies do. You also have vastly more freedom over whether to deal with any specific company or not than you do with the government, and they either genuinely don’t care about you so they’ll leave you alone, or they want your money so they’ll try to please you. If the government worked as well as Google, a company with legendarily bad customer service that would probably be an improvement for most over now. Given the choice between exit and voice the former is vastly better at getting good results.