5 ms·
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 fr
by 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 agoI 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).