3 ms·

As a free market type, I don't see the supposed conflict at all. A free market is more or less orthogonal to the legislative process. Free market types should

As a free market type, I don't see the supposed conflict at all. A free market is more or less orthogonal to the legislative process. Free market types should absolutely want the legislature to be careful not to adopt laws which subtly distort the market in favor of some versus others.

pytester 7y ago
I'm pretty sure it'd be impossible to point to any market anywhere and say "that's distortion free". By arguing that congress shouldn't adopt laws that "subtly distort" you're kind of making an appeal to conservatism (small c) rather than economic efficiency.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
chongli 7y ago
Politics itself is part of the market. Politicians participate in the marketplace of ideas, they require money to market their ideas (campaign financing), and they compete with one another for power and influence. Government both regulates and participates in the market through contracts, causing prices to change, just as any other large participant does. The criticism I offer for all “free market” types is this: it is naïve to ask, let alone hope, for government to act as an impartial referee. Government is a player with its own agenda. It always has been and, for as long as it is made up of self-interested human beings, it always will be.
- rebuilder 7y ago
  And, absent government regulation, market participants with the influence and wealth required will provide their own.
  - edoceo 7y ago
    Basically government is the Biggest Company with a strong-arm division for enforcement of EULA.
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      There's already a word for a company with a strong-arm division: gang. The government is the biggest gang -- claiming and enforcing a monopoly of violence in a particular geographic area is the defining feature of a government. If the Sinaloa cartel becomes more powerful than the Mexican government, it will become the Mexican government. It effectively already is in some municipalities: https://www.npr.org/2014/02/24/282123622/ruthless-mexican-drug-trafficker-was-a-robin-hood-in-home-state https://www.npr.org/2014/02/24/282123622/ruthless-mexican-dr... > Because of Guzman, she says, everything is under control — people don't steal, kidnap or extort here. And the partiers say he helped the poor, paved roads, gave people jobs — the list of good deeds goes on.
- endtime 7y ago
  > Politics itself is part of the market. This is fudging the word "market" a bit. Free market advocates think that everyone should be able to, say, sell paperclips without the government getting involved. Saying that regulation is "part of the market" suggests some kind of misunderstanding of what a free market is. > it is naïve to ask, let alone hope, for government to act as an impartial referee. In practice, I agree. It's also naive to hope for the government to faithfully align with almost any political ideology, e.g. progressivism. I don't see that as a flaw of the ideology itself.
  - chongli 7y ago
    I don't see that as a flaw of the ideology itself. I have similar quibbles with other ideologies. Really, my strongest criticism is reserved for ideological purists who come in all shapes and sizes. To put it plainly, I believe all ideologies are reductive and lead to absurdities when broadly applied, particularly to other human beings. Pragmatism is the approach I prefer. What separates it from an ideology is that it doesn't attempt to cram the world into a tiny box. It's a tool that would work even in an unreliable universe and it affords complex human beings the respect they deserve.

pytester 7y ago

I'm pretty sure it'd be impossible to point to any market anywhere and say "that's distortion free". By arguing that congress shouldn't adopt laws that "subtly distort" you're kind of making an appeal to conservatism (small c) rather than economic efficiency.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

chongli 7y ago

Politics itself is part of the market. Politicians participate in the marketplace of ideas, they require money to market their ideas (campaign financing), and they compete with one another for power and influence. Government both regulates and participates in the market through contracts, causing prices to change, just as any other large participant does. The criticism I offer for all “free market” types is this: it is naïve to ask, let alone hope, for government to act as an impartial referee. Government is a player with its own agenda. It always has been and, for as long as it is made up of self-interested human beings, it always will be.

rebuilder 7y ago
And, absent government regulation, market participants with the influence and wealth required will provide their own.
- edoceo 7y ago
  Basically government is the Biggest Company with a strong-arm division for enforcement of EULA.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    There's already a word for a company with a strong-arm division: gang. The government is the biggest gang -- claiming and enforcing a monopoly of violence in a particular geographic area is the defining feature of a government. If the Sinaloa cartel becomes more powerful than the Mexican government, it will become the Mexican government. It effectively already is in some municipalities: https://www.npr.org/2014/02/24/282123622/ruthless-mexican-drug-trafficker-was-a-robin-hood-in-home-state https://www.npr.org/2014/02/24/282123622/ruthless-mexican-dr... > Because of Guzman, she says, everything is under control — people don't steal, kidnap or extort here. And the partiers say he helped the poor, paved roads, gave people jobs — the list of good deeds goes on.
endtime 7y ago
> Politics itself is part of the market. This is fudging the word "market" a bit. Free market advocates think that everyone should be able to, say, sell paperclips without the government getting involved. Saying that regulation is "part of the market" suggests some kind of misunderstanding of what a free market is. > it is naïve to ask, let alone hope, for government to act as an impartial referee. In practice, I agree. It's also naive to hope for the government to faithfully align with almost any political ideology, e.g. progressivism. I don't see that as a flaw of the ideology itself.
- chongli 7y ago
  I don't see that as a flaw of the ideology itself. I have similar quibbles with other ideologies. Really, my strongest criticism is reserved for ideological purists who come in all shapes and sizes. To put it plainly, I believe all ideologies are reductive and lead to absurdities when broadly applied, particularly to other human beings. Pragmatism is the approach I prefer. What separates it from an ideology is that it doesn't attempt to cram the world into a tiny box. It's a tool that would work even in an unreliable universe and it affords complex human beings the respect they deserve.