4 ms·

> A lot of people seem to think free markets -> anarchy, which is a complete straw man. In American political discourse, this is exactly how the "free market"

> A lot of people seem to think free markets -> anarchy, which is a complete straw man. In American political discourse, this is exactly how the "free market" is defined by the political establishment. Taxing externalities is very unpopular among Republican and Libertarian politicians (Gary Johnson flirted with the idea of a carbon tax, but quickly withdrew support) and is relatively popular among Democrats and the Green Party. Which parties are the ones people associate with free markets? You can hem and haw about appropriate use of the term "free market" all you want, but calling colloquial usage a "straw man" is disingenuous.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
You're confusing the terms with the politics. There is a party which is anti-regulation because its constituents are business owners who incur the cost of it. But they incur the cost of both inefficient wasteful regulation and any legitimate pricing of externalities, so they oppose both. One is free markets and the other one isn't. Just because politicians representing oil producers support both "free markets" and subsidies for oil companies doesn't mean subsidies for oil companies are a component of free markets. It just means that politicians are hypocrites.
- panopticon 6y ago
  I don't see how I'm confusing the terms. Republican and Libertarian politicians will tell you that the carbon tax (and other forms of taxing externalities) is antithetical to the "free market", and my point was you can't, in good faith, claim "straw man" when someone uses the term that most non-economists in America use. I also never claimed that subsidies were a component of the free market nor did I claim any politicians think so. I believe that's an actual straw man :)
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > my point was you can't, in good faith, claim "straw man" when someone uses the term that most non-economists in America use. The term for what you're doing is called weak man. It's finding some idiot or hypocrite in the world who is actually advancing the weak position so you can claim it isn't a straw man, and then knocking that down instead of addressing the stronger version being advanced by someone else. > I also never claimed that subsidies were a component of the free market nor did I claim any politicians think so. I believe that's an actual straw man :) That's an argument. If "free market" means what anybody who says they're for free markets says they want, that would imply that "free market" means oil subsidies. Which is clearly absurd, ergo so was your claim.
    - panopticon 6y ago
      > It's finding some idiot or hypocrite in the world who is actually advancing the weak position That doesn't really work when my argument is that it's the colloquial usage--not just a handful of "idiots". > If "free market" means what anybody who says they're for free markets says they want, that would imply that "free market" means oil subsidies. That's an absurd reduction, but that is how language works. This clearly isn't a productive conversation. Have a good evening.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

You're confusing the terms with the politics. There is a party which is anti-regulation because its constituents are business owners who incur the cost of it. But they incur the cost of both inefficient wasteful regulation and any legitimate pricing of externalities, so they oppose both. One is free markets and the other one isn't. Just because politicians representing oil producers support both "free markets" and subsidies for oil companies doesn't mean subsidies for oil companies are a component of free markets. It just means that politicians are hypocrites.

panopticon 6y ago
I don't see how I'm confusing the terms. Republican and Libertarian politicians will tell you that the carbon tax (and other forms of taxing externalities) is antithetical to the "free market", and my point was you can't, in good faith, claim "straw man" when someone uses the term that most non-economists in America use. I also never claimed that subsidies were a component of the free market nor did I claim any politicians think so. I believe that's an actual straw man :)
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > my point was you can't, in good faith, claim "straw man" when someone uses the term that most non-economists in America use. The term for what you're doing is called weak man. It's finding some idiot or hypocrite in the world who is actually advancing the weak position so you can claim it isn't a straw man, and then knocking that down instead of addressing the stronger version being advanced by someone else. > I also never claimed that subsidies were a component of the free market nor did I claim any politicians think so. I believe that's an actual straw man :) That's an argument. If "free market" means what anybody who says they're for free markets says they want, that would imply that "free market" means oil subsidies. Which is clearly absurd, ergo so was your claim.
  - panopticon 6y ago
    > It's finding some idiot or hypocrite in the world who is actually advancing the weak position That doesn't really work when my argument is that it's the colloquial usage--not just a handful of "idiots". > If "free market" means what anybody who says they're for free markets says they want, that would imply that "free market" means oil subsidies. That's an absurd reduction, but that is how language works. This clearly isn't a productive conversation. Have a good evening.