4 ms·

Both markets were very open by any measure. There was no real central planning, few tariffs, few regulations, nobody was in charge or could make monopolies by

by jariel 6y ago

Both markets were very open by any measure. There was no real central planning, few tariffs, few regulations, nobody was in charge or could make monopolies by fiat.

WalterBright 6y ago
> Both markets were very open by any measure. By the measure of 4 million slaves in the South, it was not free market. Slavery is the opposite of free markets.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  It's the opposite of freedom for those 4 million. I don't want to minimize that. But how does that make the market un-free?
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Free markets rely on free choice. Slaves do not have free choice, or any choice at all. The dominant industry in the South was cotton which was entirely based on slave labor.
    - IggleSniggle 6y ago
      I disagree, slavery is what you get when a _market_ is extremely free. When there are no laws about whether you can imprison someone and force them to do labour on your behalf for no compensation; slavery is made possible by a lack of regulations or laws about what you can and cannot do: a totally free market.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        A free market requires protection of individual rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and hence requires a government to enforce those rights. No liberty equals no free markets. Another way to say it is a free market transaction is one that does not include force or fraud. Slavery is force. You can disagree if you like, but you'll be making up your own definition of free markets.
        IggleSniggle 6y ago
        Oxford Dictionary: free market - economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. I like your description of a “free market transaction,” (one that does not include force or fraud), but this is distinct from a “free market.” At the tier at which free market transactions are possible; that is, at the layer that eg two groups have equal negotiating power with no outside influence, the more their internal economies will tend towards unfree over time, and vice versa. This is necessarily so. Laws that protect the individual hamper the freedoms of the collective entity. Not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I feel like the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal is a good exploratory case for a lot of these kinds of discussions. A free market does not grant any special freedom for individuals, not life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. These are necessary for a healthy market, but a free market permits any number of behaviors. To the extent that behaviors are not permitted in the economic system, the market is not free. That a government cannot infringe on these “inalienable rights” does not in itself guarantee that any of the economic actors within do not yield power that yanks these rights from its individuals. If you want to add the qualifier of “competitive free market”, “free market with healthy dynamism,” or even “efficient free market” to meet your definition, then I would agree on quite a few different levels that slavery is antithetical to these.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > That a government cannot infringe on these “inalienable rights” does not in itself guarantee that any of the economic actors within do not yield power that yanks these rights from its individuals. The government is there as proactive guarantor of those rights, not just passively not itself infringe. This is explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" > A free market does not grant any special freedom for individuals, not life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. It does not "grant", as rights are inalienable, but a condition for a free market is those rights are guaranteed. For example, "either his brains or his signature would be on the contract" is not a free market transaction. So are all forms of slavery.

by jariel 6y ago

Both markets were very open by any measure. There was no real central planning, few tariffs, few regulations, nobody was in charge or could make monopolies by fiat.

WalterBright 6y ago

> Both markets were very open by any measure. By the measure of 4 million slaves in the South, it was not free market. Slavery is the opposite of free markets.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
It's the opposite of freedom for those 4 million. I don't want to minimize that. But how does that make the market un-free?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Free markets rely on free choice. Slaves do not have free choice, or any choice at all. The dominant industry in the South was cotton which was entirely based on slave labor.
  - IggleSniggle 6y ago
    I disagree, slavery is what you get when a _market_ is extremely free. When there are no laws about whether you can imprison someone and force them to do labour on your behalf for no compensation; slavery is made possible by a lack of regulations or laws about what you can and cannot do: a totally free market.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      A free market requires protection of individual rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and hence requires a government to enforce those rights. No liberty equals no free markets. Another way to say it is a free market transaction is one that does not include force or fraud. Slavery is force. You can disagree if you like, but you'll be making up your own definition of free markets.
      - IggleSniggle 6y ago
        Oxford Dictionary: free market - economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. I like your description of a “free market transaction,” (one that does not include force or fraud), but this is distinct from a “free market.” At the tier at which free market transactions are possible; that is, at the layer that eg two groups have equal negotiating power with no outside influence, the more their internal economies will tend towards unfree over time, and vice versa. This is necessarily so. Laws that protect the individual hamper the freedoms of the collective entity. Not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I feel like the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal is a good exploratory case for a lot of these kinds of discussions. A free market does not grant any special freedom for individuals, not life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. These are necessary for a healthy market, but a free market permits any number of behaviors. To the extent that behaviors are not permitted in the economic system, the market is not free. That a government cannot infringe on these “inalienable rights” does not in itself guarantee that any of the economic actors within do not yield power that yanks these rights from its individuals. If you want to add the qualifier of “competitive free market”, “free market with healthy dynamism,” or even “efficient free market” to meet your definition, then I would agree on quite a few different levels that slavery is antithetical to these.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > That a government cannot infringe on these “inalienable rights” does not in itself guarantee that any of the economic actors within do not yield power that yanks these rights from its individuals. The government is there as proactive guarantor of those rights, not just passively not itself infringe. This is explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" > A free market does not grant any special freedom for individuals, not life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. It does not "grant", as rights are inalienable, but a condition for a free market is those rights are guaranteed. For example, "either his brains or his signature would be on the contract" is not a free market transaction. So are all forms of slavery.