3 ms·

Oxford Dictionary: free market - economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. I like your des

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.

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.