4 ms·

Government intervention is constantly needed to keep a free market in balance - there certainly is poor spirited legislation that's designed to assist in market

by munk-a 6y ago

Government intervention is constantly needed to keep a free market in balance - there certainly is poor spirited legislation that's designed to assist in market capture but there is a lot more legislation out there that's protecting small markets. Anarcho-libretarianism isn't the solution here and neither is rejecting balanced legislation out of a force of habit.

nickysielicki 6y ago
> Government intervention is constantly needed to keep a free market in balance "Constant government intervention" is incompatible with the definition (literally) of a free market.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Only the kind of free market that has no rules against fraud and robbery.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  This is just daft, is your idea of free markets the drug cartels of columbia? Because thats what you get wuthoit government intervention
  - nickysielicki 6y ago
    Hey, if you don't like free markets, that's fine, I'll respect your opinion. I'm just saying that: Oxford defines a free market as: "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." Wikipedia defines it as: "a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities." Investopedia defines it as: "an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control." Words have meaning, god damn it.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      But that's just folks giving the benefit of the doubt to your earlier statement - the technical definition of a free market is incompatible with our modern society.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Words do have a meaning, so tell me what is "unrestricted competition"? Because columbian cartels think it means murdering your competitor along with his family. Is that too unrestricted for you? Okay, let's leave out murder. How about paying random people to leave bad reviews for your competitors. Or paying shops so they don't stock competitors products. Or agreeing with banks that your competitor should not get a loan. Or making a deal with railroads where they will only transport your product, and not your competitors? Because all of the above have happened. Is that "unrestricted"?
- smolder 6y ago
  Anarchical, intervention-less markets are where cartels and monopolies form and destroy competition, and then there stops being anything free about it. By that strict definition of free markets, they are ephemeral, self-defeating things.
billytetrud 6y ago
Government intervention is only needed to settle disputes. Governments are already constantly intervening by barring isps other than eg Comcast from building. That government intervention has to stop. Government enacted monopolies are what caused the problem in the first place. Yes government has to act to stop it, but probably at the state level.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  That's a fun idea, but we're well past that now. In reality, monopolies do exist, and the government needs to step in to resolve the dispute the people in a given area now have with the monopoly for its anticompetitive practices. Also, infrastructure isn't easy to build and is oftentimes not even profitable. Are you suggesting only places where an ISP can make money should have Internet access?
  - billytetrud 6y ago
    ISPs are government-granted monopolies. It's so disappointing how many people here don't seem to understand that. Look up regulatory capture and then down vote me...
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      Yes, but the granting of monopoly status already happened, that part is over. You can't unring that bell, is my point.
      - billytetrud 6y ago
        You absolutely can "unring that bell". You outlaw government granted monopolies
        TameAntelope 6y ago
        Sure, and you could murder all of the executives of ISPs to send a message to other ISPs about anti-competitive behavior. Anything is obviously possible, but no, you can't actually "unring" this bell.
SlowRobotAhead 6y ago
I’m not shitting on your comment, but are you saying “we need government involvement (regulatory oversight) to solve problems made from previous government involvement (poor spirited legislation)?” I don’t think anyone is suggesting no laws at all, but perhaps we can have some foresight and not legislate ourselves into oversight which will only make more legislation which will only make more... I’m happy to see municipal internet IF the service quality and price is competitive. While we’re dealing with the Verizon’s and Comcast’s of the world, this is usually working, what do we do when we’ve destroyed the market and the local service sucks?

by munk-a 6y ago

nickysielicki 6y ago

> Government intervention is constantly needed to keep a free market in balance "Constant government intervention" is incompatible with the definition (literally) of a free market.

pessimizer 6y ago
Only the kind of free market that has no rules against fraud and robbery.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
This is just daft, is your idea of free markets the drug cartels of columbia? Because thats what you get wuthoit government intervention
- nickysielicki 6y ago
  Hey, if you don't like free markets, that's fine, I'll respect your opinion. I'm just saying that: Oxford defines a free market as: "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." Wikipedia defines it as: "a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities." Investopedia defines it as: "an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control." Words have meaning, god damn it.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    But that's just folks giving the benefit of the doubt to your earlier statement - the technical definition of a free market is incompatible with our modern society.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Words do have a meaning, so tell me what is "unrestricted competition"? Because columbian cartels think it means murdering your competitor along with his family. Is that too unrestricted for you? Okay, let's leave out murder. How about paying random people to leave bad reviews for your competitors. Or paying shops so they don't stock competitors products. Or agreeing with banks that your competitor should not get a loan. Or making a deal with railroads where they will only transport your product, and not your competitors? Because all of the above have happened. Is that "unrestricted"?
smolder 6y ago
Anarchical, intervention-less markets are where cartels and monopolies form and destroy competition, and then there stops being anything free about it. By that strict definition of free markets, they are ephemeral, self-defeating things.

billytetrud 6y ago

Government intervention is only needed to settle disputes. Governments are already constantly intervening by barring isps other than eg Comcast from building. That government intervention has to stop. Government enacted monopolies are what caused the problem in the first place. Yes government has to act to stop it, but probably at the state level.

TameAntelope 6y ago
That's a fun idea, but we're well past that now. In reality, monopolies do exist, and the government needs to step in to resolve the dispute the people in a given area now have with the monopoly for its anticompetitive practices. Also, infrastructure isn't easy to build and is oftentimes not even profitable. Are you suggesting only places where an ISP can make money should have Internet access?
- billytetrud 6y ago
  ISPs are government-granted monopolies. It's so disappointing how many people here don't seem to understand that. Look up regulatory capture and then down vote me...
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    Yes, but the granting of monopoly status already happened, that part is over. You can't unring that bell, is my point.
    - billytetrud 6y ago
      You absolutely can "unring that bell". You outlaw government granted monopolies
      - TameAntelope 6y ago
        Sure, and you could murder all of the executives of ISPs to send a message to other ISPs about anti-competitive behavior. Anything is obviously possible, but no, you can't actually "unring" this bell.

SlowRobotAhead 6y ago

I’m not shitting on your comment, but are you saying “we need government involvement (regulatory oversight) to solve problems made from previous government involvement (poor spirited legislation)?” I don’t think anyone is suggesting no laws at all, but perhaps we can have some foresight and not legislate ourselves into oversight which will only make more legislation which will only make more... I’m happy to see municipal internet IF the service quality and price is competitive. While we’re dealing with the Verizon’s and Comcast’s of the world, this is usually working, what do we do when we’ve destroyed the market and the local service sucks?