5 ms·

You have presented false alternatives. Private regulation can exist inside of a free market. Consumers and producers of food or financial products can voluntar

You have presented false alternatives. Private regulation can exist inside of a free market. Consumers and producers of food or financial products can voluntarily participate with private ratings agencies. These standards can be higher or lower, based upon market preferences. The existence of a state backed monopoly is widely recognized as prohibitive to competition. State monopolies create issues around corruption, gatekeeping and more. Too many to expand upon here. If you don't like free markets, that's fine. There's no need to misconstrue the options. The anti-market sentiment is somewhat surprising to see here. https://mises.org/power-market/fda-approval-monopolists-scheme-limit-competition https://mises.org/power-market/fda-approval-monopolists-sche... https://www.greenchoicenow.com/v/food-pyramid-usda-dietary-guidelines https://www.greenchoicenow.com/v/food-pyramid-usda-dietary-g... https://www.salon.com/2015/04/12/the_fdas_phony_nutrition_science_how_big_food_and_agriculture_trumps_real_science_and_why_the_government_allows_it/ https://www.salon.com/2015/04/12/the_fdas_phony_nutrition_sc...

cool_dude85 3y ago
Why's it surprising to see anti-market sentiment when we've been given a very clear look at how the free market has operated in the crypto space sans government regulation? The whole ecosystem has been dominated by grifts, outright scams, rug pulls, ponzis, unregulated gambling, etc. etc. with no end in sight. Why didn't the free market step up?
- palmfacehn 3y ago
  It is surprising to see these sentiments on a site ostensibly for entrepreneurs and builders. If you'd prefer a centrally planned and regulated economy, that is a different discussion. From my side, I believe you should enjoy your views and the living situation which accompanies it. Not interested in arguing the virtues of either approach here. Taking exception with the inaccurate characterizations is as far as I go. If you believe an economy driven by central bank policy is a free-market, I'm not sure there's much more we can say here.
  - oblio 3y ago
    Ummmm... You live in a regulated economy. Even the US economy is a capitalist system with government intervention.
  - zztop44 3y ago
    Because the word “free” famously has only one meaning, and everyone agrees what that is.
    - palmfacehn 3y ago
      laissez-faire if you like
- dleavitt 3y ago
  Not to mention the innovations that voluntary regulatory standards plus enlightened self-interest have enabled in the manned submersible space.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Why didn't the free market step up? It did. People learned that there were a lot of scams and now the market for suckers is drying up. This is a typical pattern: Problem occurs, market responds to problem and results in improvement, government simultaneously responds to problem and has no effect or makes it worse, people point to improvement and credit new government regulations or lack of improvement and demand even more government regulations. Then we get stuck with a bunch of burdensome new rules because Something Had To Be Done. Notice also that all of the stuff you're listing is fraudulent and already illegal. If regulations work then why didn't they work?
RandomLensman 3y ago
There are no free markets in human societies. You can pick your trade-offs, that's it. Privatly regulated markets can fail, goverment regulated markets can fail.
- palmfacehn 3y ago
  Privately managed, voluntary regulation isn't free-market?
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    No, because this is always (ultimately) by consent of the societies it is happening in and within those power structures. It always sits on top of a lot of stuff, never in a vacuum.
    - palmfacehn 3y ago
      According to your rationalizations, does private property exist? Do individuals own themselves?
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Both only within in limits, as most jurisdictions and also history shows (just take the draft, for example). With maybe an exemption if you manage to be totally isolated (but then at least private property is a weird concept anyway).
        palmfacehn 3y ago
        There's an important distinction between observing the status quo and holding or aspiring towards ideals. If we only observed what is and ignored principles and ideals, we would never be able to improve the human condition. Even so, I doubt we'll be able to see eye to eye given your starting premises about collectivism. I'd venture that the individual does own himself and that the liberal tradition starts from this point. A consequentialist might venture that some of the darkest events in history flow from the collectivist ideologies. The opposing deontological view would be that the individual does own himself and private property does exist. We would struggle to define fraud and theft without these premises. Indeed, objecting to fraud and theft becomes problematic when you are simultaneously arguing that private property, individuals and free exchange are impossible.

cool_dude85 3y ago

Why's it surprising to see anti-market sentiment when we've been given a very clear look at how the free market has operated in the crypto space sans government regulation? The whole ecosystem has been dominated by grifts, outright scams, rug pulls, ponzis, unregulated gambling, etc. etc. with no end in sight. Why didn't the free market step up?

palmfacehn 3y ago
It is surprising to see these sentiments on a site ostensibly for entrepreneurs and builders. If you'd prefer a centrally planned and regulated economy, that is a different discussion. From my side, I believe you should enjoy your views and the living situation which accompanies it. Not interested in arguing the virtues of either approach here. Taking exception with the inaccurate characterizations is as far as I go. If you believe an economy driven by central bank policy is a free-market, I'm not sure there's much more we can say here.
- oblio 3y ago
  Ummmm... You live in a regulated economy. Even the US economy is a capitalist system with government intervention.
- zztop44 3y ago
  Because the word “free” famously has only one meaning, and everyone agrees what that is.
  - palmfacehn 3y ago
    laissez-faire if you like
dleavitt 3y ago
Not to mention the innovations that voluntary regulatory standards plus enlightened self-interest have enabled in the manned submersible space.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Why didn't the free market step up? It did. People learned that there were a lot of scams and now the market for suckers is drying up. This is a typical pattern: Problem occurs, market responds to problem and results in improvement, government simultaneously responds to problem and has no effect or makes it worse, people point to improvement and credit new government regulations or lack of improvement and demand even more government regulations. Then we get stuck with a bunch of burdensome new rules because Something Had To Be Done. Notice also that all of the stuff you're listing is fraudulent and already illegal. If regulations work then why didn't they work?

RandomLensman 3y ago

There are no free markets in human societies. You can pick your trade-offs, that's it. Privatly regulated markets can fail, goverment regulated markets can fail.

palmfacehn 3y ago
Privately managed, voluntary regulation isn't free-market?
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  No, because this is always (ultimately) by consent of the societies it is happening in and within those power structures. It always sits on top of a lot of stuff, never in a vacuum.
  - palmfacehn 3y ago
    According to your rationalizations, does private property exist? Do individuals own themselves?
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Both only within in limits, as most jurisdictions and also history shows (just take the draft, for example). With maybe an exemption if you manage to be totally isolated (but then at least private property is a weird concept anyway).
      - palmfacehn 3y ago
        There's an important distinction between observing the status quo and holding or aspiring towards ideals. If we only observed what is and ignored principles and ideals, we would never be able to improve the human condition. Even so, I doubt we'll be able to see eye to eye given your starting premises about collectivism. I'd venture that the individual does own himself and that the liberal tradition starts from this point. A consequentialist might venture that some of the darkest events in history flow from the collectivist ideologies. The opposing deontological view would be that the individual does own himself and private property does exist. We would struggle to define fraud and theft without these premises. Indeed, objecting to fraud and theft becomes problematic when you are simultaneously arguing that private property, individuals and free exchange are impossible.