4 ms·
The restrictions are contracts between two parties, not the state imposing them, so it's 100% the free market. The state meddling in the market would be if two
by mullingitover 2y ago
The restrictions are contracts between two parties, not the state imposing them, so it's 100% the free market.
The state meddling in the market would be if two parties agree to a contract, and then one party gets the state to pass a law that changes the terms of the contract to the benefit of one party. Like 'right to work laws,' for example.
- School-Cotton 2y agoNo, “free market” doesn’t quite mean the same thing as “no state restriction on private contacts”. I mean, those concepts are usually correlated, but not in this case. For a more obvious example: if all the companies that sell smartphones agreed to form a cartel to raise prices, the state preventing them from making that agreement would make the market for smartphones more free, not less.
- mmooss 2y agoThe free market isn't anarchy, but free competition unrestricted by those with market power. For example, the state meddles with monopolies because monopolies hinder the free market.
- sooheon 2y agoLand ownership is state granted monopoly. This is antithetical to free markets.