4 ms·

Unfortunately, free markets aren't free if we let everyone burn down their neighbor's market stall. Without government, there is no free market. Good luck buil

Unfortunately, free markets aren't free if we let everyone burn down their neighbor's market stall. Without government, there is no free market. Good luck building your startup if your larger competition can get away with Mafia-like tactics. Depending upon whether people choose to actively participate in their government, it can either protect or harm us. I meet far too many laissez-faire "free market" know-it-alls who have a strong wish for the latter.

resu_nimda 13y ago
Unfortunately, free markets aren't free if we let everyone burn down their neighbor's market stall. Without government, there is no free market. Actually that's the very definition of a truly free market. Good luck building your startup if your larger competition can get away with Mafia-like tactics. Right, so, the argument there is that a true free market is not a good idea. So we put up rules and regulations that we think will be beneficial to society, but we don't change the definition of "free market" to "the market structure that we find sensible." In other words, governmental control is a direct limitation to the amount of freedom in the market, but we think that's a good thing. It's to everyone's benefit to restrict one's freedom to sell rotting rat meat labeled as beef.
- baddox 13y ago
  > It's to everyone's benefit to restrict one's freedom to sell rotting rat meat labeled as beef. Not if the social structures necessary to enable society to restrict that freedom inevitably lead to other inefficient/undesirable restrictions, and the bad restrictions end up outweighing the good restrictions.
- Karellen 13y ago
  That's absurd. A free market is not a market without regulations any more than a free society is a society without laws. In both situations, freedom is best defined as that which the weakest member of the group has. A society where the weak can be bullied by the strong, coerced and cajoled by threats of force, is not a society where those people can be considered free. Unless you think that slaves are also free people, provided that there are no laws concerning slavery. Similarly, I don't see how a market can possibly be considered free if strong incumbent players are able to exert extra-market pressure on the weak players, to bully them in ways "outside" of normal market forces. Rather, a free market is one where all players are free to act on an equal footing, competing on price, quality, service, reputation, and other "market-based" differentiators, rather than through bribes, collusion, artificial barriers to entry, and the like - because the playing field is forced level by regulations which apply to all participants equally.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  "Free" does not mean "anarchistic." Free societies still have (often complex) laws, just like free markets have (often complex) regulations. The existence of laws and regulations does not necessarily make a market less free.
- adventured 13y ago
  Actually that's the definition of the opposite of a free market. A market in which you can wield arbitrary force - without little to no consequence - against another person and their property, is not free. None of the great free market economists responsible for laying down the very definition of what "free market" means - from Smith to Friedman to Mises and so on - have argued that to have a free market you must be able to destroy someone else's life or property. They've argued the exact opposite, that among the most important things in a free market is property rights and the defense of said property rights. A free market does not mean a market free of protected individual rights, it means a market free of the government initiating force against individuals to arbitrarily restrain free association among people, and a market in which the government performs its proper duties, including the protection of property rights.
- rtpg 13y ago
  >Actually that's the very definition of a truly free market. No it isn't, the free market is a very defined thing, based on the number of actors in the system, perfect information, rational actors. It has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or lack of regulation (though obviously regulation can play a role in these factors)
baddox 13y ago
> Without government, there is no free market. Government obviously performs several functions which are necessary or extremely helpful for a free market, but it's not so simple to prove that these functions couldn't be performed without a government.
- mncolinlee 13y ago
  In that case, you're merely changing the definition of government to suit your argument.
  - baddox 13y ago
    How is that? My definition of government is not merely a set of functions performed, but rather the way they are performed, funded, chosen, etc.
    - mncolinlee 13y ago
      Exactly. Government is not limited to some tightly-controlled definition conveniently suited to your anti-government rhetoric. It includes almost all means of organizing society. The only social structure that doesn't function as government is unenforced anarchism, which doesn't allow for market freedom because the powerful simply take from the weak.
      - baddox 13y ago
        It seems like you're not reading my comments. I just said that I do not define government by a specific set of functions.
        lotsofmangos 13y ago
        That hardly matters if lots of other people do.
        baddox 13y ago

resu_nimda 13y ago

Unfortunately, free markets aren't free if we let everyone burn down their neighbor's market stall. Without government, there is no free market. Actually that's the very definition of a truly free market. Good luck building your startup if your larger competition can get away with Mafia-like tactics. Right, so, the argument there is that a true free market is not a good idea. So we put up rules and regulations that we think will be beneficial to society, but we don't change the definition of "free market" to "the market structure that we find sensible." In other words, governmental control is a direct limitation to the amount of freedom in the market, but we think that's a good thing. It's to everyone's benefit to restrict one's freedom to sell rotting rat meat labeled as beef.

baddox 13y ago
> It's to everyone's benefit to restrict one's freedom to sell rotting rat meat labeled as beef. Not if the social structures necessary to enable society to restrict that freedom inevitably lead to other inefficient/undesirable restrictions, and the bad restrictions end up outweighing the good restrictions.
Karellen 13y ago
That's absurd. A free market is not a market without regulations any more than a free society is a society without laws. In both situations, freedom is best defined as that which the weakest member of the group has. A society where the weak can be bullied by the strong, coerced and cajoled by threats of force, is not a society where those people can be considered free. Unless you think that slaves are also free people, provided that there are no laws concerning slavery. Similarly, I don't see how a market can possibly be considered free if strong incumbent players are able to exert extra-market pressure on the weak players, to bully them in ways "outside" of normal market forces. Rather, a free market is one where all players are free to act on an equal footing, competing on price, quality, service, reputation, and other "market-based" differentiators, rather than through bribes, collusion, artificial barriers to entry, and the like - because the playing field is forced level by regulations which apply to all participants equally.
enraged_camel 13y ago
"Free" does not mean "anarchistic." Free societies still have (often complex) laws, just like free markets have (often complex) regulations. The existence of laws and regulations does not necessarily make a market less free.
adventured 13y ago
Actually that's the definition of the opposite of a free market. A market in which you can wield arbitrary force - without little to no consequence - against another person and their property, is not free. None of the great free market economists responsible for laying down the very definition of what "free market" means - from Smith to Friedman to Mises and so on - have argued that to have a free market you must be able to destroy someone else's life or property. They've argued the exact opposite, that among the most important things in a free market is property rights and the defense of said property rights. A free market does not mean a market free of protected individual rights, it means a market free of the government initiating force against individuals to arbitrarily restrain free association among people, and a market in which the government performs its proper duties, including the protection of property rights.
rtpg 13y ago
>Actually that's the very definition of a truly free market. No it isn't, the free market is a very defined thing, based on the number of actors in the system, perfect information, rational actors. It has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or lack of regulation (though obviously regulation can play a role in these factors)

baddox 13y ago

> Without government, there is no free market. Government obviously performs several functions which are necessary or extremely helpful for a free market, but it's not so simple to prove that these functions couldn't be performed without a government.

mncolinlee 13y ago
In that case, you're merely changing the definition of government to suit your argument.
- baddox 13y ago
  How is that? My definition of government is not merely a set of functions performed, but rather the way they are performed, funded, chosen, etc.
  - mncolinlee 13y ago
    Exactly. Government is not limited to some tightly-controlled definition conveniently suited to your anti-government rhetoric. It includes almost all means of organizing society. The only social structure that doesn't function as government is unenforced anarchism, which doesn't allow for market freedom because the powerful simply take from the weak.
    - baddox 13y ago
      It seems like you're not reading my comments. I just said that I do not define government by a specific set of functions.
      - lotsofmangos 13y ago
        That hardly matters if lots of other people do.
        baddox 13y ago