• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The free market, the pros and cons.

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
82,443
Reaction score
19,890
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If you may not already know I'm a free market conservative. And there have been a few things occurring that have really threatened the free market as it stands.

First, I want to define what a free market is and what it should be.

A completely free market carries with it some particular issues that occasionally can cause problems. So I believe very minimal regulations should exist. Such as truth in advertising. (meaning you can't advertise tic tacs as a cure for cancer) Also monopolies are the antithesis of a free market so regulations regarding that should be in place.

We have heard the stories. The bakery that was issued a citation by the city for discriminating. The chapel that was basically put out of business in Idaho for not hosting a wedding. And I'm sure the list goes on. Let's please not make this about religious or sexual orientation Bull****. It never was about that. It's about the free market.

I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to pick their customers. This is a win win scenario. If Business A decides to discriminate against aspect Y of persons, Business B can serve Not only all of the customers that Business A would serve but also group Y leading to a more successful business. Business A may not go out of business, but if Business B does not exist, any customer denied business from Business A can form Business B and have a guaranteed customer base particularly if they advertise that group Y is welcome.

Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it?

What do you think?
 
If you may not already know I'm a free market conservative. And there have been a few things occurring that have really threatened the free market as it stands.

First, I want to define what a free market is and what it should be.

A completely free market carries with it some particular issues that occasionally can cause problems. So I believe very minimal regulations should exist. Such as truth in advertising. (meaning you can't advertise tic tacs as a cure for cancer) Also monopolies are the antithesis of a free market so regulations regarding that should be in place.

We have heard the stories. The bakery that was issued a citation by the city for discriminating. The chapel that was basically put out of business in Idaho for not hosting a wedding. And I'm sure the list goes on. Let's please not make this about religious or sexual orientation Bull****. It never was about that. It's about the free market.

I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to pick their customers. This is a win win scenario. If Business A decides to discriminate against aspect Y of persons, Business B can serve Not only all of the customers that Business A would serve but also group Y leading to a more successful business. Business A may not go out of business, but if Business B does not exist, any customer denied business from Business A can form Business B and have a guaranteed customer base particularly if they advertise that group Y is welcome.

Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it?

What do you think?

I disagree with you totally.

If a business holds itself open to the public...it should be open to the public. If a business decides it does not want to serve women, blacks, Jews, or any other group of people based on that sort of thinking...I have no problem with the government giving them all sorts of grief.

None at all.
 
I disagree with you totally.

If a business holds itself open to the public...it should be open to the public. If a business decides it does not want to serve women, blacks, Jews, or any other group of people based on that sort of thinking...I have no problem with the government giving them all sorts of grief.

None at all.
I take issue with government interference. When the government protects us from discrimination, freedom evaporates.

I stand in solidarity with freedom fighters, there were wars fought over this. Freedom sometimes is a pain to deal with, but isn't it better than being told how to run your business?

There are business that discriminate against sex and they have created a wonderful place for some people. One that comes to mind is women only gyms. Brilliant business model, women can go there and not worry about horny muscle bound freaks hitting on them and taking cellphone picks of them. Their customers are loyal. And nothing prevents a gym from being open to both sexes or just men, or children or what not. Would you really destroy that in order to make the public a fair and equal place?

What price do we pay? And what is the reason?
 
I take issue with government interference. When the government protects us from discrimination, freedom evaporates.

I stand in solidarity with freedom fighters, there were wars fought over this. Freedom sometimes is a pain to deal with, but isn't it better than being told how to run your business?

There are business that discriminate against sex and they have created a wonderful place for some people. One that comes to mind is women only gyms. Brilliant business model, women can go there and not worry about horny muscle bound freaks hitting on them and taking cellphone picks of them. Their customers are loyal. And nothing prevents a gym from being open to both sexes or just men, or children or what not. Would you really destroy that in order to make the public a fair and equal place?

What price do we pay? And what is the reason?

Pay whatever price you want...or allow to be exacted.

I disagree with your first post.
 
A free market can never exist in a world where a government exists.
 
If you may not already know I'm a free market conservative. And there have been a few things occurring that have really threatened the free market as it stands.

First, I want to define what a free market is and what it should be.

A completely free market carries with it some particular issues that occasionally can cause problems. So I believe very minimal regulations should exist. Such as truth in advertising. (meaning you can't advertise tic tacs as a cure for cancer) Also monopolies are the antithesis of a free market so regulations regarding that should be in place.

We have heard the stories. The bakery that was issued a citation by the city for discriminating. The chapel that was basically put out of business in Idaho for not hosting a wedding. And I'm sure the list goes on. Let's please not make this about religious or sexual orientation Bull****. It never was about that. It's about the free market.

I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to pick their customers. This is a win win scenario. If Business A decides to discriminate against aspect Y of persons, Business B can serve Not only all of the customers that Business A would serve but also group Y leading to a more successful business. Business A may not go out of business, but if Business B does not exist, any customer denied business from Business A can form Business B and have a guaranteed customer base particularly if they advertise that group Y is welcome.

Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it?

What do you think?
With this, would you include a requirement to post whom the business will not serve, or exclusively serve, as the case may be, to be under the truth in advertising aspect?
 
Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it? What do you think?
If I were Hispanic or Arab in a country where a significant portion of the population is nominating a man who thinks all Mexicans are rapists and that all Muslims are terrorists;

I am not going to sacrifice my welfare and well-being, which is my ability to safely go to a grocery store, for that idea.

...

So even though I'm a white male. No, absolutely not. I care about my friends more than that.
 
Pay whatever price you want...or allow to be exacted.
The only price for a fair public is freedom. The idea that we must force a Jewish painting business to paint swastikas on a wall of a national socialist's wall so that we aren't hypocrites for forcing homophobes to serve pizza to a gay couple, to me is asinine.

I disagree with your first post.
I disagree with the stripping of freedom to make public equal.
 
The free market is good at spawning innovation, new technologies and services. Without the free market I don't think we would have many of the modern conveniences we have. There are areas in which I think the government needs to ease regulations and there are areas in which I think the government needs to increase regulations.

The small business owner needs more freedom and less oversight. As a business owner I know that the requirements, regulations and red tape one has to wade through in order to start and operate a business make it prohibitive to many people. Instead they opt to be employees for some giant chain.

I want MORE entrepreneurs. I want MORE small businesses keeping the money in their communities rather than shipping profits out to shareholders who have never even visited the town. So yes, I want regulations eased up on them.

Giant corporations, however, I want reigned in. Companies like Wal-Mart and the telecom companies may not be monopolies but they have advantages over their smaller competitors that are often due to power and influence rather than improved service or better prices. I definitely fall into the Main Street over Wall Street camp.
 
If you may not already know I'm a free market conservative. And there have been a few things occurring that have really threatened the free market as it stands.

First, I want to define what a free market is and what it should be.

A completely free market carries with it some particular issues that occasionally can cause problems. So I believe very minimal regulations should exist. Such as truth in advertising. (meaning you can't advertise tic tacs as a cure for cancer) Also monopolies are the antithesis of a free market so regulations regarding that should be in place.

We have heard the stories. The bakery that was issued a citation by the city for discriminating. The chapel that was basically put out of business in Idaho for not hosting a wedding. And I'm sure the list goes on. Let's please not make this about religious or sexual orientation Bull****. It never was about that. It's about the free market.

I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to pick their customers. This is a win win scenario. If Business A decides to discriminate against aspect Y of persons, Business B can serve Not only all of the customers that Business A would serve but also group Y leading to a more successful business. Business A may not go out of business, but if Business B does not exist, any customer denied business from Business A can form Business B and have a guaranteed customer base particularly if they advertise that group Y is welcome.

Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it?

What do you think?
You are absolutely right. In a free market, a business that discriminates has limited its own customer base. Will some do it? Sure. But that creates an instant market for those who do no discriminate in a similar fashion. A good business sees one color: green.
 
With this, would you include a requirement to post whom the business will not serve, or exclusively serve, as the case may be, to be under the truth in advertising aspect?
No. If you go in there and you belong to the exclusion group and they deny you, you don't have to stay there. Your feelings may be hurt, but tell everybody how badly they treat potential customers. Tell all the people in the exclusion group. Protest in front of their business. Or do what I do, put your middle finger in their face walk out and never go back.
 
If I were Hispanic or Arab in a country where a significant portion of the population is nominating a man who thinks all Mexicans are rapists and that all Muslims are terrorists;

I am not going to sacrifice my welfare and well-being, which is my ability to safely go to a grocery store, for that idea.

...

So even though I'm a white male. No, absolutely not. I care about my friends more than that.
people that will sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
 
The only price for a fair public is freedom. The idea that we must force a Jewish painting business to paint swastikas on a wall of a national socialist's wall so that we aren't hypocrites for forcing homophobes to serve pizza to a gay couple, to me is asinine.

I disagree with the stripping of freedom to make public equal.

I get that, Clax.

Naturally, I hope you never get appointed to the Supreme Court.

I tried to say this nicely...but...

Anyway...you idea sucks like a Hoover Vacuum.
 
You are absolutely right. In a free market, a business that discriminates has limited its own customer base. Will some do it? Sure. But that creates an instant market for those who do no discriminate in a similar fashion. A good business sees one color: green.
Exactly.
 
If you may not already know I'm a free market conservative. And there have been a few things occurring that have really threatened the free market as it stands.

First, I want to define what a free market is and what it should be.

A completely free market carries with it some particular issues that occasionally can cause problems. So I believe very minimal regulations should exist. Such as truth in advertising. (meaning you can't advertise tic tacs as a cure for cancer) Also monopolies are the antithesis of a free market so regulations regarding that should be in place.

We have heard the stories. The bakery that was issued a citation by the city for discriminating. The chapel that was basically put out of business in Idaho for not hosting a wedding. And I'm sure the list goes on. Let's please not make this about religious or sexual orientation Bull****. It never was about that. It's about the free market.

I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to pick their customers. This is a win win scenario. If Business A decides to discriminate against aspect Y of persons, Business B can serve Not only all of the customers that Business A would serve but also group Y leading to a more successful business. Business A may not go out of business, but if Business B does not exist, any customer denied business from Business A can form Business B and have a guaranteed customer base particularly if they advertise that group Y is welcome.

Yes, this will end in some people not getting services and goods at certain places. But freedom isn't free. The freedom of speech allowes people to say things that we don't like, but I have the right to say things others don't like. And isn't that right worth it? Isn't freedom at the price of a few inconveniences worth it?

What do you think?


Ultimately I would agree. I too take a Free Market approach to Capitalism, I feel that it is the best system for maximized economic mobility and wealth distribution. As you mention here, Free Market requires a small, but non-zero, amount of regulation/oversight by the government. It’s necessary, for better or for worse, to maintain a true Free Market system (in other words, laisse-faire is not Free Market).



I do also believe that a business should be allowed to discriminate their clientele. There are historic reasons why we made “protected classes”, but I don’t believe that a “protected class” is something that should be indefinitely supported. In the end, a free state is free and that means there will be folk who do and say things that you don’t agree with. So long as one doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another individual, then they should be free to do as they like. And no matter what one wants to say, an individual does not have any right to the cake of others.



Now a system of this sort will rely upon proper customer interaction and intelligent consumerism to police. You’re no longer going to use the guns of government to enforce ideological philosophy over business, but rather the force of money. It takes more work by the individual to keep and maintain, but the very premise of a free society does exactly that. We reduce government, but the individual then must make up the difference. Free requires a lot of input and diligence from the individual.



As it relates to churches and religion, I had not heard of this case of the Chapel being put out of business, but at no point should a religion be forced to perform ceremony or service that is counter to its belief structure. We have freedom of religion and it’s important to keep it. The government cannot discriminate. If a same sex couple goes to the County Clerk and requests a marriage license, the government MUST issue it. But a church can say “no way!” if they desire.
 
I get that, Clax.

Naturally, I hope you never get appointed to the Supreme Court.

I tried to say this nicely...but...

Anyway...you idea sucks like a Hoover Vacuum.
The idea of freedom at a cost of public equality sucks?

That's a sad state of affairs.
 
I always love the hardcore free market types are always the ones who are ridiculously unlikely to get discriminated against. It's never the minorities who, if discrimination is allowed, will quickly find themselves forced out onto the street.

Just an observation.
 
A free market can never exist in a world where a government exists.

An absolutely free market, no. A market that only had the most minimal of regulations yes. I outlined in my op what regulations I feel are necessary to preserve a free market.

An absolutely free market is oxymoronic. An absolutely free market would promote monopoly, which if exists a free market cannot.
 
I always love the hardcore free market types are always the ones who are ridiculously unlikely to get discriminated against. It's never the minorities who, if discrimination is allowed, will quickly find themselves forced out onto the street.

Just an observation.
Your observation sucks. It may escape your notice, but the OP....the guy who advocates that the free market will take care of discrimination, happens to be gay.
 
I believe not only will the free market take care of discriminatory practices, it will also improve and enhance racial relationships.
 
I always love the hardcore free market types are always the ones who are ridiculously unlikely to get discriminated against.
I am a minority and I have been discriminated against more than once.

It's never the minorities who, if discrimination is allowed, will quickly find themselves forced out onto the street.

Just an observation.
It's been legal to discriminate against my minority status and always has been. In housing and employment. No law exists against it. I have been discriminated against in employment. But as far as housing I haven't been forced to live on the streets.

I think that is fear mongering to con people into agreement.
 
Ergo, not a free market. You don't get to re-define understood terms.

An absolutely free market is an oxymoron. An absolutely free market would allow monopolies monopolies prevent free market.

You should fully read posts you respond to verses editing things out of context.
 
An absolutely free market, no. A market that only had the most minimal of regulations yes. I outlined in my op what regulations I feel are necessary to preserve a free market.

An absolutely free market is oxymoronic. An absolutely free market would promote monopoly, which if exists a free market cannot.
Again,m a complete abandoning of understood terms. A "free market" is free of regulation/interference, you never understood the term to begin with, so you created your own definitions.....this is a running trait with libertarians, they free so free that they can re-define existing terms.
 
Again,m a complete abandoning of understood terms. A "free market" is free of regulation/interference, you never understood the term to begin with, so you created your own definitions.....this is a running trait with libertarians, they free so free that they can re-define existing terms.
Again read the op. Or the first post you responded to, or the second one you responded to.
 
Back
Top Bottom