The free market, the pros and cons.

[Gimmesometruth]

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.

It is an oxymoron to you, beause you never understood the original definition. Of course monopolies can form in a free market.....because a free market means free from regulation....not that it would be a fair market, where monopolies should not form, where businesses can dominate to the point of restricting full potential.

Again, you never understood the term if you say it should have "some" regulation by a govt.

 

[CLAX1911]

It is an oxymoron to you, beause you never understood the original definition. Of course monopolies can form in a free market.....because a free market means free from regulation....not that it would be a fair market, where monopolies should not form, where businesses can dominate to the point of restricting full potential.

Again, you never understood the term if you say it should have "some" regulation by a govt.

Again I explained this now three times read the op.

 

[brothern]

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.

people that will sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

Err, what? What exactly is being sacrificed?

If I'm a Hispanic or Arab man ... what exactly am I "sacrificing" in order to not be denied a room at a hotel, or the ability to buy from a store?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Again I explained this now three times read the op.

You do not get to re-define terms, the sooner you learn this, the sooner you will be forced to re-educate yourself on the original meaning of "free markets".

 

[CLAX1911]

Err, what? What exactly is being sacrificed?

Liberty. Regulations necessarily are the removal of liberty. In all cases.

If I'm a Hispanic or Arab man ... what exactly am I "sacrificing" in order to not be denied a room at a hotel, or the ability to buy from a store?

The ability to run your business as you choose. Your ability to deny a customer based on their behaviors.

 

[CLAX1911]

You do not get to re-define terms, the sooner you learn this, the sooner you will be forced to re-educate yourself on the original meaning of "free markets".

Read the op. I'm not going to bicker with you any more. I answered this already, in the op and twice subsequently.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Liberty. Regulations necessarily are the removal of liberty. In all cases.

See, you do understand absolutes in language. Once a regulation is place on a market by govt, it becomes a regulated market.

 

[brothern]

Liberty. Regulations necessarily are the removal of liberty. In all cases.
The ability to run your business as you choose. Your ability to deny a customer based on their behaviors.

So you're asking me - theoretical brown person - to forgo my actual well-being for something that's entirely theoretical to my life? What practical application does that nonsense have?

I can tell you that not being able to buy groceries or renting a room has a real, practical application.
While the 'liberty' to freely deny others to my own nonexistent grocery store means absolutely nothing.

What type of dumb, crazy theoretical person do you think I am?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Read the op. I'm not going to bicker with you any more. I answered this already, in the op and twice subsequently.

You want a regulated market, yet you insist on calling it a "free market", ergo, for you, free=regulated. The analogy is that a woman is not a little bit pregnant, she either is or is not.

 

[CLAX1911]

You want a regulated market, yet you insist on calling it a "free market", ergo, for you, free=regulated. The analogy is that a woman is not a little bit pregnant, she either is or is not.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/253046-free-market-pros-and-cons.html

 

[Frank Apisa]

The idea of freedom at a cost of public equality sucks?

That's a sad state of affairs.

From my perspective, Clax, your idea is a SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS.

But that is one of the reasons why I am delighted that the American right is in severe self-destruct mode right now.

Anyway...if the right to discriminate is essential to "free enterprise"...I'd just as soon end free enterprise.

I am an advocate of "free enterprise" so I do not really want it to end...but then again, I think your thesis is about as contrived as any I've read in DP.

This happens in Internet discussions.

Nice try.

No cigar.

 

[CLAX1911]

So you're asking me - theoretical brown person - to forgo my actual well-being for something that's entirely theoretical to my life? What practical application does that nonsense have?

It isn't a threat to your well being to go to a different store to buy beans.

I can tell you that not being able to buy groceries or renting a room has a real, practical application.

Only when that occurs are there reasons for regulation.

While the 'liberty' to freely deny others to my own nonexistent grocery store means absolutely nothing.

If you choose not to have your own business that is your problem. Demanding others give up liberty because of your choices is self centered, that is a common attitude in western culture and I believe it's the lynchpin in the decline of it.

I would fight to the death fire your right to be free, you'd roll over because it doesn't effect you. Where would we be if the people in the revolution felt that way?

What type of dumb, crazy theoretical person do you think I am?

I figured a classical liberal. Guess I was wrong.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/253046-free-market-pros-and-cons.html

"an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government."

"A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation."

 

[brothern]

It isn't a threat to your well being to go to a different store to buy beans.
Only when that occurs are there reasons for regulation.
If you choose not to have your own business that is your problem. Demanding others give up liberty because of your choices is self centered, that is a common attitude in western culture and I believe it's the lynchpin in the decline of it.
I would fight to the death fire your right to be free, you'd roll over because it doesn't effect you. Where would we be if the people in the revolution felt that way?
I figured a classical liberal. Guess I was wrong.

Here's the truth of the matter: Screw the ideology. Screw the "liberty to freely discriminate." Screw the "freedom from government interference."

When a person is denied the ability to rent a hotel room or eat, that's not liberty. That's actual real life. That's a human being with a life and a consciousness being told that by a discriminatory person that their skin color, creed or --whatever-- disqualifies them from participating in society. That's not an exercise in liberty! That's beyond the ideology. That's cruel.

If you were to eat an actual **** sandwich, teeming with listeria, because we axed that "government interference" of defining health codes, you're dead. If you were crushed to death by that glass pane falling off the unsecured porch, because we axed that "government interference" of inspectors. There's no liberty or freedom in that. YOU'RE DEAD.

Maybe it's fine to be that ideological weirdo. Sure. But when it comes to affecting an actual person ... an elderly Arab man is not going to be jumping up and clicking his heels in celebration, because the racist gas station owner called him a terrorist raghead, and CLAX1911 thinks its awesauce cupcakes that the owner has the freedom to do that. That man is going to cry himself to sleep that night.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Liberty. Regulations necessarily are the removal of liberty. In all cases.

See, you do understand absolutes in language. Once a regulation is place on a market by govt, it becomes a regulated market.

 

[Gringo allstar]

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.

Do you always lie like this, or just on the Internet? Please provide the video of Trump saying "ALL" Mexicans and Arabs.... And unless you back up this bogus claim with proof (you wont) don't bother responding with more lies.. And no I'm not a Trump supporter, I just really dislike those who blatantly lie.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

First, I want to define what a free market is

You don't get to, it is already defined.



"an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government."

"A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation."

 

[Henrin]

Here's the truth of the matter: Screw the ideology. Screw the "liberty to freely discriminate." Screw the "freedom from government interference."

When a person is denied the ability to rent a hotel room or eat, that's not liberty. That's actual real life. That's a human being with a life and a consciousness being told that by a discriminatory person that their skin color, creed or --whatever-- disqualifies them from participating in society. That's not an exercise in liberty! That's beyond the ideology. That's cruel.

If you were to eat an actual **** sandwich, teeming with listeria, because we axed that "government interference" of defining health codes, you're dead. If you were crushed to death by that glass pane falling off the unsecured porch, because we axed that "government interference" of inspectors. There's no liberty or freedom in that. YOU'RE DEAD.

Maybe it's fine to be that ideological weirdo. Sure. But when it comes to affecting an actual person ... an elderly Arab man is not going to be jumping up and clicking his heels in celebration, because the racist gas station owner called him a terrorist raghead, and CLAX1911 thinks its awesauce cupcakes that the owner has the freedom to do that. That man is going to cry himself to sleep that night.

Ban guns, knives, pans, and everything else because someone might be killed with them. Life is dangerous.

 

[Henrin]

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

I wonder much people make in the black market. You know, with free markets not existing and all.

 

[brothern]

Ban guns, knives, pans, and everything else because someone might be killed with them. Life is dangerous.

Here's a radical idea. How about human society tries to make life less dangerous and cruel for the well-being of our future generations?

You know. Things like what previous generations did:
Taking lead out of gasoline. Mandating seat belts. Banning slavery. Attempting non-proliferation and the Geneva Convention. Enacting environmental and conservationist laws. Etc.

Or are you just gung-ho about danger and cruelty, and everyone having a short ****ty life?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I wonder much people make in the black market. You know, with free markets not existing and all.

Since a black market is free from govt regulation....I don't get yer point.

 

[Absentglare]

These kinds of discussions remind me of the "government should always be small" pre-discovered conclusions.

Some people are completely convinced that government should always be smaller, or that the market should always be freer, and, doggonit, they can't actually explain why. They do "know" it's true, though, of that they have no doubt.

Of course, the government should be no bigger than it needs to be, the market should be only as restricted as it needs to be. The question then becomes how much ? And of course, this is where the answer becomes tricky.

It is trivially obvious that either discussion is a doctrine of the means/goldilocks phenomenon- the goal should be to make a thing appropriate, not to always make it smaller or bigger.

The goal of always, blindly, making the market freer is a road to anarchy. Obviously, this is not a virtuous course of action. The combating philosophy would submit that everything happens for a reason, that every regulation or government program has a purpose, an intent, that each one addressed a perceived problem that needed to be solved.

Of course, that would require arguing on individual policy decisions on merits rather than a simple-to-apply one-size-fits-all "solution" to any problem.

 

[Ikari]

You don't get to, it is already defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by agovernment, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. It is a result of a need being, then the need being met. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing.

Interesting, So the free market system doesn’t necessarily mean zero government (Laissez-Faire), just that in specific aspects of the market such as prices of goods and services, it is free from outside force. But I wonder what the philosophers who at one time argued these positions and definitions were talking about. Do they get to set the terms?

The definition of free market has been disputed and made complex by collectivist political philosophers and socialist economic ideas.[3] This contention arose from the divergence from classical economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Thomas Robert Malthus, and from the continental economic science developed primarily by the Spanish scholastic and French classical economists, including Richard Cantillon, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune, Jean-Baptiste Say and Frédéric Bastiat. Adam Smith discarded the subjective theory of value and contended that an unregulated market was prone to the rise of monopolies and was therefore not "free" in this sense.

What!!?? You mean Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations Adam Smith, back in the 1700’s talked about how “unregulated markets” were not free? But I thought Clax was making this all up!? He must have a DeLorean then, going back in time and introducing terms and ideas before he was born.

So what does this all mean? The idea of Free Market as something other than Laissez-Faire has been around for CENTURIES. This isn’t some “invented term” by libertarians.

So before you go around telling people they don’t know what they’re talking about, perhaps it would behoove you to do a little research first, lol. The philosophy of capitalism has existed for some time, along with the definitions of Free Market which allow for systems other than Laissez-Faire.

 

[CLAX1911]

From my perspective, Clax, your idea is a SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS.

Well It wasn't my idea it was a core principle of the founding of the nation. And yeah a sad state of affairs that is. Having almost half of the population dependant on government hand outs while placing the burden on people who make lower and lower wages, that's the best.

But that is one of the reasons why I am delighted that the American right is in severe self-destruct mode right now.

Yeah because mediocrety isn't bread out of a single party system without competition.

Anyway...if the right to discriminate is essential to "free enterprise"...I'd just as soon end free enterprise.

So you prefer communism to capitalism? Strange hire often that system fails.

I am an advocate of "free enterprise" so I do not really want it to end...but then again, I think your thesis is about as contrived as any I've read in DP.

Um...all theses are contrived.

This happens in Internet discussions.

Nice try.

No cigar.

What? I don't want a cigar.

 

[Henrin]

So I had a yard sale the other day. OMFG it was unregulated capitalism all over the ****ing place.