What's the difference between Free Markets and Anarchy?

[Occam's Razor]

In a free market I trade you a good or service for currency to buy goods or services . In anarchy I put a gun to your head and take what I want with out giving you anything see the diffrence

Free market of not, we still have laws against violence. You can't put a gun to my head for any reason unless I threaten you. Nice try though, I get your rather one dimensional point.

 

[Org]

Free markets = no rules. Anarchy = no rules. I have to wonder if you've ever seen an orange...

Well, I wouldn't say that. Anarchy is typically supposed to come with need based social structure. Whiter that be contracts, group self-governance, or quasi-republican communities, you won't find serious anarchists talking about society without it. Because, well production requires cooperation, and the belief is that human beings need to be accountable to something outside themselves for that to work.

 

[beerftw]

What's the difference between Free Markets and Anarchy?

On a broad level, what is being advocated seems to blur the line.

Our country is founded on checks and balances.

Nature is a system of checks and balances.

The idea that free markets are self regulating in an artificial environment seems woefully ignorant to me.

free markets self regulate through competition,and are regulated,but in a way that does not favor nor target specif groups.to this day there has never been a true free market,because govt power has corrupted it through legislation,or in the past used military force to drive out competition or any other threats to profits(see cripple creek and the battle of blair mountain.)basically so long as people are corruptable in govt,govt itself will use regulation or any other powers available to ensure their key players recieve little to no competition,in which free markets collapse without it.


anarchy itself is lack of govt and structure,completely different from free markets.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

A free market DOES have rules and they're VERY important rules. The rule is that deals are AGREEMENTS between buyer and seller. Robbery is not the "free market" at work.

Additionally, anarchy is government (or more precisely, NO government) and free markets are economy. There is a reason why there are different words for "economy" and "government". See if you can guess why. I'll give you a hint: (because they're different things)

Free market merely means that people do business based on mutual agreement without the interference of the state with things such as sales restrictions, tarriffs and regulations. Such a market does not equate to "complete lack of government". Anarchy and Free Market principles are apples and oranges. I'm wondering if you've ever seen an apple...

just quoted that on the off chance someone might read it Again
I'm not so deluded to believe that they will grasp the concept just wanted to annoy them

 

[OldWorldOrder]

free markets will self-regulate over time.

Anarchy self-regulates over time, too. It's called governance, though.

For the OP, anarchy is unstable and can't persist. Free markets can, because they don't exist in anarchy.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

while you can not point to any country in the world and say:
ew ew ew look real laissez faire capitalism
finding examples of Anarchy is a piece of cake
totalitarianism no prob we've got yer examples galore
ain't hooman's a funny bunch?
why does capitalism get such a bad rap?

 

[SheWolf]

No actual savvy investors or lenders with brain cells would feel comfortable investing in American companies if they weren't regulated at all. It's absolutely ridiculous. We want to know financial statements and SEC fillings are legit and reflect the financial truth. It is vital to making predictions, measuring profit and risk, etc.

If people are allowed to make up financial reports, and people have and they became very wealthy by making investors think the share prices are climbing, then it compromises the entire economic system. The worst we could do is to make it legal to falsify financial statements.

People can get richer a lot faster with fake statements than they they can by actually building a company from nothing to fortune 500. The financial incentive to lie would be huge if we gutted all regulations.

Bull**** they would self regulate lol.

Truly free markets are a theoretical construct and don't exist in the real world. But free markets (or as close as we can actually get to free markets) require governments to operate. Just like a ball game can't be played without rules, neither can a market economy exist without laws.

 

[RGacky3]

What's the difference between Free Markets and Anarchy?

On a broad level, what is being advocated seems to blur the line.

Our country is founded on checks and balances.

Nature is a system of checks and balances.

The idea that free markets are self regulating in an artificial environment seems woefully ignorant to me.

The difference is free markets require an extensive state to enforce advanced property laws.

 

[RGacky3]

A free market DOES have rules and they're VERY important rules. The rule is that deals are AGREEMENTS between buyer and seller. Robbery is not the "free market" at work.

Additionally, anarchy is government (or more precisely, NO government) and free markets are economy. There is a reason why there are different words for "economy" and "government". See if you can guess why. I'll give you a hint: (because they're different things)

Free market merely means that people do business based on mutual agreement without the interference of the state with things such as sales restrictions, tarriffs and regulations. Such a market does not equate to "complete lack of government". Anarchy and Free Market principles are apples and oranges. I'm wondering if you've ever seen an apple...

Except the government decides who gets to own what, i.e. what is allowed to be owned, what is allowed to be sold, what it will and will not consider "property" and so on.

 

[RGacky3]

free markets will self-regulate over time. The danger arises with monopolies and a handful of enterprises having complete vertical integration and near control of an entire market.

No they don't, they externalize cost at a compound growth rate, they need to constantly expand, and when they can't they create bubbles, externalities grow and grow untill it implodes.

A for profit Capitalist economy is unsustainable.

 

[Org]

No they don't, they externalize cost at a compound growth rate, they need to constantly expand, and when they can't they create bubbles, externalities grow and grow untill it implodes.

A for profit Capitalist economy is unsustainable.

I wouldn't say unsustainable. Marx and Engels were talking about that during the free-market days of industrial capitalism, then liberalism and social democracy gained prominence in our "common sense". So perhaps "the developed profit capitalist economy is unsustainable in it's current form", would work better.

 

[RGacky3]

I wouldn't say unsustainable. Marx and Engels were talking about that during the free-market days of industrial capitalism, then liberalism and social democracy gained prominence in our "common sense". So perhaps "the developed profit capitalist economy is unsustainable in it's current form", would work better.

Sure Marx didn't predict social democracy, but social democracy doesn't fix the problem, it just tries to deal with the externalities, and tries to hold some of the commons in the public sphere, and add some democracy to the economy, but still the internal contradictions of capitalism continue to grow and ultimately we see what happens, they grow beyond the social democratic counter weight and the whole time the Capitalist class tries to destroy the social democratic counter weight.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

What's the difference between Free Markets and Anarchy?

On a broad level, what is being advocated seems to blur the line.

Our country is founded on checks and balances.

Nature is a system of checks and balances.

The idea that free markets are self regulating in an artificial environment seems woefully ignorant to me.

In a free market I trade you a good or service for currency to buy goods or services . In anarchy I put a gun to your head and take what I want with out giving you anything...

Free market of not, we still have laws against violence. You can't put a gun to my head for any reason unless I threaten you. Nice try though, I get your rather one dimensional point.

With that exchange, I am not fully convinced that you do get the point.

The “Free market or not” comment you make in the latter statement is, of course, generally true. But this same circumstance is not true where anarchy is concerned. Anarchy would specifically presuppose the absence of laws, or some sort of governance/rules, against violence or the threat of violence.

So, as opposed to free markets [ where the game of competition is being played, all games necessitating rules to a greater or lesser extent, yet rules nonetheless ], in an environment of anarchy you could, indeed, put a gun to someone’s head [ though, with anarchy who could/would be manufacturing guns, supplying bullets or anything else on a continuing basis, resource markets and labor in general having, logically, broken down ]…or a club, spear or threat of any sort… and just take.

Furthermore, while that last instance requires a fight [which is a form of competition of sorts ], that you would have to win in order to just take what you wanted, I do not think the analogy sufficiently similar to warrant the statement that the lines blur between free markets and anarchy.

 

[Org]

Sure Marx didn't predict social democracy, but social democracy doesn't fix the problem, it just tries to deal with the externalities, and tries to hold some of the commons in the public sphere, and add some democracy to the economy, but still the internal contradictions of capitalism continue to grow and ultimately we see what happens, they grow beyond the social democratic counter weight and the whole time the Capitalist class tries to destroy the social democratic counter weight.

Oh, you misunderstand me. Social democracy is an attempt to salvage capitalism, and a lessening of the problem, not an amelioration. But I'm more interested in its contemporary use. What social democracy (and to a lesser extent, social liberalism) does is forego a crisis of capitalism.It keeps living standards up, prevents crashes, and lessens the power of a still existing capitalist class. And ultimately, while it doesn't mean capitalism will be able to cope with its various failings, what it does do is take away the inevitability of socialism.

So I think that's where, as socialists, we have a major disagreement - because I think socialism has to be won, not merely prepared for.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Free markets = no rules. Anarchy = no rules. I have to wonder if you've ever seen an orange...

Anarchy is what we evolved out of, where there were no rules, none, by a governing unit or body.

Free markets, on the other hand, can and do reside within a spectrum of freedom, with laissez-faire considered having no government intervention... then less and less "free" with more and more government intervention, regulation, influence and control. But free markets can co-exist with government up to a certain point while anarchy, by its very definition, does not have that option.

 

[RGacky3]

Oh, you misunderstand me. Social democracy is an attempt to salvage capitalism, and a lessening of the problem, not an amelioration. But I'm more interested in its contemporary use. What social democracy (and to a lesser extent, social liberalism) does is forego a crisis of capitalism.It keeps living standards up, prevents crashes, and lessens the power of a still existing capitalist class. And ultimately, while it doesn't mean capitalism will be able to cope with its various failings, what it does do is take away the inevitability of socialism.

So I think that's where, as socialists, we have a major disagreement - because I think socialism has to be won, not merely prepared for.

I don't know what social liberalism means .... are you talking US style progressives? I personally don't see much difference between them and regular neo-liberals other than perhaps a few regulatory things here and there.

What it does is postpone crashes, or lessen the outcomes of the crashes, but utlimately the laws of capitalism keep going, those economies will ultimately implode as well, it's like giving a termanily ill patient good pain killers and prolonging their life, it's good, but ultimately the terminal illness stays and will end up killing the patient.

Socialism is never inevitable, not in ANY economy, after Capitalism crashes all sorts of things can happen.

 

[YoungConserv]

Free market of not, we still have laws against violence. You can't put a gun to my head for any reason unless I threaten you. Nice try though, I get your rather one dimensional point.

Are you trying to say in anarchy there is still law doesn't that go against the definition of Anarchy?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

I'd have thought that Marx and his ideas, a philosophy that resulted in the death of tens of millions of people in the 20th century would be considered a failed concept. Oh well I guess the rewriting of recent history has been so effective that espousing a belief in totalitarianism is still considered cute in many circles.
Since the Soviet Union killed far more people than the National Socialist German Workers' Party I'd think it would be held in a similar low regard.

 

[Org]

I don't know what social liberalism means .... are you talking US style progressives? I personally don't see much difference between them and regular neo-liberals other than perhaps a few regulatory things here and there.

What it does is postpone crashes, or lessen the outcomes of the crashes, but utlimately the laws of capitalism keep going, those economies will ultimately implode as well, it's like giving a termanily ill patient good pain killers and prolonging their life, it's good, but ultimately the terminal illness stays and will end up killing the patient.

Socialism is never inevitable, not in ANY economy, after Capitalism crashes all sorts of things can happen.

Social liberalism is the standard Democratic Party line - different from market, classic, or neo-liberalism of the free-market types.

Okay, so now let me make my fundamental contention: Capitalism is killing us, but that doesn't mean it's doomed to fail. Global warming, financial instability, student debt, the price of education, offshoring, imperialism, the security state, and so on... these things show that we're going down a path of increased human and environmental suffering. But is it therefore not theoretically possible for capitalism to be saved? No, not at all. Denmarkian social democracy serves just that role - to allow capitalism to alter its course, by providing legislative authority over class conflicts. Does this mean we should trust legislators to be effective? No. It takes immense coordinating power that a beaurecracy is unsuited for. And the very idea of getting to the point where it exists is a difficult task.

So what I'm saying is that we shouldn't simply count on some glorious disintegration - we need to be prepared to organize en masse during smaller crises.

 

[Papa bull]

Except the government decides who gets to own what, i.e. what is allowed to be owned, what is allowed to be sold, what it will and will not consider "property" and so on.

Fair enough since we really don't want people to be sold or considered property, right?

 

[RGacky3]

Social liberalism is the standard Democratic Party line - different from market, classic, or neo-liberalism of the free-market types.

Okay, so now let me make my fundamental contention: Capitalism is killing us, but that doesn't mean it's doomed to fail. Global warming, financial instability, student debt, the price of education, offshoring, imperialism, the security state, and so on... these things show that we're going down a path of increased human and environmental suffering. But is it therefore not theoretically possible for capitalism to be saved? No, not at all. Denmarkian social democracy serves just that role - to allow capitalism to alter its course, by providing legislative authority over class conflicts. Does this mean we should trust legislators to be effective? No. It takes immense coordinating power that a beaurecracy is unsuited for. And the very idea of getting to the point where it exists is a difficult task.

So what I'm saying is that we shouldn't simply count on some glorious disintegration - we need to be prepared to organize en masse during smaller crises.

Sure, but the social democratic state isn't going to stop the crisis, nor will it stop the crisis from becoming ever larger, at most it will delay it or damper it.

I'ts not the price of education, offshoring and so on, they are all side effects, it's the internal contradictions of capitalism that end up destroying it, I'm not saying we get automatic revolution or anything, we might just end up in neo-feudalism or something.

 

[RGacky3]

Fair enough since we really don't want people to be sold or considered property, right?

Or certain rivers, or public lands, or public knowledge.

 

[Org]

Sure, but the social democratic state isn't going to stop the crisis, nor will it stop the crisis from becoming ever larger, at most it will delay it or damper it.

I'ts not the price of education, offshoring and so on, they are all side effects, it's the internal contradictions of capitalism that end up destroying it, I'm not saying we get automatic revolution or anything, we might just end up in neo-feudalism or something.

I just fail to see how. How is the social democratic state unable to stop the crisis? It may not want to, but if given the resources and will, it can do so. And what, because we may differ here, do you see as the crisis?

 

[RGacky3]

I just fail to see how. How is the social democratic state unable to stop the crisis? It may not want to, but if given the resources and will, it can do so. And what, because we may differ here, do you see as the crisis?

It absolutely can, like for example keeping the banks nationalized prevents financial crashes, but the capital/labor delema still exists, which overtime leads to a crisis, where does the excess capital go? the higher share capital gets over labor the more you'll have a problem, you'll still have offshoring to deal with that, and so on and so forth, you can't plug all the holes. Capitalism needs to continously grow, even with a social democratic saftey valve.