• 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!

What's the difference between Free Markets and Anarchy?

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
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 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.
 
Occam's Razor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very strange analysis this - Nature is a system of checks and balances.

Are you referring to the biological world... or all the natural world? Seems to me one could say the biological world is driven by the survival of the fittest and includes such behaviors as altruism, and other group behaviors to ensure survival of the gene pool. And then there's natural selection which are the environmental factors.l

The concept of a free market is pretty abstract because markets are very much not free at all. That's a misnomer... there's plenty of manipulation in economic systems.

Our country was established to escape the burden of unfair taxes from the crown. Without a monarch the founders were inspired by the principles of the enlightenment...

such as:

"The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries, which began first in Europe and later in the American colonies. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition,[1] intolerance and some abuses of power by the church and the state. The ideas of the Enlightenment have had a major impact on the culture, politics, and governments of the Western world....."
 
SanderO said:
Very strange analysis this - Nature is a system of checks and balances.

Are you referring to the biological world... or all the natural world? Seems to me one could say the biological world is driven by the survival of the fittest and includes such behaviors as altruism, and other group behaviors to ensure survival of the gene pool. And then there's natural selection which are the environmental factors.l

The concept of a free market is pretty abstract because markets are very much not free at all. That's a misnomer... there's plenty of manipulation in economic systems.

Our country was established to escape the burden of unfair taxes from the crown. Without a monarch the founders were inspired by the principles of the enlightenment...

such as:

"The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries, which began first in Europe and later in the American colonies. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition,[1] intolerance and some abuses of power by the church and the state. The ideas of the Enlightenment have had a major impact on the culture, politics, and governments of the Western world....."
Click to expand...

You and your un-cited plagiarism... You really should put the crap you copy in a quote box and cite it's source.

...and... Do you practice obfuscation?

No, species are driven by the survival of the fittest. If ecologies operated on that premise, you'd have nothing but lions, tigers and bears, OH MY!

If one species population becomes too numerous, it's food source is over taxed and the ecology collapses. But this isn't about natural systems.

None of what you wrote (or copied) has anything to do with the current rabid ideological call for free and unfettered markets.
 
Occam's Razor said:
You and your un-cited plagiarism... You really should put the crap you copy in a quote box and cite it's source.

...and... Do you practice obfuscation?

No, species are driven by the survival of the fittest. If ecologies operated on that premise, you'd have nothing but lions, tigers and bears, OH MY!

If one species population becomes too numerous, it's food source is over taxed and the ecology collapses. But this isn't about natural systems.

None of what you wrote (or copied) has anything to do with the current rabid ideological call for free and unfettered markets.
Click to expand...

Sorry.. it's a quote from wiki... but anyone who had a liberal education should know this. Do you have a problem with the veracity of the quote?

I suggest you read: Dawkins: The Selfish Gene.

Closed systems are self limiting aren't they?
 
Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you get is price-fixing and monopolies.
 
Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

How will they self regulate?
 
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.
 
Occam's Razor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. But that has more to do with you being you rather than free markets.
 
Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

A truly free market will result in a monopoly or oligopoly that will take measures we have deemed illegal to maintain control. Without a frame work to ensure level competition as well as preventing armed takeovers, free markets cannot survive.

Truly free markets do not self-regulate over time. They implode.
 
SanderO said:
Sorry.. it's a quote from wiki... but anyone who had a liberal education should know this. Do you have a problem with the veracity of the quote?

I suggest you read: Dawkins: The Selfish Gene.

Closed systems are self limiting aren't they?
Click to expand...

Read it. Let me clue you in to something.... there is nothing you can teach me about anything. Stuff your arrogant suggestions.

And it still does not apply to the topic.
 
0bserver92 said:
What you get is price-fixing and monopolies.
Click to expand...

No because those are not free markets. A free market has to be maintained free from private players doing what a government could also do :2wave:
 
obvious Child said:
A truly free market will result in a monopoly or oligopoly that will take measures we have deemed illegal to maintain control. Without a frame work to ensure level competition as well as preventing armed takeovers, free markets cannot survive.

Truly free markets do not self-regulate over time. They implode.
Click to expand...


The closest thing we have to a truly free market is the illegal drug industry and it seems to be growing quite nicely :shock:
 
Occam's Razor said:
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.
Click to expand...

A free market cannot exist outside a legal and regulatory framework.
 
Fisher said:
No because those are not free markets. A free market has to be maintained free from private players doing what a government could also do :2wave:
Click to expand...

You get Standard Oil and companies agreeing to keep prices high.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Read it. Let me clue you in to something.... there is nothing you can teach me about anything. Stuff your arrogant suggestions.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most arrogant... your term... and ignorant.. my term statements anyone could make. Great technique and style. You'll go far with that approach.
 
Fisher said:
The closest thing we have to a truly free market is the illegal drug industry and it seems to be growing quite nicely :shock:
Click to expand...

Which is fraught with violence, murder, prostitution, threats and all sorts of unsavory antics.

As we see in Mexico, there is an oligopoly which uses violence to maintain its position. Furthermore, it's not free in that rivals are literally buried.
 
babilfish said:
What's the difference between minimalist state intervention and no state intervention?
Click to expand...

Who decides the minimum level? And who that level applies to?

SanderO said:
That is one of the most arrogant... your term...
Click to expand...

Arrogance is often linked with assumptions, as you did with your off topic "suggestion", mine is of confidence. I'm better read, better educated and more intelligent than you are... sorry, it's just a fact. Is it arrogant of me to point that out? Perhaps... and I can live with that. Is it ignorant? Not in the least.

Yawwwn... This thread isn't, as much as you'd like it to be, about you.

Papa bull said:
It's the same difference you have with apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Free markets = no rules. Anarchy = no rules. I have to wonder if you've ever seen an orange...
 
Occam's Razor said:
Free markets = no rules. Anarchy = no rules. I have to wonder if you've ever seen an orange...
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
Occam's Razor said:
Who decides the minimum level? And who that level applies to?
Click to expand...

...Us? The state or government currently governing society?

I'm sorry, I'm incredibly confused by your response.
 
Occam's Razor said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Papa bull said:
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...
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should google Anarchist economics....

But thank you for succinctly clarifying your previous statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom