By definition a free market is one free from coercion. Naturally, I am not speaking of the corporatist hybrid-economy we have today, which is rife with corrupt government oppression. But a true free market necessarily is based on equality. What do I mean by equality? Nothing less the what is meant by "equal protection under the law."
Equal protection under the law doesn't mean it's a level playing field, this is what I'm getting at when I say your definition of equality is different from mine. To say that the free market is totally free from coercion seems a bit naive, I know you'll say the same about Marxian economics, just bear with me. Entities at work within the market (corporations, entrepreneurs, ect) are naturally going to want to expand, right? It's also natural that they're going to run into competitors. These entities are going to do everything within their means to defeat their competitors and continue on expanding by soaking up more of their market. They're going to cut corners. In order to compete in an ever more competitive market they're going to have to cut costs somewhere, and I'd argue that eventually they're going to have to cut costs
everywhere.
What is there to stop these entities from expanding
indefinitely? The answer I keep hearing is "the market will correct itself eventually". What if it doesn't? I run a small business, anyone who runs a business knows that it can be nearly impossible to compete with larger businesses who can afford to produce, market and distribute similar goods and services at a
much lower price. So if one business starts gaining more and more influence over their market, what's to stop them from monopolizing their market all together? This leads me to believe that as capitalism becomes more and more established and advanced that eventually corporatism is inevitable. Businesses will literally become "too big to fail".
True equality recognizes the equality of both sexes, all races, all religions (and non-religious views), all sexual orientations. We are far from true equality today.
Agreed.
No, just as it doesn't produce height equality, or weight equality, or IQ equality, good-looks equality, charisma equality, etc...
Come on, Guy. Income inequality drastically affects lives, and is not as subjective or frivolous as height equality, weight equality, good looks equality, ect ect. I'm not suggesting economics should be responsible for finding love for everyone. I would argue that income inequality is also
oppressive. If the market was completely free, one's spending power would determine who is fit to receive medical care, education, shelter, even food and water. If you don't want to subscribe to this from a philosophical perspective, look at it from an economical perspective. If only the strong and fortunate are realistically (as opposed to lawfully) entitled the means to success, a minute portion of the populace will have the spending power to support the economy in any stable fashion. The poorest will be stealing what they need and the richest will be he ones keeping the economy going. Plutocracy is the only plausible result as far as I can see.
Only for some, and even then only partially. All those factors I just listed are equally if not more important to quality of life.
Personally, I disagree with you that income has any bearing whatsoever on quality of life. See the quote in my sig.
Again, we'll have to fundamentally disagree. If the market was as free as possible the rich will be living the most comfortable lives imaginable and the rest of us will have to support them with our labor, living the most uncomfortable, miserable lives imaginable. We can see this already, sweatshop workers in Taiwan are at the bottom of the totem pole, while we in the US are at the top. Sure, government oppression has alot to do with the poor quality of life of these third world states, but so does their position in the market. If the US was to pursue a laissez faire economy, we would just be returning those sweatshops to America where they have been expelled by labor movements and government regulation.
Not at all. I don't see the basis for your statement that "everything depends on spending power." You shouldn't be able murder or steal, no matter how much money you spend. We're not talking about anarchy or corruption here.
I'm not talking about "anarchy" or corruption either. See my third response in this post. If there are no public services or goods spending power will decide everything about one's existence. If you can't afford rent, you're homeless. If you can't afford health service, you go without. If you can't afford an education, you're stuck in this class.
When people are trading, and investing in one another, and doing so fairly, they are not going to war.
For this to work
everyone has to conform to the free market. If there is a country that wants to nationalize their oil reserves, that strikes a blow to any potential markets or resource incomes and there will be war. Again, the more capitalism advances, the more inevitable corporatism becomes. You would also have to assume that people are indeed trading fairly. As a socialist I get very tired of hearing the "human nature" argument, but in this case it supports my argument.
I think I've already addressed this in this post.
All perpetrated by criminals, corrupt corporatists and the like (and communists and socialists have committed just as many of the exact same atrocities as you just listed) This has nothing to do with the free market.
Fair enough. However, I'd argue that "communist" countries are much less likely to pursue imperial interests as there is no demand for expanding markets, growing profits, ect.
