So you think trade didn't exist until government institutions were formed?
Look how successful kickstarters are, thats charity
The more free a society is to produce what it wants and needs the less helpless jobless people there are
There have been thousands of observed stateless societies. None of them have organized their economy around trade. Obviously, a "free market" does require a gov't. At the very least because property rights of the type that a market economy needs require a strong gov't to exist.
I can think of a great example right here in Toronto. I work for the TTC, the transit commission, and we have a service called Wheel Trans. Basically, there is a whole fleet of vehicles that goes around picking up disabled people, people in mobility devices, and dropping them off wherever they want. It's like a private taxi service for the disabled, and it costs the exact same fare as the regular transit system.
Obviously, this is a huge money loser, and it always will be. There are always people out there calling to privatize the TTC, and in a total free market where everything is privatized and profits are all that matter, this service wouldn't exist as it does now. To be honest I wouldn't wanna live in a world like that.
Crime-free societies don't exist either. Neither do diverse cultures devoid of racism. For that matter neither does true equality, fairness, blah blah blah. Ergo let's go insult people who advocate these things?I think that your reading comprehension if pretty poor if that is what you got from my post. Show me a free market, where is this magical free market? Which nations currently operate under the principals of a free market?
If your answer is none which if you have a shred of intellectual honesty it will be, then where does the free market exist? In another dimension?
You will never have an absolute free market. Even free market proponents understand this.
However, government intervention should only occur when there is a failure of the system (ie. Collusion, monopolies etc.) and to protect property rights.
So the gov't should decide who owns every single thing in society, but then it shouldn't intervene at all except to prevent inevitable actions that you decide it should prevent. Got it.
Government shouldn't decide who owns every thing! What are you on about?
Um, are you unfamiliar with the concept of "property rights"? That's a very extreme gov't intervention in the market.
It should protect property rights. Not decide who gets to own the damn property.
When Le Gendre answered Jean Baptiste Colbert with the statement “laissez-nous faire”, he didn't mean remove government altogether.
He meant, government should play a minimalist role of protecting property rights etc.
In practice, what is the difference? "Property rights" are the right to call the gov't to do violence on your behalf to prevent someone from using something. The gov't decides who has property rights to what.
That's not a minimalist role, though (though you can't fault a 17th century finance minister for not understanding that). That's a huge role, and instituting it required a huge, tyrannical disruption in society.
I think we can agree that it was ultimately for the better (in part because of other innovations in governance), but your argument is very confused.
I can think of a great example right here in Toronto. I work for the TTC, the transit commission, and we have a service called Wheel Trans. Basically, there is a whole fleet of vehicles that goes around picking up disabled people, people in mobility devices, and dropping them off wherever they want. It's like a private taxi service for the disabled, and it costs the exact same fare as the regular transit system.
Obviously, this is a huge money loser, and it always will be. There are always people out there calling to privatize the TTC, and in a total free market where everything is privatized and profits are all that matter, this service wouldn't exist as it does now. To be honest I wouldn't wanna live in a world like that.
In practice, what is the difference? "Property rights" are the right to call the gov't to do violence on your behalf to prevent someone from using something. The gov't decides who has property rights to what.
That's not a minimalist role, though (though you can't fault a 17th century finance minister for not understanding that). That's a huge role, and instituting it required a huge, tyrannical disruption in society.
I think we can agree that it was ultimately for the better (in part because of other innovations in governance), but your argument is very confused.
You will never have an absolute free market. Even free market proponents understand this.
However, government intervention should only occur when there is a failure of the system (ie. Collusion, monopolies etc.) and to protect property rights.
Otherwise they should stay the f*ck away from the markets.
I tend to agree with this. The government should only intrude to remedy negative externalities, (e.g. pollution) eliminate cartels, and provide a legal framework for contracts and property rights. I am not a fan of favoring certain industries or trying to dictate winners and losers.
Note: I don't think taxes necessarily discourage any particular industry if they're applied broadly and relatively equitably. Which in the US they are not. And not creating under regulation is not the same as eliminating welfare, unemployment insurance, etc. The money for those programs comes from the economy but ideally shouldn't have an impact on the relative attractiveness of various investments.