social issues & the free market

So you think trade didn't exist until government institutions were formed?

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.
 
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

Read a book. Look at a graph. Get back to me.
 
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 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.
 
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.

These stateless societies have trade. That's the point. You're arguing with yourself as to the quality of these economy.

I'm just glad you're not one of the nutters who refuse to acknowledge the free markets existence.
 
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.

Who is promoting a totally free market? It's strange people keep arguing against a totally free market when not even 1 person is arguing for it.
 
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?
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?

A market that is not a free market is just a corrupt market. Just as with govts the goal is always to reduce corruption.

Though note that a lot of people define/implement many things which should be viewed as criminal justice issues in defense of people's fundamental rights as "economic regulations" instead. It just happens that govt's like the $$$ they get from fining a corporation better than the nothing they get from jailing a misbehaving executive who fraudulently sold a dangerous product, for example.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
It should protect property rights. Not decide who gets to own the damn property.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

So enforcing property rights was a huge, tyrannical disruption in society? Really?
 
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.

And the surplus productivity and wealth to provide such services for those that aren't fit comes from what sort of system?
 
I have a libertarian friend who is always going on about the free market, and how we shouldn't have health care, welfare, food stamps, or workers compensation, and suggests that in his perfect libertarian utopia everyone will just donate their money to charity and that will cover it all.

Yeah, he is pretty much the biggest retard I know.
 
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.

If you can't see the difference between a government protecting a man's property and a government deciding who gets to own what property, then I'm afraid, there's not much more I could say to you.

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.

You're arguing semantics. You can call it whatever role you like. That's what laissez faire & free market proponents mean when they say limited government intervention.

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.

The only reason my argument is confusing is because you have a communist's perception of a free market economy.
 
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.
 
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.

Here is the problem with government not encouraging or support certain types of industries. The free market is incredibly short sighted.
 
Back
Top