the myth of the free market

on this site we have a a lot of people of conservative and libertarian persuasion talk about how if everything was left to the free market everything would good and great. one problem the free market they worship doesn't exist its a myth. the idea that the free market exists or can exist for anything outside of luxury goods. for a free market to exist 3 things need to exist: the seller needs information on product, the buyer needs information on the product, and the buy has to have the real ability to walk away so that supply and demand can actually work. for needs like food, shelter, and medical attention one of these 3 things don't exist in part or full which creates a break down of the free market and prices go haywire. lets look at medical attention the amount of people who will just walk away from treatment that will save their lives is very slim. this artificially inflates demand which artificially inflates prices.



so this begs the question? why do people demand a free market solution for goods and services that a free market can not exist for?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes I agree, a completely free market (anarchy) would soon be dominated by organized crime who would impose their own manipulations.

A libertarian is not an anarchist.

I am a libertarian in that I support PERSONAL liberty. This means every adult is free to do whatever they wish to themselves...including the ultimate act of self destruction - suicide.

However I support very limited PUBLIC liberty...any act that affects others aside from yourself.

This includes painting your house HOT PINK...as it lowers your neighbor's property value.

In the banking sector, I would only allow credit unions to exist, a system where the depositors are the shareholders. There would be no government fixing of interest rates, nor would rates be arbitrarily set by private entities serving none but themselves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, pervasive, strong HOAs and a blanket ban on making profits in the financial sector, or even investing in banks. Sounds like a real Libertarian paradise, replete with economic freedom.

Is there still anyone who doubts that "Libertarianism" is a hollow set of generic excuses that people run to to justify whatever they think they want at any given time? If an avowed "Canadian socialist" who proposes outlawing profit-making in the financial sector and preventing homeowners from deciding what color to paint their houses can call himself a "libertarian" with a straight face, does the term even mean anything?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like I said, I'm libertarian in the realm of personal liberty...not public liberty.

And actually, my credit union is allowed and does make a small profit, which is needed to finance more branches.

Speculation in the financial sector is one of the free market's worse aspects...along with the pervasiveness of psychological advertising.

 

Civic Religion is a powerful mental framework with which to view the world.

Living at the bottom of a volcano causes a lot of stress and as humans we feel a need to do something to appease that stress. With no understanding of geology, natural eruptions are a lot of stress. As humans we want to do something to appease that incessant stress. Early humans came up with the idea of sacrificing a young virgin girl to the Gods. While this did nothing to stop eruptions it did a lot to appease the stress of living next to a volcano. While this seemed unnatural to begin with, soon, this became the Civic norm for those people.

Civic Religion is a powerful mental framework with which to view the world.

To challenge the idea that sacrificing a girl is doing, actually nothing, is challenging people in society to live with the stress of the real world. Most people simply do not want to deal with that stress. They'd much prefer to sacrifice a child and live stress free.

We're doing the same thing today.


RE: Medicine
We had a medical problem early this century. Through the free-market medicine became too cheap. The State solved that problem for us.

RE: Pink House
We used to have laws against Black Americans moving in to neighborhoods - because they lowered property prices.

RE: Mafia
I'm so worried the Mafia might make me involuntarily pay my income - I support the State, that makes me involuntarily pay my income. As well as sells bonds on my children's labor, taxes almost every items I chose to voluntarily trade, controls my money by law, regulates almost every aspect of my life, drafts me to die in wars, kills innocent people in other countries.

Oh, but thank the Gods I don't have to worry about living under the thumb of the Mafia. I'm ............free?



--
Civic Religion is a powerful mental framework with which to view the world - I'd suggest challenging superstitious beliefs as a first step to seeing those shadows cast on to the back of our cave

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And you have defined "personal liberty" down to exactly what is permitted in a powerful social welfare state. With that kind of hedging, anything short of outright totalitarianism would qualify as "libertarianism." Your position is vacuous.

That is "surplus," not actual "profit."

There is nothing "libertarian" about the implication that the state should ban "financial speculation" and "psychological advertizing." What you are offering here are direct, standard arguments against libertarianism.

 

Yes but you dont vote for the Capos and Godfathers...nor does the mafia provide any services other than the privilege of NOT having your kneecaps broken.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thats correct...as long as one makes a distinction between personal and public liberty. In the public domain, I am very much anti-libertarian.

 

One of the characteristic features of libertarianism is a refusal to admit such a distinction, and instead to make personal liberty (often, defined exclusively in terms of state coersion) the whole of the story. The position you are describing - support for a powerful social welfare state coupled with nonchalance about what people do in the privacy of their own homes - is nothing more or less than the standard social democratic consensus that is commonplace throughout the West (and which actual libertarians rail against as a matter of course).

 

Try not paying your income tax, I think you'll find the State will do more than just break your knee caps

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The central tenate of Libertarianism is noninitiation of force. This means you can't call on the "The One God" or "The State" to make the iniation of violence moral.

It should be noted
1. "China" and a "Chinese Economy" still existed under Communism, it just sucked.
2. The State through the Fed has stepped in to buy Bonds and I wouldn't count on the Market wanting to be the last one holding the bag when the Bond Bubble pops. Even this week there were even more indications investors do not want to hold bonds - US Millitary backed or otherwise.

 

Thats right, and the same goes for property tax. If the city can take your house away from you for withholding property tax...do you really own it???

Ultimately, land is owned only by the military force that can defend it. We are merely tenants.

 

That would be anarchy...not liberty.

No force whatsoever would mean shutting down the police department.

 

*gasp* no Morality Police??!! What's a society to do!?!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, that is corect, there'd be no police and also correct that life would be Anarchy. But, there would still be laws, judges, security... it just wouldn't be run by the State. Do you think we need Police in the shopping malls? Maybe a small police station in the local grocery market? Or do you think that the local security is fine? I admit, it would require a drastic change in the way we organize ourselves, and that we're not going to see such organization anytime too soon. But, I'm not about to box myself in just because I don't have the answers right now. Imagine how it must have seemed to people in the 1700s when someone proposed no Slavery. HOW ON EARTH would we eat? Cloth ourselves? It's be total chaos! Yet, here we are. Clothed and fed better than ever.

So? With this in mind, how about aiming for a government <5% GDP and then, if we're still here.... keep on going down to 0%!

 

Its no mystery what society does without police...it descends into gang warfare between organized crime factions. Happens often in Africa.

 

Thanks for making my point to Carcano there, Michael.

 

Two of those people proposing an end to slavery were Alexander Hamilton and John Jay...first Treasury Secretary and first Chief Justice.

Right about the time when the first practical steam engines were coming on board.

Do you believe human slavery would have been abolished if coal and oil had not become our slaves???

I dont think so...consider this.

The most influential moral teacher of western history was Jesus...who's golden 'do unto others' rule would negate all attempts to enslave other human beings.

And yet, even Jesus wasnt powerful enough to stop it...for two thousand years.

Only when an alternative was found did the moral conviction arise with enough critical mass to pass into law.

 

Much of Africa doesn't have a culture of private property rights and is are not societies based on secular, objective, moral law. I didn't say no rules, not rulers yes, but there'd still be rules and there'd still be courts and there'd still be police, just not run by the State.

There's an interesting study on Somalia versus the neighboring "States" that showed life in the anarchic areas of Somalia was better than living under the rules of these mini-Tyrants who manage the 'State'. Better education, better life expectancy, etc... yeah, go figure, the Police were actually thugs coming and taking what little the people had and without them the Serfs ... errr that's Fellow Citizen for us.... had a better standard of living. The people were able to manage their own lives better than BEING managed by the State/live as Cattle FOR the State.


Sadly, it took 200 years to get form there to here and will probably take another 4 generations... at least, to get back.

 

Yes, you're probably right in suggesting without the industrial revolution humans may still be practicing Slavery. That said, it is now know that even without cheap fuel humans are more productive semi-free than as Slaves. Which is probably why Asian States moved past Slavery and into Feudalistic States where they remained entrenched.

My argument is, we can't know the future and so we can't have the answers and that if we follow the Golden Rule then our lives will be more prosperous.

 

OMG did we agree?!?!


And as me and Carcano agree on topics.... we can surely come to an agreement

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hell, even Joe and I agree Bush Jr was a douche

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, we're all Libertarians now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!