Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
From encarta
Individuals acting in their own economic self-interest will maximize the economic situation of society as a whole, as if guided by an invisible hand. In a free-market economy the government's function is limited to providing what are known as public goods and performing a regulatory role in certain situations.
This pretty much sums it up. The only time government should step in is when a problem arises and regulation needs to be implemented or enforced. Other than that the government should mind it's own business.
is there no point where the greater good outweighs the individuals right to choose?
Apparently some of you are so caught up in the trees you've long lost sight of the forest.
Let me help you out with a very simple truism.
Laws = Restrictions on freedom
There's no getting around it. As soon as you pass one single law governing one single aspect of the marketplace, it's not longer a completely free market. That doesn't invalidate anything about free market ideology as I understand it, but denying the obvious is not a solid foundation upon which to build one's case.
Apparently some of you are so caught up in the trees you've long lost sight of the forest.
Let me clear help you out with a very simple truism.
Laws = Restrictions on freedom
There's no getting around it. As soon as you pass one single law governing one single aspect of the marketplace, it's not longer a completely free market. That doesn't invalidate anything about free market ideology as I understand it, but denying the obvious is not a solid foundation upon which to build one's case.
Laws are not always restrictions on freedom. One can't be free to commit murder so prosecuting murder is not a restriction on any freedom. The same goes for fraud.
Apparently some of you are so caught up in the trees you've long lost sight of the forest.
Let me help you out with a very simple truism.
Laws = Restrictions on freedom
There's no getting around it. As soon as you pass one single law governing one single aspect of the marketplace, it's not longer a completely free market. That doesn't invalidate anything about free market ideology as I understand it, but denying the obvious is not a solid foundation upon which to build one's case.
No one's denying anything as far as I can tell. Like I said earlier...it's inherently understood that some regulation is required in a free market economy. You just can't have people willy nilly going around and ripping others off. There are consequenses to these actions If your just looking at this in the most literal sense then yes you are correct.....maybe we should just say "freer than other types of market principles". There has to be a system of checks and balances. If you consider these checks and balances on your vision of a free market then I would have to question what sort of principles do you believe in.
Laws are not always restrictions on freedom.
If the law is enforced it is... always.
One can't be free to commit murder so prosecuting murder is not a restriction on any freedom.
Murder is a legal term. Without laws, why wouldn't one be free to kill?
The same goes for fraud.
Completely false. Ever hear of caveat emptor (buyer beware)? That was the free market common law principle at work for quite some time before the government got involved "regulating."
In a completely free market, would drug companies need to get FDA approval to sell new drugs?
In a completely free market, would doctors be required to get a license to practice medicine?
In a completely free market, would I be allowed to build a nuclear power plant in my back yard?
Laws are not always restrictions on freedom.
If the law is enforced it is... always.
One can't be free to commit murder so prosecuting murder is not a restriction on any freedom.
Murder is a legal term. Without laws, why wouldn't one be free to kill?
The same goes for fraud.
Completely false. Ever hear of caveat emptor (buyer beware)? That was the free market common law principle at work for quite some time before the government got involved "regulating."
In a completely free market, would drug companies need to get FDA approval to sell new drugs?
In a completely free market, would doctors be required to get a license to practice medicine?
In a completely free market, would I be allowed to build a nuclear power plant in my back yard?
Apparently some of you are so caught up in the trees you've long lost sight of the forest.
Let me clear help you out with a very simple truism.
Laws = Restrictions on freedom
There's no getting around it. As soon as you pass one single law governing one single aspect of the marketplace, it's not longer a completely free market. That doesn't invalidate anything about free market ideology as I understand it, but denying the obvious is not a solid foundation upon which to build one's case.
Laws are not always restrictions on freedom. One can't be free to commit murder so prosecuting murder is not a restriction on any freedom. The same goes for fraud.
So you do support some use of public or civil authority..... or do you believe the authority to judge another human should lie with the church?
Apparently some of you are so caught up in the trees you've long lost sight of the forest.
Let me help you out with a very simple truism.
Laws = Restrictions on freedom
There's no getting around it. As soon as you pass one single law governing one single aspect of the marketplace, it's not longer a completely free market. That doesn't invalidate anything about free market ideology as I understand it, but denying the obvious is not a solid foundation upon which to build one's case.
No one's denying anything as far as I can tell. Like I said earlier...it's inherently understood that some regulation is required in a free market economy. You just can't have people willy nilly going around and ripping others off. There are consequenses to these actions If your just looking at this in the most literal sense then yes you are correct.....maybe we should just say "freer than other types of market principles". There has to be a system of checks and balances. If you consider these checks and balances on your vision of a free market then I would have to question what sort of principles do you believe in.
According to Milton Friedman, these checks and balances are provided by the invisible hand of the market. Are you saying you disagree with perhaps the 20th century's foremost free market economist?
Apparently some of you are so caught up in the trees you've long lost sight of the forest.
Let me help you out with a very simple truism.
Laws = Restrictions on freedom
There's no getting around it. As soon as you pass one single law governing one single aspect of the marketplace, it's not longer a completely free market. That doesn't invalidate anything about free market ideology as I understand it, but denying the obvious is not a solid foundation upon which to build one's case.
No one's denying anything as far as I can tell. Like I said earlier...it's inherently understood that some regulation is required in a free market economy. You just can't have people willy nilly going around and ripping others off. There are consequenses to these actions If your just looking at this in the most literal sense then yes you are correct.....maybe we should just say "freer than other types of market principles". There has to be a system of checks and balances. If you consider these checks and balances a restriction of freedom on your vision of a free market then I would have to question what sort of principles do you believe in.
No one's denying anything as far as I can tell. Like I said earlier...it's inherently understood that some regulation is required in a free market economy. You just can't have people willy nilly going around and ripping others off. There are consequenses to these actions If your just looking at this in the most literal sense then yes you are correct.....maybe we should just say "freer than other types of market principles". There has to be a system of checks and balances. If you consider these checks and balances on your vision of a free market then I would have to question what sort of principles do you believe in.
According to Milton Friedman, these checks and balances are provided by the invisible hand of the market. Are you saying you disagree with perhaps the 20th century's foremost free market economist?
I'm sorry I don't know enough about Milton Friedman to make an educated statement in response to your reply...but I do know this...sometimes the invisible hand bitchslaps the hell out of the unwary and this is where government should step in in certain cases.
What you describe may be a mostly free market, but it is most definitely not completely free. Which is why I asked, how free.
Your definition of what a free market is or is not is obviously incorrect. As I said, a free market does not mean lawlessness.
Yes, actually it does.
According to Milton Friedman, these checks and balances are provided by the invisible hand of the market. Are you saying you disagree with perhaps the 20th century's foremost free market economist?
I'm sorry I don't know enough about Milton Friedman to make an educated statement in response to your reply...but I do know this...sometimes the invisible hand bitchslaps the hell out of the unwary and this is where government should step in in certain cases.
He advocated zero government regulation of the marketplace. No licenses for doctors, lawyers, electricians etc. No OSHA. No FDA. No EPA. According to him, and pure free market ideology, the market would correct itself, even in these extreme bitch-slap circumstances, if left free to find it's own equilibrium without government meddling.
Laws are not always restrictions on freedom. One can't be free to commit murder so prosecuting murder is not a restriction on any freedom. The same goes for fraud.
So you do support some use of public or civil authority..... or do you believe the authority to judge another human should lie with the church?
What does the church have to do with any of this?
I'm sorry I don't know enough about Milton Friedman to make an educated statement in response to your reply...but I do know this...sometimes the invisible hand bitchslaps the hell out of the unwary and this is where government should step in in certain cases.
He advocated zero government regulation of the marketplace. No licenses for doctors, lawyers, electricians etc. No OSHA. No FDA. No EPA. According to him, and pure free market ideology, the market would correct itself, even in these extreme bitch-slap circumstances, if left free to find it's own equilibrium without government meddling.
Milton Friedman wasn't for a pure free market, however.
From encarta
Individuals acting in their own economic self-interest will maximize the economic situation of society as a whole, as if guided by an invisible hand. In a free-market economy the government's function is limited to providing what are known as public goods and performing a regulatory role in certain situations.
This pretty much sums it up. The only time government should step in is when a problem arises and regulation needs to be implemented or enforced. Other than that the government should mind it's own business.
It is not that simple...
For instance, define 'property'.
"I am polluting this land because it is my property and I am making a profit in the free market. Fuck off."
or
"Fuck you. That dog is my property and I am making a profit by being cruel to him. I'll do as I please"
Next question is who judges? Shouldn't everyone in town know who is to judge them?
Your definition of what a free market is or is not is obviously incorrect. As I said, a free market does not mean lawlessness.
Yes, actually it does.
No it does not. We are talking about various economic systems. Not various forms of government. An economic system that is not regulated by government is not lawlessness. Don't confuse it with anarchy. It simply means it isn't regulated by a specific institution. In this case, government. It is somewhat short sighted to believe that because government isn't regulating the market, the market must be unregulated.
Apparently some of you are so caught up in the trees you've long lost sight of the forest.
Let me clear help you out with a very simple truism.
Laws = Restrictions on freedom
There's no getting around it. As soon as you pass one single law governing one single aspect of the marketplace, it's not longer a completely free market. That doesn't invalidate anything about free market ideology as I understand it, but denying the obvious is not a solid foundation upon which to build one's case.
Laws are not always restrictions on freedom. One can't be free to commit murder so prosecuting murder is not a restriction on any freedom. The same goes for fraud.
According to Milton Friedman, these checks and balances are provided by the invisible hand of the market. Are you saying you disagree with perhaps the 20th century's foremost free market economist?
I'm sorry I don't know enough about Milton Friedman to make an educated statement in response to your reply...but I do know this...sometimes the invisible hand bitchslaps the hell out of the unwary and this is where government should step in in certain cases.
He advocated zero government regulation of the marketplace. No licenses for doctors, lawyers, electricians etc. No OSHA. No FDA. No EPA. According to him, and pure free market ideology, the market would correct itself, even in these extreme bitch-slap circumstances, if left free to find it's own equilibrium without government meddling.
From encarta
This pretty much sums it up. The only time government should step in is when a problem arises and regulation needs to be implemented or enforced. Other than that the government should mind it's own business.
It is not that simple...
For instance, define 'property'.
"I am polluting this land because it is my property and I am making a profit in the free market. Fuck off."
or
"Fuck you. That dog is my property and I am making a profit by being cruel to him. I'll do as I please"
Next question is who judges? Shouldn't everyone in town know who is to judge them?
The 'greater good' is nothing more than the extent to which your choices affect others. that being the case, restrictions on choices one can make are made when those choices prevent others from making choices. In your property polution example, if the polluting is never gong to effect anyone else, pollute all you want.
So you do support some use of public or civil authority..... or do you believe the authority to judge another human should lie with the church?
What does the church have to do with any of this?
Someone has to decide what behavior is 'wrong' and what is 'right'. Make the judgement call between a free-market chemical "oops!" at the pharmaceutical plant and mass murder......
One of the strongest traditional places for that kind of authority on this planet has been the church - second most common is some sort of civil authority imposed by military... I wondered how you felt.
