The Free Market

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

He changed his mind enough times that it's hard to pin him down. But in Capitalism and Freedom he most certainly advocated for a pure free market.

No, he did not. He believed that there should be a central bank manipulating interest rates and inflating the currency. That is not a pure free market.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Fraud wasn't a criminal offence until about the 18th Century in English law I think.. Until then the common law offence of "cheating" sufficed. I remember reading about how the English common law judges were affronted by the idea of criminalising the act of one person making a fool of another. No link unfortunately. I may have a textbook or two to help me though. If challenged I'll go and find them

The argument is not when fraud emerged as a crime or whether it has ever been tolerated, but whether under a free market fraud is punishable.

 

[Yurt]

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.

so anarchy = freedom.....interesting

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Fraud wasn't a criminal offence until about the 18th Century in English law I think.. Until then the common law offence of "cheating" sufficed. I remember reading about how the English common law judges were affronted by the idea of criminalising the act of one person making a fool of another. No link unfortunately. I may have a textbook or two to help me though. If challenged I'll go and find them

The argument is not when fraud emerged as a crime or whether it has ever been tolerated, but whether under a free market fraud is punishable.

"Is" is a statement of fact, "ought" or "ought not" are normative statements. From that I may ask, "in a 'free market' should fraud be punishable or does that condition render a 'free market' impossible?"

The history of English common law and economics is interesting. For example there are some very early examples of legal intervention driven by the economic imperative (eg The Carrier's Case). I venture to suggest that even in the wake of Adam Smith's great work that the economic imperative of the state was never truly abandoned. It follows, if I'm right, that a pure free market never existed even in the wake of Ricardo and the laissez-faire advocates such as J.S.Mill.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fraud wasn't a criminal offence until about the 18th Century in English law I think.. Until then the common law offence of "cheating" sufficed. I remember reading about how the English common law judges were affronted by the idea of criminalising the act of one person making a fool of another. No link unfortunately. I may have a textbook or two to help me though. If challenged I'll go and find them

The argument is not when fraud emerged as a crime or whether it has ever been tolerated, but whether under a free market fraud is punishable.

"Is" is a statement of fact, "ought" or "ought not" are normative statements. From that I may ask, "in a 'free market' should fraud be punishable or does that condition render a 'free market' impossible?"

The history of English common law and economics is interesting. For example there are some very early examples of legal intervention driven by the economic imperative (eg The Carrier's Case). I venture to suggest that even in the wake of Adam Smith's great work that the economic imperative of the state was never truly abandoned. It follows, if I'm right, that a pure free market never existed even in the wake of Ricardo and the laissez-faire advocates such as J.S.Mill.

I was not arguing whether a pure free market has ever existed, but, once again, whether or not fraud is punishable under a free market. I would agree that a pure free market has never existed because the state must so often reach its tendrils into the market for its own benefit.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

I disagree with Mr. Friedman with respect to his views on government regulation and licensing for professionals. As a professional I myself must have a license. Otherwise you could have some boob come in to my work place and start working...next thing you know he just blew up everything within a 15 mile radius from his location. But then again Friedman's premise of the invisible hand correcting a situation does in fact prove to be correct...but what about the other 5000 people he(boob) just killed. They didn't do anything to upset the market yet they must pay the price for one person's stupidity.

 

[manifold]

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.

I disagree with Mr. Friedman with respect to his views on government regulation and licensing for professionals. As a professional I myself must have a license. Otherwise you could have some boob come in to my work place and start working...next thing you know he just blew up everything within a 15 mile radius from his location. But then again Friedman's premise of the invisible hand correcting a situation does in fact prove to be correct...but what about the other 5000 people he(boob) just killed. They didn't do anything to upset the market yet they must pay the price for one person's stupidity.

Agreed. In full.

 

[Toro]

The free market is the primary driver of wealth creation. It creates the most wealth for the most people, most of the time.

 

[Toro]

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.

I disagree with Mr. Friedman with respect to his views on government regulation and licensing for professionals. As a professional I myself must have a license. Otherwise you could have some boob come in to my work place and start working...next thing you know he just blew up everything within a 15 mile radius from his location. But then again Friedman's premise of the invisible hand correcting a situation does in fact prove to be correct...but what about the other 5000 people he(boob) just killed. They didn't do anything to upset the market yet they must pay the price for one person's stupidity.

Agreed. In full.

One of the best things governments can do is facilitate the flow of information and legislate transparency.

Dogmatic free marketers who think that the market is always right make an implicit assumption that people have perfect or at least enough information to make rational decisions. This is often not the case because we are hardwired to act in a manner that is often not rational. Because people almost always have asymmetric information over others in a commercial transaction, those people are at a fundamental advantage. If that advantage is overwhelming, the outcome in the transaction can be inefficient, i.e. someone is worse off. Requiring the licensing of professionals is an information transmission mechanism that allows consumers to make better decisions. However, if the licensing requirements are too onerous, then professionals can extract excessive rents by using it as a way to restrict competition while others may partake in rent-seeking behavior, i.e. bribes, corruption, to get a piece of the action.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Fraud wasn't a criminal offence until about the 18th Century in English law I think.. Until then the common law offence of "cheating" sufficed. I remember reading about how the English common law judges were affronted by the idea of criminalising the act of one person making a fool of another. No link unfortunately. I may have a textbook or two to help me though. If challenged I'll go and find them

The argument is not when fraud emerged as a crime or whether it has ever been tolerated, but whether under a free market fraud is punishable.

I thought the argument was whether or not a market could be considered 'free' if anything at all was considered to be a 'crime'.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fraud wasn't a criminal offence until about the 18th Century in English law I think.. Until then the common law offence of "cheating" sufficed. I remember reading about how the English common law judges were affronted by the idea of criminalising the act of one person making a fool of another. No link unfortunately. I may have a textbook or two to help me though. If challenged I'll go and find them

The argument is not when fraud emerged as a crime or whether it has ever been tolerated, but whether under a free market fraud is punishable.

I thought the argument was whether or not a market could be considered 'free' if anything at all was considered to be a 'crime'.

Some things could be considered a crime, such as fraud. Other things, such as not being licensed by the state to be a plumber, would not be crimes.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

so anarchy = freedom.....interesting

No, Bud..... freedom = anarchy.

There is a HUGE difference. Huge.​

 

[AVG-JOE]

The argument is not when fraud emerged as a crime or whether it has ever been tolerated, but whether under a free market fraud is punishable.

I thought the argument was whether or not a market could be considered 'free' if anything at all was considered to be a 'crime'.

Some things could be considered a crime, such as fraud. Other things, such as not being licensed by the state to be a plumber, would not be crimes.

So you agree that there is a place for civil government with punitive authority in 21st century America.

I believe that we are also in agreement that some rules are good: Thou Shall Not Kill.

and some are stupid: Professional Licensing​

are you sure we shouldn't license barbers? A bad haircut can SUCK!​

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I thought the argument was whether or not a market could be considered 'free' if anything at all was considered to be a 'crime'.

Some things could be considered a crime, such as fraud. Other things, such as not being licensed by the state to be a plumber, would not be crimes.

So you agree that there is a place for civil government with punitive authority in 21st century America.

I believe that we are also in agreement that some rules are good: Thou Shall Not Kill.

and some are stupid: Professional Licensing​

are you sure we shouldn't license barbers? A bad haircut can SUCK!

I agree that prosecuting fraud is a legitimate function of the federal government.

 

[Elutherian]

The free market is a system of economics that arises out of a state of pure nature, recognition of property rights, and of voluntary contract.

 

[Elutherian]

Some things could be considered a crime, such as fraud. Other things, such as not being licensed by the state to be a plumber, would not be crimes.

So you agree that there is a place for civil government with punitive authority in 21st century America.

I believe that we are also in agreement that some rules are good: Thou Shall Not Kill.

and some are stupid: Professional Licensing​

are you sure we shouldn't license barbers? A bad haircut can SUCK!

I agree that prosecuting fraud is a legitimate function of the federal government.

Well, now I may have to take disagreement here, as I often do with my Minarchist friends. The Government, or the "State", is a legal monopoly on the use of force and violence. That's why I'm a free market Anarchist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you agree that there is a place for civil government with punitive authority in 21st century America.

I believe that we are also in agreement that some rules are good: Thou Shall Not Kill.

and some are stupid: Professional Licensing​

are you sure we shouldn't license barbers? A bad haircut can SUCK!

I agree that prosecuting fraud is a legitimate function of the federal government.

Well, now I may have to take disagreement here, as I often do with my Minarchist friends. The Government, or the "State", is a legal monopoly on the use of force and violence. That's why I'm a free market Anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalist? I don't quite buy into Rothbard's full account of anarcho-capitalism, as I simply don't see how you can have an efficient national defense without the government, but I do like most of Rothbard's analysis.

 

[Elutherian]

I agree that prosecuting fraud is a legitimate function of the federal government.

Well, now I may have to take disagreement here, as I often do with my Minarchist friends. The Government, or the "State", is a legal monopoly on the use of force and violence. That's why I'm a free market Anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalist? I don't quite buy into Rothbard's full account of anarcho-capitalism, as I simply don't see how you can have an efficient national defense without the government, but I do like most of Rothbard's analysis.

Rothbard is my ideological mentor... and you know, Lysander Spooner was an Anarchist too. I see you have one of his quotes.

And I don't worry about National Defense. There is no need for a "Nation" in the first place. I'm more concerned with personal defense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, now I may have to take disagreement here, as I often do with my Minarchist friends. The Government, or the "State", is a legal monopoly on the use of force and violence. That's why I'm a free market Anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalist? I don't quite buy into Rothbard's full account of anarcho-capitalism, as I simply don't see how you can have an efficient national defense without the government, but I do like most of Rothbard's analysis.

Rothbard is my ideological mentor... and you know, Lysander Spooner was an Anarchist too. I see you have one of his quotes.

And I don't worry about National Defense. There is no need for a "Nation" in the first place. I'm more concerned with personal defense.

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

 

[Elutherian]

Anarcho-capitalist? I don't quite buy into Rothbard's full account of anarcho-capitalism, as I simply don't see how you can have an efficient national defense without the government, but I do like most of Rothbard's analysis.

Rothbard is my ideological mentor... and you know, Lysander Spooner was an Anarchist too. I see you have one of his quotes.

And I don't worry about National Defense. There is no need for a "Nation" in the first place. I'm more concerned with personal defense.

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?