Why is there so much hostility towards economic freedom?

[f252863]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

 

[oldfart]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

I'm not sure where you get this stuff from. I suspect it is right wing bloggers setting up straw men. I haven't heard a progressive or leftist economist talk about "exploitation" in decades. I hear it brought up every day to justify crony capitalism. Most conservatives
support free markets in theory and oppose all market solution in practice (Exhibit A Heritage Foundation proposal for universal health insurance; Exhibit B: pollution control through cap and trade).

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

Pretty good description of Ayn Rand/monopolistic capitalism with regulatory capture. Every conservative think tank's wet dream.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices. [

God luck with that in bargaining with the electric company or for a job at Walmart.
In case you haven't noticed, economic power is more concentrated than any time since the 9120s.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

The danger to free markets comes from the Right son, not the Left. Stop drinking the koolaid.

 

[f252863]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

I'm not sure where you get this stuff from. I suspect it is right wing bloggers setting up straw men. I haven't heard a progressive or leftist economist talk about "exploitation" in decades. I hear it brought up every day to justify crony capitalism. Most conservatives
support free markets in theory and oppose all market solution in practice (Exhibit A Heritage Foundation proposal for universal health insurance; Exhibit B: pollution control through cap and trade).

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

Pretty good description of Ayn Rand/monopolistic capitalism with regulatory capture. Every conservative think tank's wet dream.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices. [

God luck with that in bargaining with the electric company or for a job at Walmart.
In case you haven't noticed, economic power is more concentrated than any time since the 9120s.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

The danger to free markets comes from the Right son, not the Left. Stop drinking the koolaid.

1. Exploitation is a word not used by the left? "NPR: How unpaid interns are exploited, fighting back and winning PBS." or "Doug Henwood: Capitalism thrives on class exploitation

The publisher of "Left Business Observer" talks print media, left regroupment and electoral politics"

2. You need to reread Rand, she never advocated crony capitalism. How you could be so far off the mark on this one befuddles me.

3. There is no such thing as "economic power". I think you are confusing that with political power. Definition of "Power" from Webster: "the ability or right to control people or things. : political control of a country or area." The market doesn't control anyone. Are you forced to shop at Walmart or eat at McDonalds?

4. I'll ignore the koolaid comment, ad hominems have no part in a debate.

 

[Sallow]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

You may have a point.

It's high time to get rid of copyrights, patents, licenses, charters, laws and regulations.

What the heck.

Let make it a really free market.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Why is there so much hostility towards" an unregulated market is that the workers will be crushed economically.

 

[Sallow]

"Why is there so much hostility towards" an unregulated market is that the workers will be crushed economically.

These folks should be careful what they ask for..

No regulations and no laws means, essentially no market.

Well..not anything they'd recognize.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi_wZMYY_PM]Irtokte Gun market in Mogadishu, Somalia - YouTube[/ame]

 

[f252863]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

You may have a point.

It's high time to get rid of copyrights, patents, licenses, charters, laws and regulations.

What the heck.

Let make it a really free market.

Either you are willfully misrepresenting what a free is economy or you are struggling with the definition. I'll assume the latter and try to provide some clarification:

Free Market:

"An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses."

This excerpt from Wikipedia is even closer to the discussion at hand:

"The free market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative."

So, we have private property laws, contract law and the rule of law in general, nowhere is there an assertion that a free economy operates without laws.

Where you and I most likely differ is the intervention of the state in our economy. You seem to believe that creating an uneven playing field where nobody is equal under the law is justifiable and necessary. I don't agree with that, it is discriminatory, counter productive and intrinsically corrupt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no such thing as a free market, only a rush to monopoly.

 

[f252863]

Who said "no laws"? Reference my Wikipedia quote below on how a free market operates under contract law, property laws, etc.

Again...

"The right of individuals and organizations to pursue their own interests through voluntary exchange of goods and services under the rule of law."

Is this such a difficult concept to understand?

 

[f252863]

There is no such thing as a free market, only a rush to monopoly.

Monopolies can only exist with government intervention. Name me one free market monopoly.

While we are on the subject of monopolies...what is your objection to a company obtaining a majority share of a market in a free economy?

How would you go about getting a majority share of a market if you were a business? Would you do so by mistreating your customers, offering shoddy products and charging them more than the going rate? If so, you'll fail in short order.

You can only be successful in business if you offer a product or service that the public wants.

 

[f252863]

"Why is there so much hostility towards" an unregulated market is that the workers will be crushed economically.

We had a largely unregulated market in the 19th century yet millions of people came to this country to find work because they could not find it in their home countries. They suffered from famines (name me one famine in the U.S.), very low living standards and often were trapped into poverty.

The standard of living in the U.S.A. rose dramatically for the working class in the 19th century, especially when you compare it to countries that didn't adopt capitalism. How do you square this with workers being "crushed economically"?

 

[Samson]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. ......

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous.

Not sure where you have developed the logic behind your If-then statement, particularly after you make the "as a general tenet" caveat in your opening sentence,

Clearly, there are EXCEPTION's.

We "must accept" that ALL freedoms CAN BE demonstrably dangerous.

This includes economic freedom, which has, and can, lead to exploitation (child labor, environmental pollution, monopolistic economies, etc.). This is not to say that centralised regulation resolves any of these evils: to the contrary, mismanaged regulation can have equally devestating results.

 

[jasonnfree]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

You may have a point.

It's high time to get rid of copyrights, patents, licenses, charters, laws and regulations.

What the heck.

Let make it a really free market.

Wasn't there a case where a pepsi employee couldn't drink coca cola on pepsi property? So much for the free market.

 

[Two Thumbs]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

I'm not sure where you get this stuff from. I suspect it is right wing bloggers setting up straw men. I haven't heard a progressive or leftist economist talk about "exploitation" in decades. I hear it brought up every day to justify crony capitalism. Most conservatives
support free markets in theory and oppose all market solution in practice (Exhibit A Heritage Foundation proposal for universal health insurance; Exhibit B: pollution control through cap and trade).

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

Pretty good description of Ayn Rand/monopolistic capitalism with regulatory capture. Every conservative think tank's wet dream.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices. [

God luck with that in bargaining with the electric company or for a job at Walmart.
In case you haven't noticed, economic power is more concentrated than any time since the 9120s.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

The danger to free markets comes from the Right son, not the Left. Stop drinking the koolaid.

your second sentence is an out and out lie.

Unless you just came out of your cave after decades.

 

[jasonnfree]

There is no such thing as a free market, only a rush to monopoly.

Monopolies can only exist with government intervention. Name me one free market monopoly.

While we are on the subject of monopolies...what is your objection to a company obtaining a majority share of a market in a free economy?

How would you go about getting a majority share of a market if you were a business? Would you do so by mistreating your customers, offering shoddy products and charging them more than the going rate? If so, you'll fail in short order.

You can only be successful in business if you offer a product or service that the public wants.

A company can get big enough to buy out all the other companies. Where can you buy a computer that doesn't have microsoft loaded on it? Clear channel has most of the radio market from what I can tell and they will switch to sports in some areas and the complainers can go pound sand.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"Why is there so much hostility towards" an unregulated market is that the workers will be crushed economically.

He didn't say 'unregulated'

 

[f252863]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. ......

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous.

Not sure where you have developed the logic behind your If-then statement, particularly after you make the "as a general tenet" caveat in your opening sentence,

Clearly, there are EXCEPTION's.

We "must accept" that ALL freedoms CAN BE demonstrably dangerous.

This includes economic freedom, which has, and can, lead to exploitation (child labor, environmental pollution, monopolistic economies, etc.). This is not to say that centralised regulation resolves any of these evils: to the contrary, mismanaged regulation can have equally devestating results.

Similarly, I cannot follow the logic behind your assertions. I'll focus on one of them to avoid getting bogged down into endless tangents.

Maybe you can educate me on the history of child labor because I seem to have it all backwards here. This is my understanding, tell me where I am wrong:

1. Child labor goes back thousands of years, it was not introduced by the industrial revolution or the economic freedoms of the 19th century in the U.S.
2. The main impetus for child labor was survival, that is why people in poor countries have lots of children and put them to work at an early age.
3. The wealth created by capitalism led to the development of a middle class that no longer had to depend on children for survival. This is happening in China right now.
4. If you passed a regulation against child labor in an impoverished country you will condemn many to starvation and destitution.
5. Child labor laws were not passed until 1938, yet the participation rate of children in the labor force was declining rapidly well before that. By 1930 only about 6% of children aged 10 to 15 were employed, and 75% of them were in agriculture (family farms) not industrial concerns. How do you reconcile this with the idea that unregulated capitalism leads to an increase in child labor?

 

[f252863]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

You may have a point.

It's high time to get rid of copyrights, patents, licenses, charters, laws and regulations.

What the heck.

Let make it a really free market.

Wasn't there a case where a pepsi employee couldn't drink coca cola on pepsi property? So much for the free market.

So I can't smoke pot in your house? So much for the free market.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

And your premise fails because no one is making the argument that ‘economic freedom’ is ‘harmful.’

 

[f252863]

There is no such thing as a free market, only a rush to monopoly.

Monopolies can only exist with government intervention. Name me one free market monopoly.

While we are on the subject of monopolies...what is your objection to a company obtaining a majority share of a market in a free economy?

How would you go about getting a majority share of a market if you were a business? Would you do so by mistreating your customers, offering shoddy products and charging them more than the going rate? If so, you'll fail in short order.

You can only be successful in business if you offer a product or service that the public wants.

A company can get big enough to buy out all the other companies. Where can you buy a computer that doesn't have microsoft loaded on it? Clear channel has most of the radio market from what I can tell and they will switch to sports in some areas and the complainers can go pound sand.

Glad you brought up a concrete example (Microsoft). Who makes the best spreadsheet program in the world?

The industry standard that consumers prefer is Microsoft Excel. Does Microsoft have competition? Sure, (Apple, Google, etc.) but none offer a program as popular as Excel.

My question to you: Why is this a problem? Do you have issues with Google being dominant as a search engine, Photoshop as a photo editor of choice or Amazon as a leading e-commerce site?