B/c small minded people are still allowed to express their opinions. They want corporate monopolies, slavery and lawlessness where there is only the rich and poor.Of course a truly free market isn't a good thing. One has never existed, nor will one ever exist. I'm not even sure why this is up for discussion considering it's impossibility.
I hear Somalia is nice this time of the year. I think you would be quite happy over there.All regulations should be abolished. They've always caused more harm than good. The state murders people and it doesn't stop people from murdering more than agents of the state murder. I don't want paper money in existence and regulations are necessary for paper money to exist in the long term.
Everything the state does is inefficient. The larger and more centralized a state is, the more harmful it is.
I just wish more people would apply the lesson learned from the 18th Amendment to the whole U.S. Federal Constitution.
Nature has a certain order of things and the collective cannot know how to preserve the laws of nature. The state is a revolt against nature.
Monopolies, slavery and lawlessness are symptoms of a perfectly free market? So you're saying we have a perfectly free market right now? Because that's where we're heading. Or are you admitting that the highly regulated and government directed market has us heading the same direction?B/c small minded people are still allowed to express their opinions. They want corporate monopolies, slavery and lawlessness where there is only the rich and poor.
Coming from you, yes you're small minded.Monopolies, slavery and lawlessness are symptoms of a perfectly free market? So you're saying we have a perfectly free market right now? Because that's where we're heading. Or are you admitting that the highly regulated and government directed market has us heading the same direction?
Small minded indeed, you should look in a mirror.
You realize that humans existed before governments, right? Most certainly governments as we know them. (humans being a prerequisite for governments after all) Funny thing is that the first 'governments' were basically strongmen who crushed all opposition to them due to their tremendous power and yes... wealth.Before governments? When was this?
Of course you realize the irony in your post is that government is hoping your strongman will protect you from the other guys strongman.Strongmen are of course one of the the natural results of a lack of government, which is yet another irony of those ranting against government tyranny... as a short route to it is by getting rid of the government.
I would argue the opposite. Things are bad because there is next to no oppositional force to those with wealth (ie no regulation). Wealth is inherently corrupting. Periods of the highest regulation lead to the lowest wealth disparity, and thereby the least need of regulation. Regulation is relaxed, disparity increases, that wealth allows perpetuating abuses and next thing you know you've got a great depression or our current situation.I think my vague use of "government" is causing confusion. What I meant is that monopolies and wealth disparities are created by specific government action, usually the kind that is sold to the masses as consumer protection or wealth redistribution. Surprise, most of those measures are anti-competitive in practice.
My understanding is that a competitive market where everybody starts from the same point results in very little wealth disparity, with the little that does occur being caused by wealth differences between industries as a whole and differing abilities to acquire material wealth amongst people. The gross kind of wealth disparity today isn't just caused by some people being better at making money or their particular industry being bigger than another. It's the result of systematic monetary policy, regulatory policy, and public good schemes which benefit the lobbyists and moneyed interests who control their execution. Control over the economy is never exercised in the more or less fair way imagined by those who advocate it...
The situation we have now is a bit confusing because you are correct in saying that removing all regulations now would likely result in tyranny. This is from the natural monopoly enjoyed by the corporatocracy as a result of their wealth. In other words, the wealth disparity itself creates monopoly power. However, I don't think this wealth disparity would have been able to flourish in the first place if not for anti-competitive government regulation, and I think a full understanding of just what a competitive free market actually is will bear this out.
Private wealth disparity maybe. Those running the government in highly regulated environments seem to do pretty well.Periods of the highest regulation lead to the lowest wealth disparity, and thereby the least need of regulation. Regulation is relaxed, disparity increases, that wealth allows perpetuating abuses and next thing you know you've got a great depression or our current situation.
If it comes down to freedom, or liberty, there is such thing as too much. See Thomas Hobbes and the complete freedom of "nature." Not so good. So the real statement should be, it comes down to the right level of freedom.For me it's a simple question that has nothing to do with the definition of "truly free markets."
Do I plan for myself, or do I let someone else make my decisions for me? Do you allow people to buy what they want, or not?
It comes down to freedom.
I would argue that's fallout from those with private wealth coercing abandonment of regulation, including regulation on government which would otherwise prevent such things.Private wealth disparity maybe. Those running the government in highly regulated environments seem to do pretty well.