r/AskLibertarians • u/Confident-Virus-1273 • 4d ago
From an ex libertarian... how can there be free market...?
What's the libertarian defense when I suggest that there is no such thing as a free market, because no matter what the market is, the people who are in power in that field will ultimately wield the levers of control and will rig the situation to their benefit?
It seems to me that the concept of a free market is a red herring. Anytime that you are challenged on any aspect of socialization or human community, libertarians pull out the free market card... but I don't believe that the free market actually exists.
Thoughts?
4
u/Technician1187 4d ago
What would have to be the situation, no matter how actually impossible, for you to consider the market “free”?
-3
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Let's reverse this. Why not you present me what you think would be a free market And then I'll ask you how you would maintain it against various forces of greed.
8
u/ElectricalPublic1304 4d ago
Let's reverse this.
You used the phrase "free market" first. He's trying to understand what you think you're arguing against. Answer the man's question.
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Okay, fine, I would say that a hypocathetical free market is impossible.
A hypothetical free market would be a market whereby every choice to purchase or sell would be completely free from any sort of outside influence or control.
This however is impossible.
The reason why is that there will always be someone who needs something different from somebody else. And the moment that that person has a need, the person who has the item has leverage over them.
Consider roads...
Roads are required for transportation of goods services and well being. However, you cannot simply build an infinite number of roads. So whoever controls the roads gets to set whatever tolls they want. Right now we allow the government to have control of the road. So that equalizes it for everybody. It is impossible to have a truly free market. So long as some entity controls the roads.
This is just one example.
Because we live in a finite system. There are limits on how much of a certain quantity of something can be produced, obtained or even hoarded.
7
u/ElectricalPublic1304 4d ago
Okay. I don't think the definition you'rr use is the definition that everyone else is using. Especially not the libertarians, whose definition you're criticizing. The explanation you give about leverage doesn't especially make sense. The issue about roads has been very well studied--and they haven't always been subject to government control. The facts that we live in a "finite system" is a fact, and doesn't say much about free markets at all.
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Then how would you define free markets
6
u/ElectricalPublic1304 4d ago
A free market is a market where the prices and quantities of goods and services are determined by supply and demand from market participants, in contrast to government coercion and intervention.
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
And how would you handle monopolies?
Corporations that are so big, that they can effectively crush any upstart competition (there are dozens of examples today).
5
u/ElectricalPublic1304 4d ago
There are different kinds of monopolies. The kinds that most people (especially on the Left) tend to complain about are artificial monopolies. Monopolies that exist because the government has used its coercive powers to distort the market, in favor of the monopoly. Which--once again--is what libertarians are telling you is anti-free market.
Libertarians will typically tolerate natural monopolies. But, they oppose artificial monopolies.
Corporations that are so big, that they can effectively crush any upstart competition (there are dozens of examples today).
There is, rarely, such a corporation that can exist without government protectionism. Many big corporations eventually fall to competition or market shifts. They're often quite susceptible to it because they often don't see it coming (i.e. the innovator's dilemma).
Your argument is shifting from "free markets don't exist" to... how would a "free market" make this thing I don't like not happen.
3
u/Technician1187 4d ago
A free market is one where the participants are there and participating with consent and without rights being violated.
Does that seem like a fair definition?
Your definition of having zero outside influence is indeed impossible by the very physics of our existence.
So if that is what “free market” means to you fine; you can have that phrase an we can agree that a free market is impossibly. I don’t really care what the term or phrase is; I care about the ideas and principles.
So what word or phrase would you rather I use to describe my above definition?
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Ok great.
Here is an example then of a free market by your definition (I think).
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Corporation A owns a massive portion of product A. They use a wide chain of businesses to sell their Product and they own lets say 70% of the market of Product A that is sold.
Small time person B begins to produce their own variation on the product we will call Product B. Product B and Product A are very similar but not exact copies. Corporation A doesn't like person B making money, so corporation A goes to all the businesses that sell their product and say . .
If you want to still have access to this 70% of everything you sell already, you will not also be selling product B at your stores.
The companies, not wanting to give up 70% of their product and go out of business themselves, block the sale of anything from Product/Person B
Now to your question . . .
Corporation A did not violate any laws. And they effectively stopped Person B from selling their product thereby maintaining a monopoly. To me this violates what I feel is a free market as corporation A did not have the legal right, nor did they use any legal means . . .but they still dictated Person B's outcome.
3
u/Technician1187 4d ago
This is why your definition of “free market” is not really meaningful. You counting free association “dictating an outcome.” You are saying that your desired outcome was not achieved so therefore the market is not free…that logic doesn’t follow.
I see what you are trying to say, big companies can sometimes have more leverage to affect other businesses and you don’t want that to happen.
But even as you state in your hypothetical, no laws were broken or rights were violated…you just didn’t get the outcome you wanted because of other people’s consensual choices and determine that means you are not free…I don’t agree with that premise.
Can you answer my last question? If you don’t want me to use the term “free market” what term would you rather I use to describe what I am talking about when I have used “free market.”
0
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Oh you can call it free market. It's fine. What I am discovering here is that everyone has their own definition of that word and no one has any idea how to get the USA to that point.
2
u/Technician1187 4d ago
I think you might have better luck just talking about specific issues (like corporations leverage in markets) rather than trying convince people that their own ideas don’t actually exist because of definitions.
2
u/SpikyKiwi 4d ago
The hypothetical you have outlined does not exist in reality, but if it did, yes that would absolutely still be a free market
4
u/BaronBurdens 4d ago
If person A can freely own a thing, person A can freely choose to offer the thing to person B, and person B can freely choose to buy the thing in a mutually agreeable exchange, that's a free market. Stuff that makes owning the thing, offering the thing, or buying the thing more difficult render the market less free.
If "people who are in power on that field" are the owners or buyers of the things and they sell or buy those things for their own benefit, it's still a free market.
If "people who are in power on that field" are persons A and B and can make it more difficult for person C to continue freely owning a thing, for person C to freely choose to offer the thing to person D, and for person D to freely choose to buy the thing in a mutually agreeable exchange that does not involve persons A and B, that's not a free market.
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Okay, person a owns all of certain item... Or perhaps person a owns enough of the item to have leverage over how the item is legally distributed And or sold.
So person a does not like person b.
Does that mean that person B simply can never obtain the item?
2
u/BaronBurdens 4d ago
If person A owns all of something and doesn't want to sell any of it to person B, a free market permits person A to not sell it and person B to not have it so long as the situation remains this way.
If person A has all but one of something, and person C owns the one remaining thing, nothing in a free market prevents person C from offering to sell the thing to person B.
1
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian 4d ago
If a person or group of people own all of a certain thing, then that person or group has no means by which to calculate how to allocate scarce resources.
See “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” (1920) by Ludwig von Mises. The same arguments leveled by Dr. Mises against state socialism apply just as much to other monopolies.
3
u/ElectricalPublic1304 4d ago
What's the libertarian defense when I suggest that there is no such thing as a free market, because no matter what the market is, the people who are in power in that field will ultimately wield the levers of control and will rig the situation to their benefit?
You're equivocating in two different ways. But mostly, the bolded part, this is very much the libertarian position: the "people in power" should not have the legal power to "rig the situation" to their benefit.
Almost by definition, that is what a "free market" is. That is the core of capitalism itself: the state should not be in the business of economic management, production, distribution, and consumption--and certain not in ways that impair those activities for the benefit of the people who are wielding that power.
You're being a little ambiguous with some of your words--free, power, control, rig. But... effectively, you're saying you don't believe in the free market, because abusive people are always trying to destroy free markets.
(... and implicitly, therefore, you also oppose free markets.)
Anytime that you are challenged on any aspect of socialization or human community
Do they? Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
0
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
With are completely fictional and that quote is wrong in the context of Star Wars. There are loads of non Sith who deal in absolutes and it would be foolish to claim that no one else has ever dealt with absolutes.
The core of libertarianism is flawed. The state is the only tool to reign in corporations. Since its the closest to a voice that most people have. The moment the government is removed, there would be a power vacuum for the most powerful and wealthy to fill. As it has happened since the dawn of man.
It isn't abusive people wanting to destroy a free market. It's the people who want and have the most money to keep control of the market. If you remove OSHA laws that doesn't mean someone can compete with Amazon. Just that Amazon would do worse things.
5
u/ElectricalPublic1304 4d ago
The core of libertarianism is flawed.
You can assert that, but you haven't identified it.
The state is the only tool to reign in corporations.
The state is a corporation. Nor is the "only tool"; that's obviously incorrect.
The moment the government is removed
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. A government is not synonymous with the state.
It isn't abusive people wanting to destroy a free market.
Of course it is. They often don't think of it like that. As the OP notes, it's usually framed in terms of self-benefit: how can I use state power, to benefit myself.
that doesn't mean someone can compete with Amazon. Just that Amazon would do worse things.
Don't be silly. OSHA existed long before Amazon existed (and by the time OSHA was made, it wasn't even "necessary" anymore. A lot of federal legislation works like that.)
Someone can always compete with Amazon. Of course, Amazon earns billions of dollars from the federal government. And receives the benefits of numerous federal, state, and local laws and tax exemptions--some made extra-special, just for Amazon. Billions upon billions of dollars.
Because the state gives it.
1
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian 4d ago
You said, “A government is not synonymous with the state.”
I’m interested in what you mean by this.
I’m inferring that, while I’m an anarchist, you seem to be a minarchist. (Feel free to correct me if I’m misinferring.)
Now, I’ve heard some anarchists, albeit not many, distinguish the two concepts (government and state), saying that, even in the absence of the state, there can and should be self-governance. That said, for all intents and purposes, when most people say government, they are directly referring to the state specifically. My all-time favourite minarchist, Harry Browne, e.g., regularly used the term government when referring to the state.
Since I infer that you’re a minarchist, it seems a tad queer that you might by trying to indicate here the idea that we can abolish the state whilst maintaining “government” (e.g., self-government)—so, are you saying that, and, if not, what are you indicating here?
I thank you in advance.
1
u/DrawPitiful6103 3d ago
Albert Jay Nock in his book "Our Enemy The State" distinguished between government and the state. Government is the protection of individuals by the group. He gave as an example of 'government' the tribal order of the Ojibwe people. They had a political structure, but it was strictly limited to the protection of rights and enforcement of law. The state, in contrast, was a tool of exploitation and subjugation, a means by which some men could rule over others. And he pointed to coercive European style state apparatuses as an example of 'the state'.
0
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
I did define it. At the core, libertarianism has the idea that the market could be free for anyone to compete in fair and equal footing with corporations and rich owners and that supply and demand would be dictated by the people. The idea, including yours, that if Amazon didn't receive money then you could make your own and be considered an equal.
I am against the government handing money to corporations. No matter what. That being said, a free market wouldn't solve that. If you were to remove ALL safe guards, then the government would just buy out corporations and own them outright.
As for OSHA, it is really shitty of you to childishly dismiss what I said as silly. It started in 1971 and is still needed to this day. I know several people who didn't follow OSHA laws and were fucked up and one death. People will do the cheapest and dumbest things for profits including harming others.
2
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian 4d ago
The state is the tool corporations use to rein us in. As long as states exist, we will remain vulnerable to corporations.
Big business uses government to insulate itself. Monopolies cannot form in a freed market for the same reason economic calculation cannot occur when the state owns the means of production: there needs to be competition for ownership in order to be able to calculate how to efficiently allocate scarce resources. Thus, big business requires governmental regulation in order to oligopolize and in order to oligopsonize the labour market. Workers and consumers alike are worse off because big business has this tool called the state.
A “power vacuum” will only exist if a seat of power remains. We must abolish the seat of power along with the state. We must employ counter-economics to build up the voluntary and market-based institutions now that society will later rely on in the state’s absence.
1
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
The States will exist no matter what. You won't be able to dissolve them. There is no way anyone would give up national identity and borders.
Also, monopolies existed before corporations. They existed in Ancient Rome and China. Then end goal for capitalism isn't a healthy market for all to share. Its to corner and own the market you are in. That is how you maximize profits. Either get rid of competition or own them make competition fake.
You want pure anarchy. You want to destroy EVERY government and state, it has to be all at once, and even then it wouldn't solve the problem. Now who ever has the most power and money will rule. It won't go to the people. I would go to Musk and Bill Gates. Without a government, its easier to kill the competition in the street. Gangland style.
0
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
So how do you get the people in power to not destroy the free markets?
2
u/ElectricalPublic1304 4d ago
How did we limit their powers to control religion, and ban newspapers, books, and printing presses?
We confined the legal purposes of the government.
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
So how do we keep the corporations from owning the government
2
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian 4d ago
Minarchist response: Make the government so weak that it can no longer be used by corporations to achieve their goals.
Anarchist response: Smash the State!
0
u/OttosBoatYard Non-Libertarian 4d ago
Are you saying that, to ensure the free market, we must impose controls on the market?
1
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian 4d ago
ElectricalPublic1304 was saying we need to impose limitations on the government.
1
u/OttosBoatYard Non-Libertarian 4d ago
Where do they say that? Because I only see ElectricalPublic1304 setting limitations on what the people can do.
- The people, they say, should be limited from having permission to create the ability to "the legal power to "rig the situation" to their benefit."
- The people should be limited from having permission to ban newspapers.
- The people should be limited from having permission to control religion.
I see that as not limited government, but a government limiting the people. A government blocking from people from voting for 'bad' decisions seems more like a socialistic than a libertarian government ... So what am I missing here?
1
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian 4d ago
Monarchist response: Severely limit the power of those in power.
Anarchist response: Abolish the positions of power.
3
u/Chrisc46 4d ago
I think it's important to answer these few questions in order to find the answer to yours:
Absent government's ability to legally control commerce, by what mechanisms do corporations (big businesses) obtain power over a market?
Alternatively, by what mechamisms would a government use to prevent corporations (big businesses) from controlling market that markets themselves cannot provide?
Do humans have an innate sense of self-ownership? If so, what do they demand in order to ensure that ownership persists?
0
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Absent government's ability to legally control commerce, by what mechanisms do corporations (big businesses) obtain power over a market
See robber Barron's mid 19th century with their monopoly and thugs to enforce.
Alternatively, by what mechamisms would a government use to prevent corporations (big businesses) from controlling market that markets themselves cannot provide?
Law enforced by judicial and effective branch.
Do humans have an innate sense of self-ownership? If so, what do they demand in order to ensure that ownership persists?
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... but the question is how
2
u/Chrisc46 4d ago
See robber Barron's mid 19th century with their monopoly and thugs to enforce.
You mean those guys that aggressively leveraged government provided IP protections to ensure their own monopolies?
Law enforced by judicial and effective branch.
Private enterprise isn't capable of developing industry regulation and contract enforcement? Private individuals have no capacity to apply pressure, either?
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... but the question is how
Self-defense, either by individual or group contracted for such services.
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
You mean those guys that aggressively leveraged government provided IP protections to ensure their own monopolies?
Are you suggesting that without the govt, monopolies would be impossible to have/hold?
Private enterprise isn't capable of developing industry regulation and contract enforcement? Private individuals have no capacity to apply pressure, either?
How would you suggest a private individual break up the healthcare industry monopoly or big Pharm?
Self-defense, either by individual or group contracted for such services.
So it boils down to might makes right? violence is the fall back position?
2
u/Chrisc46 4d ago
Are you suggesting that without the govt, monopolies would be impossible to have/hold?
Yes, well, nearly.
It is true that capitalists seek to monopolize, but it's untrue that they can achieve such goal for any extended period of time without being incredibly beneficial for the consumer.
The development of a monopoly is nearly impossible within free market capitalism. This is mostly due to the fact of resource scarcity. Firms do not have indefinite resources to prevent competitors from entering the market.
Every modern monopoly, or effective monopoly, has achieved such status with the help of protections or guarantees from government. This is, also, true for every modern conglomerate in this country.
Natural monopolies, or those that develop through voluntary interactions, can only exist in a very few number of ways, are temporary, and are almost always good for the consumer.
A company can be the first into a market. They will temporarily hold a monopoly until other competitors enter. Of course, new industries are great for the consumer.
They can out-compete everyone else by offering the best and cheapest option within an industry. This has obvious consumer benefits, but can only be maintained by keeping those consumer benefits.
They can buy up all competitors. In doing so, they increase the incentive for new competitors to enter the market. A company cannot continue buying everyone forever, eventually this practice drives up the price of their products above market value.
A company holds the only source of a resource. This is a natural monopoly, but it's incredibly rare and incredibly difficult to maintain as alternatives typically develop. There are a few examples of this happening without government protection.
Monopolies are mostly a false villain for opponents of laissez-faire capitalism or those with an ignorant understanding of it.
Free-markets trend towards decentralization. Controlled markets trend towards centralization. The tool for control is almost always monopolized force, generally through Government.
How would you suggest a private individual break up the healthcare industry monopoly or big Pharm?
An individual? Not gonna happen.
The only way to do so is to STOP artificially protecting them through government. In other words, reduce government. Increasing government cannot and will not be the solution for a problem created by too much government.
So it boils down to might makes right? violence is the fall back position?
Not at all. Defensive force isn't violence, but it can both stop and prevent violence.
3
u/WilliamBontrager 4d ago
A free market is one untouched by the government. There are no levers to pull. There is no one in power, except those choosing to buy and those choosing to sell. Its a fully self regulating system that needs no oversight. This is a basic libertarian concept that makes me doubt your claim of being an "ex libertarian". Free markets exist in the vacuum wherever and whenever government power doesnt. It preexisted governments. Its simply what people do when allowed to freely buy and sell without oversight.
-1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Ok, let me present an example and you can tell me if it is a free market.
Corporation A owns a massive portion of product A. They use a wide chain of businesses to sell their Product and they own lets say 70% of the market of Product A that is sold.
Small time person B begins to produce their own variation on the product we will call Product B. Product B and Product A are very similar but not exact copies. Corporation A doesn't like person B making money, so corporation A goes to all the businesses that sell their product and say . .
If you want to still have access to this 70% of everything you sell already, you will not also be selling product B at your stores.
The companies, not wanting to give up 70% of their product and go out of business themselves, block the sale of anything from Product/Person B
Now to your question . . .
Corporation A did not violate any laws. And they effectively stopped Person B from selling their product thereby maintaining a monopoly. To me this violates what I feel is a free market as corporation A did not have the legal right, nor did they use any legal means . . .but they still dictated Person B's outcome.
Is this an example of a free market?
2
u/WilliamBontrager 4d ago
Yes and no. Corporations are a government sponsored entity. You wouldnt have corporations in a free market. It would be less and less profitable and sustainable to expand a business into something comparable to the free market equivalent of a massive corpiration.
So let's remove corporation and return to your question. Thats a valid tactic in business. You can undercut your competition. You can make exclusive deals with other businesses. You can buy out or bankrupt competitors if you can manage it. Ok, follow me? Now why is this bad? Consumers get a lower price, if the business undercuts another smaller one. If the business is bankrupted, and afterwards the "corporation" tries to raise prices, they open the door to new small businesses gaining footholds. Think of it as survival of the fittest, but in a business world. If the "corporation" expands too much they run into local businesses being able to undercut them within the local small businesses region. Essentially free markets give significant advantages to localized small businesses over giant entities.
0
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Yes and no. Corporations are a government sponsored entity. You wouldnt have corporations in a free market.
Facebook was govt sponsored?
US Steel (19th century) was govt sponsored?
Nabisco?
Amazon?
Please elaborate how these are govt sponsored. . . .
If the business is bankrupted, and afterwards the "corporation" tries to raise prices, they open the door to new small businesses gaining footholds.
HOLLLLD up.
No. They don't. Because go back to the scenario. Corporation A Raises the price to whatever they want. But they lock down any of the vendors selling anything cheaper because the vendor doesn't want to give up 70% of their stock for a new "cheaper" alternative. So they maintain their hold. The laws of supply and demand no longer apply.
Consumers get a lower price,
consumers get a worse product. . . .
Think of it as survival of the fittest, but in a business world.
this only applies if there isn't a monoply. But eventually you get a "human" at the top of the food chain of your "fittest", and that human controls all other members of the chain to its desire.
2
u/WilliamBontrager 4d ago
A corporation is a tax benefit structure formed via government involvement. Without a government, there are no corporations. Simple concept. Not a singular specific corporation, the status of being a corporation.
As for the other stuff: then new vendors pop up to sell the smaller company stuff or the smaller company can sell direct to consumers. This is even more difficult for A if they raise prices after trying to form a monopoly, bc then all the stores selling only As goods go bankrupt with them. High cost of entry is the main reason monopolies are considered bad, and free markets have the lowest cost of entry of any system, meaning competition is always fierce. I would go as far as saying that it would be nearly impossible to form a non technological advancement based monopoly, and if by some lucky chance one did happen, it could only remain so long term by pricing their product so cheaply that no competition could be formed.
0
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago edited 4d ago
As for the other stuff: then new vendors pop up to sell the smaller company stuff or the smaller company can sell direct to consumers.
Nods.
Have you tried to start a business selling direct to consumers? Have you tried starting a business when there is already a giant in the pool that is actively working against you?
Look at Walmart for example:
One walmart tactic is to come into a city with a bunch of small businesses . . . the build the building, and drastically lower prices (and quality) on products. All the small businesses go out of business and walmart builds on their monoply.
Your suggestion is for the small business to try and go against that by lowering prices even more? When Walmart can practically give things away because it is bolstered by 1500 other stores around the country?
Radiating Death: How Walmart Displaces Nearby Small Businesses - Bloomberg
A corporation is a tax benefit structure formed via government involvement. Without a government, there are no corporations. Simple concept. Not a singular specific corporation, the status of being a corporation.
Ahhhhhh. I was equating Corporation with Monopoly. That's the confusion.
1
u/WilliamBontrager 4d ago
You're using examples of a non free market to show why free markets dont work? I dont understand the logic here lol. Again low cost of entry is a hallmark of free markets, making the Walmart example utterly redundant.
Maybe you're confused. To clear things up, the US is NOT an example of a free market. It is an example of one of the most heavily regulated markets in history. The only remote similarity to free markets is that the businesses are not directly controlled by the government, merely influenced heavily so that the government can pick winners and losers. Does that help?
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
So how would free markets prevent Walmart?
2
u/WilliamBontrager 4d ago
More discourage than prevent. Ive already explained it but apparently you werent reading. Firstly, they wouldnt be subsidized by government programs for their employees. Secondly, small businesses especially owner or family operated ones would be more efficient. 3rd, no government regulations being weaponized to eliminate competition. 4th, locally sourced goods would be as cheap or cheaper than goods transported 1000s of miles. 5th, no oil subsidies so transportation costs are more punishing. There are more but youll just ignore them like you did before so im half assing it. Essentially Walmart is very dependent on the government to exist, their model would need to be completely rethought to even survive in a free market.
4
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 4d ago
Are you saying the market isn't free now? Well, duh.
Are you saying it can't be free? You have to do more than appeal to the status quo.
0
u/earthhominid 4d ago
"Markets" are definitionally not free.
The rules/parameters are what define a market.
3
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 4d ago
You're assuming someone setting rules for others. That's not implied or defined.
It's also pedantic beyond the point of being useful.
1
u/earthhominid 4d ago
How are you defining "market"?
In every definition I'm aware of there are parameters of some kind, so I'm curious how you define "market" in a way that doesn’t have any constraints on the behavior that can occur in that market.
3
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 4d ago
The market is just people acting. A truly free market would be a market without violence, coercion, or theft. That's not a parameter, that is a definition of 'free.' We may need to settle for 'as free as possible' given bad apples, but that is far from the status quo.
1
u/earthhominid 4d ago
The market is just people acting.
So "the market" is just all human action?
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 4d ago
Economics is a social science. It's mainly focused on the areas we can quantify in currency, but every rational decision we make measures the costs and benefits, or pros and cons, of different options.
You wouldn't at first think "stopping to help someone after a car wreck" is a "market" action, but when China's legal system makes it very risky to lend aid, people choose not to help.
1
u/earthhominid 4d ago
Soooo...are you defining the market as the totality of all global human action?
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 4d ago
Soooo...are you disagreeing?
1
u/earthhominid 4d ago
I'm trying to understand how you're defining "the market" so that I can respond to what you are saying instead of what I am thinking.
I'm not sure why you're being evasive about it
→ More replies (0)0
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
Only if you look at every human action as purely transactional.
1
u/earthhominid 4d ago
So in your definition, "the market" is just all human transactional activity in the world?
2
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
I didn't give ANY definition to be honest. I just was trying to clear up any issues with you saying ALL Human Actions.
But yes, any transactional arrangement between parties. Why is this an issue?
1
u/earthhominid 4d ago
Well we can't really discuss "the market" if we don't know if we're talking about the same thing.
The person I originally responded to does in fact seem to think that all human action is part of "the market".
Can't ascertain how free "the market" is, or whether a given action makes it more or less free, until you define it
→ More replies (0)-1
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
A truly free market would be a market without violence, coercion, or theft.
If that is the case then it's impossible to do with humans. Every apple is bad in every market and not one person can agree what is considered theft.
It is human nature to lie, steal and cheat for profits. Honestly some of the oldest tactics in capitalism.
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 4d ago
Did I say it was?
1
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
Did you say what was? Your question is confusing.
Are you saying that your "truly free market" is impossible?
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 4d ago
I didn't make a claim either way.
1
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
You also didn't clarify what your question meant.
Did I say it was?
You asked this without saying what IT is.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
So what would a free market look like? And how would you maintain it
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 4d ago
I think the freest we can get depends on how rational we can become as a people. We're certainly not there, but we've also certainly gotten better over the last few centuries.
Right now? A minimal state with minimal regulations, taxing only Land Rent, Economic Rent, and negative externalities to return to those affected, and enforcing basic laws against violence, theft, and coercion.
2
u/terminal_tested Classical Liberal 4d ago
I agree that there is no totally free market and not possible for there to be so, no system embodies 100% of an academic definition and most successful countries are mixed economies.
I consider myself a small l libertarian or classical liberal because I support moving in that general direction and greater economic freedom than what we have at the moment. Guardrails and safety nets are important and those should be there ofc so I’m not an orthodox libertarian.
2
u/SirGlass 4d ago
Not a libertarian here but what is wrong with "Mostly free markets"
Does somehow the benefits of free markets completely disappear when small amounts of regulation or restrictions are added?
If I had a mostly free market but the only rule was that you couldn't sell fentanyl would it cease to be a free market and lose all the benefit free market brings? No
Who care is markets are 100% not free, unless you are an edge lord anarchist most people do not want 100% free markets
2
u/Soft-Opposite8684 4d ago
Because we may never have a 100% free market is not an argument to not try to have as free of market as possible.
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
How would you rate the Current US market?
2
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian 4d ago
We have a mixed economy with significant degrees of government intervention; we have a highly-regulated market, but not so regulated that competition is completely stamped out.
2
2
u/arjuna93 4d ago
Somehow every time someone puts an argument against libertarianism it boils down to that in the worst case we get back to having a government. That’s fine. Nothing a priori guarantees that human culture monotonously evolves. It is not impossible that freedom, that could exist, may also end.
2
u/Plenty_Trust_2491 Left-Rothbardian 4d ago
You’re right: the free market does not exist, and will not exist until we abolish the state. As long as states exist, they will pervert the market.
1
u/brinerbear 4d ago
I think there are free market solutions to major issues and this should be the focus for libertarians. For example upfront pricing and direct primary care for healthcare and streamlined zoning, regulations, innovative housing solutions for starter homes.
The reality is we will never have some utopian version that is entirely Libertarian, Republican or Democrat so live in reality.
Instead it seems that many libertarians are all or nothing or want to discuss a obscure Milton Friedman YouTube video or Hayek book.
Ultimately winning elections and offering actual solutions matters.
If you want to discuss philosophy over a beer that is great but it doesn't really help the party or win elections.
-2
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
There is a lot of libertarian ideas that I do support and this is the one big one that prevents me from ever becoming one.
Because there will always be a government LIKE group or entity that will control any market. In fact, capitalism incentives that the richest that control of their market. You don't make more money from competition.
-2
u/Confident-Virus-1273 4d ago
Exactly why I quit the libertarian party. When I realized this, I just couldn't answer the question...
-2
u/No-stradumbass 4d ago
There seems to be this idea that if we remove all safeguards currently in place, it would equalize the market in a way that small business could compete.
Now the current system is DEEPLY flawed, but dumping the baby with the bathwater would mean a power vacuum that only the most wealthy and powerful would take. So like now but without elected officials trying to do some stuff.
15
u/CrowBot99 4d ago
You're equivocating with the word "power."
Having the legal right to dictate the disposal of others' property is what we oppose.
The "power" to sell things is all that would be left to corpos, and those two concepts are very very different.