"The freer the market, the freer the people"

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Ritter, Jan 8, 2017.

?

Free market=free people?

  1. Yes

    6 vote(s)
    40.0%
  2. No

    3 vote(s)
    20.0%
  3. Some regulations are needed

    6 vote(s)
    40.0%
  1. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Alright, now let's find out who is American and who is a low-down red. :p

    What is your view on the market? Should it be regulated to protect the people or is it rather be deregulated to protect the people?

    As a zealous Anarcho-Capitalist, I worship the notion of "the freer the market, the freer the people" as it is obvious that a completely deregulated market means more freedom for the individual.

    What is your take?
     
  2. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    With the passing of every year we have a market AND a people who are less and less free all the time. Government butts its ugly, unwanted head into EVERYTHING now, and nearly all the time it is in complete violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States!

    Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)


    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    What about a "free market"? HA! The Federal Reserve System (which you won't find anywhere in the Constitution) took complete, real control of what used to be our free-market Capitalism in August 2007 and it has never given that control back. It never will!

    [​IMG]. "Give these schlubs their economy back?! Why in hell would we ever want to do THAT?!" :omg:


     
  3. Hard-Driver

    Hard-Driver Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    8,546
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Look at the sweatshops and child labor of the industrial revolution. I guess that is utopia to conservatives.

    The best games have rules... Getting ride of the rules would not make the NFL better. Letting corporations kill their workers and pollute does not make the world a better place.
     
  4. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Sweatshop" is a marxistoid smear term derriving from the insane delusion of "exploitation" and "evil bourgeoisie". In reality it has very little truth to it. We never see the Indian single mother complain about her job in the factory, right? Neither do we ever hear the El Salvadorian boy complain about his. It is always some self-proclaimed gutmensch with a phD who sits in his lofty office at some fancy university who points his finger or some moronic Western leftist who goes outside to protest the "sweatshops".

    "Sweatshops" lure people off tne streets, it helps them them not having to become prostitutes or criminals and it helps them from breaking their backs at the farm. :)

    Another argument founded on marxist garbage theories. People like you always seem to forget that it is the consumer who is the protagknist of the market; if there is no demand for a product the producer behind it will die. A factory that kills its workets would not only lose efficiency (dying workefs=lower production), but also would they lose reputation and thus also lose customers. :thumbsup:

    The pollution myth is yet another example of socialist bollox. IF infact pollution is a problem, the only thing that can save the planet is free-market-capitalism. New energy sources and new research is always the products of capitalism. :D
     
  5. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    PS. The example of "ridding rules of NFL would not make it better" is slanderously misleading. The market has its rules too and the point of a free market is not ridding the rules (demand+supply, property rights and open competition), but rather ridding the regulations and restrictions to make room for the rules.

    In a game everyone competes on the same conditions, but when a external third part comes in and points their finger, we have a problem. To exemplify we can, once again, take your NFL-example, but instead we use it in a more fair comparison. Would you like it if, all of a sudden, FIFA took over the rules of the NFL; forbidding tackles, introducing red and yellow cards and restricting and "soccerifying" the game in various other ways "to make it more safe". How would you and every other NFL-consumer feel? How would the teams, the league and players feel? Would you say this would ruin the game?
     
  6. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any policy taken to extreme is almost always harmful, often to the extremist idiots who promote them in the first place. The ultimate unregulated free market is “I’m bigger than you so I’m taking all your stuff”. The other extreme is obviously no better. Clearly some kind of middle ground is the only viable option, which is why that is how every major society in the modern era has operated in that manner. The only questions (not that they’re small) is on the detail of what level of regulation and how best to implement them. I’m not convinced you’re in a mind set to properly engage in that kind of discussion though.
     
  7. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please elaborate on this.

    Nah, most modern day, rich societies started off with an extremely free market. Then the state stepped in and took control over businesses and stole the honour of their accomplishments. In fact, history shows that deregulatory steps always creates more freedom and happiness. There are no exceptions to this rule.

    Wowowowowow! We have a tough guy here.i:boxing:
     
  8. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is there to elaborate on? Policies taken to any extreme aren’t good and you’re sold yourself as an extremist here (though I believe you’re exaggerating that).

    How far back are you going exactly? I don’t think we have to get far beyond self-sufficient barter economies before some form of authority comes in and applies a level of control and regulation (for good or bad).

    I’ve no objection to deregulation to a point. I’m saying that the step from “a little regulation” to “literally no regulation” is an entirely different prospect that would pose all sorts of problems.
     
  9. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Elaborate on why a free market would evolve in "I am bigger than you"-mentality, hampering the smaller companies from succeeding on the market. I have the right to know your reasoning if we are to debate this.

    And no. I am not exaggerating at all. I believe in a completely free market being in the best interest of us all.

    Depends on what country we are taking about. In late 1700 and early 1800, Sweden was fairly poor. Then a liberal party got into power, the market was liberalised and Sweden's economy slowly started to griw. Eventually Sweden became one of the richest countries in the world. :)

    What kind of problems?
     
  10. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasn’t talking about smaller companies, I was talking about smaller people. With literally zero regulation, what’s to stop someone bigger than you coming in to your shop and just taking what they want? (remember this is in the context of your claim to be an “Anarcho-Capitalist”, so don’t go bringing the police or courts in to it).

    Yet Sweden still has regulation and government controls on its markets. All this example does is demonstrate that the extreme you’re calling for isn’t necessary for an economy to thrive. Again, arguing for lighter regulation is perfectly reasonable. Arguing for zero regulation is irrational. It’s like saying if you ate a little less you’ll be healthier so why not eat nothing!
     
  11. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That breaks the NAP and is not allowed. But IF it was to happen I guess the answer is my rifle. :)

    Nonetheless, we are not discussing Anarcho-capitalism per se here, but rather are we discussing free markets. Discussions about the potential problems with Libertarianism, the NAP and other concepts do not belong here.

    The point is that Sweden built its wealth on almost no regulations whatsoever. The regulations came later, when Sweden was already rich, in the 1920's when the Social Dems "monopolised" government power. It is pretty much consistent tnroughout history that deregulation is great, the most recent example being China.
     
  12. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You probably shouldn't have brought it up then :) . It all kind of ties together if you're proposing a fundamentally different way of running things. How a system of fewer (or no) regulations works will depend in part on the wider legal and governmental structures around it after all.

    Yes, they had less but still some regulation (and certainly high authorities overseeing the whole thing and more than willing to intervene if they desired). As I said, you're making (the opening of) a perfectly good argument for less regulation. You've yet to make one for zero regulation though.
     
  13. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obviously there should be regulations forbidding theft, vandalisation and murder. But apart from that, no. No need to tell how big a loaf of bread should be or what textiles should be used in production of table cloths.
     
  14. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right on the button, HD. Right on the button!

    I'm sure that people like Ritter and Poly cannot see it, but the more sensible position probably would be, "The freer the market...chances are the less free the people." Not always, I acknowledge that...but in today's economic environment a "completely deregulated market" is a recipe for disaster.
     
  15. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No employee checks - convicted paedophiles can work in schools, disqualified drivers can drive buses and taxis.
    No accounting laws - Basically no business taxes at all. "What do you know, zero profit again this year". Convenient for the fraudsters and embezzlers too.
    No employee protections - No working hour restrictions, no healthcare, no holidays, fall ill or pregnant and you get sacked on the spot (without this month's pay). Don't like it, go somewhere else doing exactly the same
    No food safety laws - you can put whatever cheap crap you want in food products. There'll be nobody following up if a couple of customers die. "Employees can wash their hands if they can be bothered"
    No advertising laws - Claim anything you want. Sure, this is low fat. Yes, 100% Made in America. Totally non-toxic, here's one for the baby.
    No import/export restrictions - Why make anything in America when we can bring it in so much cheaper from abroad.

    Just the first few that came to mind. Yet again, fewer regulations is an argument that can certainly be made, especially relating to some specific examples. Arguing for literally no regulations remains ridiculous.
     
  16. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why on Earth would a school/kindergarden want to hire a convicted paedophile or a taxi/buss company a "licenseless" man in the first place? It is in their best interest not to do so and it is not like it is the law that makes them do background-checks today. :laughing:

    No state needed for controlling this.

    Eeeeh...No.

    Employers offering bad contracts/deals would see thrmselves bankrupt as no one would like to work for them.

    If customers became ill from eating "Ritter cake" they would stop going tnere and Ritter would lose his job. It is in the best interest of Ritter to ensure customers stay satisfied and thus keep clean and make sure he offers top quality cake.

    With such dishonesty there would be no demand for your products.

    With what money or resource are you going to bring in foreign goods if you don't produce anything yourself?

    Your first few examples that came to mind are founded on not so properly thought through paranoia. You have absolutely no understanding for the simple concept of supply and demand and yet you try to engage in a conversation about economy. :roflol:
     
  17. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You only need go back eight years. Deregulation and a lack of regulation is what nearly destroyed the global economy. What you are talking about is Ayn Rand libertarianism which utterly and catastrophically failed, and nearly sent us into a 25 year global depression. And the first man to admit that was Ayn Rand's protege, Alan Greenspan, who was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and who masterminded the failure. He admitted this before Congress.

    Sure, markets will correct themselves eventually, but we can't survive the corrections! That is the big flaw in this theory. It failed and nearly destroyed the world.

    This economic philosophy is dead . It is nothing less than charlatanism to be promoting it.
     
  18. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lmao, no. How? :laughing:

    Mr.Greenspan is a notoriously corrupt and evil villian who has absolutely no word in a conversation about reality.

    Excuse me but, central banks is what nearly destroyed the economy and as the name indicates they are central and would not exist on a free market.


    No. You are wrong, m8.
     
  19. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You managed to post 100 words of absolute garbage. This post of yours does not say anything at all and is nothing but aimless pathos. Declare why a free market is doomed to end in disaster or do not bother posting at all
     
  20. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What are you talking about? I didn't even mention garbage.



    Wow...you sure have a negative view of posts that disagree with your posts, don't ya?

    "Aimless pathos!"

    Sounds like the title of a cheap romantic novel.



    Ahhh...so you think you can dictate to me what I MUST post...and what I have to do if I don't.

    Hey...good luck with that.

    Anyway, HereWeGoAgain and Hard-Driver did a fine job of pointing out the folly of "The freer the market..." nonsense.

    You ought to try dealing with their posts in a more reasonable manner.
     
  21. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,077
    Likes Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Socialist bollocks? Socialism has to deal with establishing a social order, so every nation that exists, and there are 197 of them currently, have an established social order. This includes the United States or [North] America. All you have to do is look up social and you will notice this very reality. Pollution has an effect on social order, but beyond that, I do not see the correlation. Marxism and Communism are forms of social orders. In the Communist Manifesto, what Marx proposed was a social order that would facilitate Communism. This is exact, being that all economic and political systems are extensions of social orders.
     
  22. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,077
    Likes Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I voted yes, being that "markets" is the euphemism used for Consumers which are people. So a free people are a free market.
     
  23. Hard-Driver

    Hard-Driver Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    8,546
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So the haymarket square riots or the Homestead strike were held by people who loved their working conditions... educate yourself to keep yourself from looking so uninformed. I guess the phrase, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it applies.

    So how was acid rain reduced so that our rivers and lakes weren't destroyed? How was the ozone hole expansion ended? Why don't you study economics and learn about something called "externalities" so you don't look so ignorant on the subject. Regulation makes free markets work better, not worse.
     
  24. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have absolutelyno idea what kind of point you are trying to make here

    These problems can be solved by the free market if the demand is big enough. For example there already are electric cars out there and there are many new renewable energy sources and methods of recycling old fuels. Everything given to us by capitalism.

    I already mentioned property rights, didn't I? That's how to prevent it.
     
  25. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are asking two separate questions, whether the market should be deregulated, and whether deregulation makes us freer.

    Laws and regulations almost always take away freedoms, but some of those laws are good for us all the same. Not being allowed to build your own nuke is a loss of freedom, but it is a good prohibition.
     

Share This Page