'Free Market, Free People'

**Desperado †** · May 25, 2009, 07:54 AM

(provoked by this thread)

I don't know how many here adhere to the myth that a more free market from democratic intervention and regulation means a more free people. Because it is a myth. Taking power away from elected representatives and installing it into the free will of money tycoons is not the way to ensure more liberty among the majority of the people. The fact that something is free does not mean there is less oppression. In the same way that a free monarchy would be free to oppress it's subjects, a free market is free to oppress it's employers and customers. Giving more powers to our elected representatives, to ensure intervention against the tyrants of our time rather than relying on a system of competition which sets us against each other like dogs after a piece of meat, has our individual wealth built on the poverty of our neighbours and rises many and forces others to levels of wealth so high or so low that it damages their own well-being.

The liberties that we have fought to achieve and preserve throughout our histories are now being stolen away in the name of 'capitalism' and a 'free market', whilst the poor are blamed for their situation and the rich acclaimed for their success. Unless we strive now to change this system of decaying capitalism in a bid to preserve our rights and liberties we will dig ourselves into a hole so deep that the events of Germany, Spain, Portugal and Italy in the 1930s will not be so unfamiliar.

**BNS** · May 25, 2009, 08:01 AM

What is there to debate? You are not presenting a free market scenario. I will not defend corporatism.

**Desperado †** · May 25, 2009, 08:03 AM

Then explain to me your free market scenario, and we will have a debate.

**BNS** · May 25, 2009, 08:16 AM

What are your gripes? Having "money tycoons" using the government to exploit the market, just might not fit the definition of capitalism. It's not that I don't agree with some of your points, it's that what you are proposing as a remedy (more government) got us here in the first place.

**Desperado †** · May 25, 2009, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by BNS

What are your gripes? Having "money tycoons" using the government to exploit the market, just might not fit the definition of capitalism. It's not that I don't agree with some of your points, it's that what you are proposing as a remedy (more government) got us here in the first place.

Capitalism means less government intervention and regulation. This results in monopolisers being able to arise, and more power being given to unelected businessmen, 'money tycoons', rather than in the hands of our elected representatives. I'm for more government regulation and intervention than the decaying capitalist system we have now, as I believe this results in a more free people. The purpose of my original post was to debunk the myth that a more free market results in a more free people.

**CtrlAltDe1337** · May 25, 2009, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Desperado †

Capitalism means less government intervention and regulation. This results in monopolisers being able to arise, and more power being given to unelected businessmen, 'money tycoons', rather than in the hands of our elected representatives. I'm for more government regulation and intervention than the decaying capitalist system we have now, as I believe this results in a more free people. The purpose of my original post was to debunk the myth that a more free market results in a more free people.

There is a BIG difference between the government making people "play fair" and actively getting involved in the market, which are both termed "regulation," so you need to be more clear. With rules to make sure people don't form harmful monopolies and such (nothing is perfect, but as good as the government can get it), then Capitalism is a much more efficient system, and benefits both the producer and consumer. Regulations (as in the government putting out mandates and such) is a much worse system for both producers and consumers, so I don't see how you arrive at your conclusion.

A free market means less government intervention, therefore more freedom, does it not? You have to abide by the law of course, but the less government gets involved, the more freedom people have in any field, so I don't see how this is a myth, nor how you have debunked it.

**The spartan** · May 25, 2009, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDe1337

A free market means less government intervention, therefore more freedom, does it not? You have to abide by the law of course, but the less government gets involved, the more freedom people have in any field, so I don't see how this is a myth, nor how you have debunked it.

No, he is talking about where exactly the power would lie. Less regulation essentially means more power to the producer. However, a good balance is necessary, that is true. Laws ARE the regulations, by the way. So "abiding by the law" and "abiding by regulation" are synonymous. The Libertarian perspective is that the only laws upheld are in defense of "Life, Liberty, and Property", all of which are actually very vague terms and come in conflict all the time.

**Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus** · May 28, 2009, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by BNS

What are your gripes? Having "money tycoons" using the government to exploit the market, just might not fit the definition of capitalism. It's not that I don't agree with some of your points, it's that what you are proposing as a remedy (more government) got us here in the first place.

But it is the natural progression of Capitalism, of the Laizzez-Faire free market.

**Justice and Mercy** · May 28, 2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus

But it is the natural progression of Capitalism, of the Laizzez-Faire free market.

No, it's the natural progression of a goverment with so much power that the rich actually pay them off to use that power in their favor.

A limited government is a less corrupted government.

**Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus** · May 28, 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy

No, it's the natural progression of a goverment with so much power that the rich actually pay them off to use that power in their favor.

A limited government is a less corrupted government.

All government's will try to be paid off by whoever has interests and the money to vouch for them. You think if we say, lowered corporate tax the business lobbyists who disappear ?

**Justice and Mercy** · May 28, 2009, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus

All government's will try to be paid off by whoever has interests and the money to vouch for them.

That's the point. Take away the government's power, take away the interests.

You think if we say, lowered corporate tax the business lobbyists who disappear ?

If there's nothing to lobby, there's no lobbyist.

**~~Arnold Schwarzenegger~~** · May 25, 2009, 09:25 AM

The liberties that we have fought to achieve and preserve throughout our histories are now being stolen away in the name of 'capitalism' and a 'free market', whilst the poor are blamed for their situation and the rich acclaimed for their success.

Historically speaking capitalism is the most successful economical system, as it relies on our driving force to gain more, have more, achieve more than our ancestors gained, had and achieved. For me life is continuously being hungry. The meaning of life is not simply to exist, to survive, but to move ahead, to go up, to achieve, to conquer. This is the lifestyle of the strong and only the strong will survive. Freedom is not a preexisting right, but something you have to fight for.

**Alkarin** · May 25, 2009, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Arnold Schwarzenegger

Historically speaking capitalism is the most successful economical system, as it relies on our driving force to gain more, have more, achieve more than our ancestors gained, had and achieved. For me life is continuously being hungry. The meaning of life is not simply to exist, to survive, but to move ahead, to go up, to achieve, to conquer. This is the lifestyle of the strong and only the strong will survive. Freedom is not a preexisting right, but something you have to fight for.

it depends on what you call a success. i say having 50% of a nation living in poverty for the good of your nations power is not success but defeat.

The FACT that 34.7% of Americas Wealth is owned by the top 1% of the population and 75% of the nations wealth is owned by the top 10%

while 98% of the WORLDS wealth is in the hands of the top 15%

that is not success. sure your nation may be more powerful but i couldn't give any less about the strength of a nation. I care about the people of the world and their living conditions. nationalism is the evil of the world and the cause of wars and genocides

**BNS** · May 25, 2009, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Alkarin

it depends on what you call a success. i say having 50% of a nation living in poverty for the good of your nations power is not success but defeat.

And this is happening where? Also I can give a rat's ass about egalitarianism.

nationalism is the evil of the world and the cause of wars and genocides

Ok, and?

**Alkarin** · May 25, 2009, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by BNS

And this is happening where? Also I can give a rat's ass about egalitarianism.

many nations across the world and in alot of cases far worse. in america about 25% live in poverty and in britain about 23%. which in my opinion is pretty serious. no one should have to live in poverty if they do not deserve it. which i am confident enough to say that 75 million of those americans in poverty do not deserve to be there.

And if you don't about Egalitarianism i consider you the scum of the earth.

**BNS** · May 25, 2009, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Alkarin

many nations across the world and in alot of cases far worse. in america about 25% live in poverty and in britain about 23%. which in my opinion is pretty serious. no one should have to live in poverty if they do not deserve it. which i am confident enough to say that 75 million of those americans in poverty do not deserve to be there.

Wow, talk about lies and statistics! Do you realize that what you consider "poverty" today was considered being very well off at the dawn of the last century. Gone are the days where true poverty used to mean not having warm meals and shelter daily, thanks to the accumulation of capital under capitalism. Unfortunately today it has been redefined to mean not having enough to pay for your monthly cable subscription, for political ends.

And if you don't about Egalitarianism i consider you the scum of the earth.

Well then I am scum. I just realize that inequality is the natural state of things and it's in our best use of our differences, via liberty and the diversification of labor that we can most prosper.

**Claudius Gothicus** · May 29, 2009, 01:39 PM

The freer the market the freer the people?

Well that only applies when you can recognize what's free market and what's state influenced free market.

In Argentina and many other Latin American countries we had free market during military governments but not free people.
Free market works but only if it's regulated to a certain extent through law and normative. If you make a completely free market it tends to end up in exploitation by the business man.
On the other hand when a the state intervenes in a careful an measured you can obtain free people that consume from a free market(with certain regulations). But of course when the state surpasses it's own limits and starts trying to influence the market you'll usually end up in a corporatist nation with little gain for the owner which leads to loss and unemployment.
So it's all about the balance.

**The spartan** · May 25, 2009, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Arnold Schwarzenegger

Historically speaking capitalism is the most successful economical system, as it relies on our driving force to gain more, have more, achieve more than our ancestors gained, had and achieved. For me life is continuously being hungry. The meaning of life is not simply to exist, to survive, but to move ahead, to go up, to achieve, to conquer. This is the lifestyle of the strong and only the strong will survive. Freedom is not a preexisting right, but something you have to fight for.

As Alkarin already said, that is not success. By no means should you confuse efficiency and "success". Sure capitalism is efficient, because it isolates "classes" and pools money to one group, much in the way you could kill off all the impoverish people in a city and say "hey, we have less poor people in our city!".

To me, the Libertarian view of capitalism has 2 gaping flaws in it; 1) it is believed if you have a good amount of money that you only got it by earning it, which we have examples of that being false. 2) if you do not have money it is because you deserve it, which we also know is false.

**Da Skinna** · May 25, 2009, 11:02 AM

Are we discussing theory or reality? And don't we only apply labels to reality after scrutiny? Can we agree on capitalism first of all, then a free market, then corporatism then liberty and government intervention and regulation.

A good indicator of this debate's merits rest in the gap between rich and poor.

**Denny Crane!** · May 25, 2009, 11:22 AM

Seems like people who dislike exploitation want the government to stop it but the very act of allowing government into the economy allows business to exploit government power making it a catch 22 situation.