To what extent should govt meddle in the free market?

submitted by la_cues from self.debatealtright

all 44 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

As much as it takes to create a pro-social society.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

To what extent should govt meddle in the free market?

Simplest way to put it is any way it deems necessary to promote the common good and undermine the malicious and predatory aspect of capitalism. I'm not in any way -- despite having briefly been a libertarian in my youth -- a person who believe in 'free markets' or their benefit for mankind. I think it's a ridiculous fantasy and a malicious one espoused mostly by the very rich for their own benefit. The state will always exist, should always exist and should always be regulating, 'meddling' and intervening in the economic life of the citizens it's responsible for. The only question for me is how it intervenes not whether it should. It will, it does, it's going to.

I'm a fanatical proponent of the state brutally enforcing pro-labour policies, protective tariffs, environmental regulations and a whole host of other interventions that make life better for people. The state should also be totally in charge of its currency and banking system which is probably the most important thing any state can do. The power to create currency from nothing is a power denied even to the Gods and the second you leave it to vultures and predators your society is hobbled.

[–]la_cues[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

amen

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The state ... should always exist

I've argued in favor of the state in the past, but my updated position is that a 'state' is an evil that's only a valid necessity when population levels exceed the natural carry capacity of the land.

Once overpopulation occurs, competition for resources and surface area becomes a problem that only a state can address.

The correct solution is not to overpopulate, but our species lacks that level of intelligence.

[–]la_cues[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The state should exist for regulating social, economic interactions between individuals, upholding law/order, upholding will of the population.

But the state should be as quiet as possible when it comes to interfering with individual rights and day-to-day.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Why should a state regulate anything? Every example you cite is oppression of the individual.

Let's say you have a milk cow, and have grown a surplus of tomatoes. Why should the state step in between you and your neighbor, who has extra eggs to trade?

[–]la_cues[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I guess I mean, regulations that seek to keep individual -> individual transactions totally uninhibited.

Regulations to counteract the power of corporations and govt entities.

Some regulations for safety are necessary, but the individual right to consent (for example) beyond written law can override this. Standards, definition, and legal requirements have to follow some regulating? Even in an anarcho system there is some upheld order.

Libertarianism for an individual in the market. More regulation, taxation (for public market infrastructure lol) for corporate or international/multinational business.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, but corporations only exist during an overpopulation condition.

Once overpopulation occurs, competition for resources and surface area becomes a problem that only a state can address.

The correct solution is not to overpopulate,

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my above comment. The US population in 1821 was 9,920,899. We need to go back. Maybe not quite that far, but far closer to that than our current condition.

However, we can't go back, and we can't continue on. Although we will continue on right up until the bust, of "boom and bust" fame.

[–]Alan_Crowe 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The phrase free market muddles together two ideas, that I'm going to call the pragmarket and the momarket

Pragmarket. Let us suppose that sandwiches are a legitimate product. This legitimizes bread, milling, flour, wheat, sowing, plowing. But legitimizing plowing legitimizes tractors and tractor engines, and lathes and machine tools to make them, and carbide tooling and industrial diamonds to shape the carbide tools and cubic hydraulic presses. Wow! That escalated quickly.

Notice how complicated industrial society is. You start with some legitimate goods and legitimacy ramifies, far beyond the scope of central planning. Any political ideology needs to accept the pragmarket, or it will be poor and weak.

Momarket. But where does legitimacy come from? How do we judge gambling, alcohol, prostitution, and other vices? The pragmarket doesn't tell us. All it says is how to organize the efficient production that lies behind simple goods, such as sandwiches, that we have judged legitimate by non-economic criteria. Liberalism outsources morality to the market. The Moral Market, or Momarket. Perhaps whores charge a minimum of $200 and johns pay a maximum of $100. Then the Momarket "bans" prostitution. But the market for most vices clears, and nearly everything is permitted.

Having split up the concept of the free market we can say yes to the Pragmarket, and prosper, while saying no to the Momarket, and arguing theology and ethics to decide whether doubtful goods and services are permitted.

[–]search_social 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hi pragmarket/momarket is completely original and I have never heard it before. So were your writings on non-recourse and grim-span. Do you have another online presence anywhere? Thanks!

[–]Alan_Crowe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you for the flattery. I find it very encouraging that some-one would remember a ten month old comment.

I used to have a website. The way back machine still has it. Sadly, age and chronic illness mean that I'm in my own grim-span. I hope to start polishing some essays, and submitting them to Saidit and the like. I've made a small start with http://alan.sdf-eu.org/banana-burning.html

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I find it very encouraging that some-one would remember a ten month old comment.

Install RES for saidit, then you too can tag users with notable quotes.

Not that they didn't remember, but I certainly wouldn't.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The state should direct the economy. It should act to ensure no family or individual accumulates too much wealth. It should crush any corporation that tries to interfere the slightest in politics. It should regulate the market so as to prohibit it from catering to society's worst vices.

For example, a total ban on trans fats, high-sugar drinks, drugs, corn syrup, endocrine disrupting food and matrials(like plastic). It should also safeguard the environment and strictly punish destructive practices like dumping chemical waste into rivers.

Lastly, it should cultivate national technical and industrial skills. That means producing as much of your goods locally as possible. No outsourcing. And it should also safeguard national wealth. That means not allowing rootless international corporations to mine your resources, or allow foreign nationals to buy up your land or assets.

Aside from these, the economy can to an extent be left to its own devices. I'm personally opposed to the welfare state as it breeds dysgenics and encourages degeneracy(single mothers for example).

[–]Richard_Parker 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is precisely the correct response. A truly free market allows for:

-child labor - recreational drug use (cocaine would create insatiable demand if permitted to) - porn - prostitution - junk food

As it is, socalled free market captialism has allowed much of this, as well as shitty rap music, all sorts of things that should just not be permitted.

If so called conservatism had understood this, so much of what ails would not be in play. But society has been asleep at the wheel for a century and now the radical left dominates everything. Whoops.

[–]NayenezganiNot alt-right 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Worker cooperatives can co-exist with a market economy. Most of the successful ones (e.g. Mondragon) are operated by ethnic Europeans and tend to have superior longevity and productivity. Might be something that certain people want to get involved in, if they want to build a self-sufficient community within a broader hostile society. And in different circumstances, state guidance will complement this form of business organization.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Can you really trust businesses to do "the right thing" and not cut corners everywhere possible to fuck someone else along downstream? They're there to make money, and they'll do anything possible to continue upping revenue. We have regulations so that we're not creating empires laying atop the corpses of bug-like workers, so that conditions are safe, so that products are what they're advertised to be, so that consumers aren't harmed, so that there are plenty of options available, and so on. Business owners aren't trustworthy, these people aren't your neighbors.

[–]Node 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

3

If a post is worth commenting on, is it not also worth an upvote for visibility?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm not a GDP cuck, so infinite growth was never my agenda.

In fact, in my ideal state, I believe these issues need to be respected:

-No hiring illegal immigrants. Jobs should always be given first preference to native citizens. If citizens don't want to work these jobs , then it's mandatory to raise wages till we get enough people to do it.

-No selling off natural resources to foreign companies.

-Foreign companies can't buy property.

-No polluting the environment

-All overtime hours must be paid

-No tax evasion. Punishment is deportation.

-Minimum wage still exists, however, companies must pay better wages relative to work experience and inflation. So say you join a company and work for 5 years, the company most provide proof you got a yearly salary bonus.

-Edit: You know what? Just make housing free. No more renting and mortgages. If we want people to start having families again, they should never worry about having a roof over their head.

-No other Jewish bullshit.

That's it. Ironically, I would still tolerate and even encourage billionaires in my country, but they must pledge allegiance to the nation. Failure to do so will result in confiscation of their wealth, and the death penalty.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

-No selling off natural resources to foreign companies.

We can have them nationalised, they belong to the people.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We can have them nationalised

The reason people hesitate to say this is because in general, state run corporations are hives of ineffeciency and corruption. The private sector if nothing else, at least gets the job done.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is just the typical lolbert fallacy of observing something particular to being under a hostile oligarchy that is literally looting and enslaving the people and then asserting it is a universal feature of all governments though. It's not a good argument unless your premise is that you want the people in charge now to stay in charge and implement these policies as opposed to what we want which is to take their power from them and enact them ourselves.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If we want people to start having families again,

I tend to favor the long term survival of our species, so no. We're in an impossible situation now, but ideally, 7 of the 8 billion people on this planet would stop existing. Unfortunately, there's no easy way out of this level of fuck up we've worked our way into.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Free markets for the people are an idealized myth, and free markets (free of regulations) are standard practice for globalists and corporations.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't care about how much, as long as the reasons for such "meddling" are justified. Over-regulation and too much control wastes resources and in some cases can stifle an industry (although some industries should be stifled, there are many that shouldn't).

In the most basic sense, as much as is needed to ensure the functioning of society.

[–]StrategicTactic 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

No.

I guess in some respects that doesn't really explain much does it. The moment the government "meddles" in a free market it is no longer free. Just a central planner cannot identify every single factor that drives an economy, so a government agent or agency cannot. All that you are left with are interests who can encourage certain regulations and payouts which always hurt someone. Since those who have the extra capital are usually the larger businesses, it almost always hurts the smaller business owners. It does not matter if you are talking about bailouts, certifications, or environmental regulations, ALL INTERFERENCE is bad for a "free" market. Once you start the interference, you no longer have a free market, and start on the slide to corporatism.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

This presupposes the existence of an anti-social and hostile oligarchy and projects that onto all states. Of course if we were in power we wouldn't be allowing the big businesses to be controlling the government against the people, we would be regulating them in order to create a better society for the people.

Once you start the interference, you no longer have a free market, and start on the slide to corporatism.

Corporatism is desirable, it's the best method of organising the state. The only people who are against corporatism are financial capitalist parasites because they would be losing out, tough shit for those subhumans.

[–]StrategicTactic 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

No, it supposes the existence of a government. The moment the government meddles, the market is no longer just between two parties exchanging goods or services. That makes it no longer free. Advocate for whatever social dictatorship you want, but this is the truth. The market is not free when a third party can dictate to the other two.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I don't care about the market being free, that's just a mask for parasites to use to enslave people.

Governments can very easily regulate markets on behalf of the people rather than businesses, it's been done many times throughout history. You lolbert morons take a specific example of what happens under a hostile plutocracy and then pretend it's a principle that must happen in every government. But a nationalist government isn't going to be under the foot of jews and capitalists, so your deeb goncerns about how regulation hurts the little guy won't apply. Instead the regulations will help the little guy and hurt the bankers, monopolists etc that you're actually just advocating for and protecting knowingly or not.

[–]StrategicTactic 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

So you want to answer something that wasn't asked. Got it. Next time perhaps you should read the question before you spout your drivel and whine about how it will be so good under your method and everyone else on the planet should submit to your desires.

[–]la_cues[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Next time perhaps you should read the question before you spout your drivel and whine ...

You're being pedantic. He is obviously answering the question, the word "free" in the title has some definition wiggle room.

[–]StrategicTactic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And I am pointing out that you cannot by definition have interference and freedom at the same time. He is going off on some other tangent (in response to me, not even trying to make this point on his own) about how a free market is by his opinion bad, which is by definition a red herring. It detracts from what I am saying without speaking to my point. Then he openly admits that he does not care about a core concept in the question, which in my mind further invalidates any opinion he has about the free market. He doesnt want one. He doesnt care about it. He just wants his way.

[–]la_cues[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I would argue a govt could impose regulations that seek to maintain freedom.

ALL INTERFERENCE is bad for a "free" market.

The concentration of power between huge corpo entities causes huge barriers to entry, price manipulation, vertical integration etc issues. These runaway elements of a "free market" becomes very not free for the individual as they seek to participate. Money begets more money and the big fish will always eat everything smaller eventually.

Some regulations can help to maintain a free market.

[–]StrategicTactic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

These are not elements of a free market. These are the very elements that are denied in a free market. Big fish try to eat small fish, but only succeed when they can create rules that prevent the entry of opposing market forces. And the only way that happens is when government interferes. You can take any regulation, and it hurts someone- by design.

Let us say you want to ensure people get uncontaminated fresh food. So you (government) regulate the food market and say that you need to prove your worth as a cook and get a certificate of skill and proof of a clean kitchen. Who did you hurt? By law, you have just make it impossible for a 14 year old to have a lemonade stand, as they do not have the capital that a full kitchen would. Their plank board kiosk does not meet your requirements for a kitchen, nor do they have the money for a certification. And no, I am not using some crazy example that could not happen, it has happened: https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/rhode-island-police-shut-down-kids-lemonade-stand-citing-city-ordinance-concerning-commercial-vendors

Any restriction is overcome with capital. The only people who are hurt by such are those without the capital, which are small businesses. There is no scenario where a third party can dictate to two others and those two others be entirely free. This is the entirety of the free market and why monopolies form in the first place, because they are able to influence laws and get past restrictions that stop competition.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

He is asking the alt right whether the market should be free or guided by the state.

You are autistic and unable to understand basic contextual cues. Obviously a market isn't a 'free market' if it has 'government meddling' by definition. Your assertion that this is the question being asked is incredibly stupid, what kind of idiot doesn't know what the term free market means? He is asking an ethical question to a political group, hence him asking this question in /s/debatealtright.

Stupid libtard.

[–]StrategicTactic 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But you didn't respond to him, you responded to my answer. Have you met your quota of ad homenim attacks for the day? Lets see:

You are autistic and unable to understand basic contextual cues. what kind of idiot
Stupid libtard.

Clearly you cannot use logic to dismantle any arguments if you already are resorting to 4 personal attacks. Perhaps you should reread the site rules and figure out how to debate. The very idea that people have a free market and government restrictions at the same time is why people think the US is a democracy- poor education and propaganda. There is no such thing as free market dictated by the government, any more than there is freedom to do what you want while enslaved. So argue for your chains, but it does not change the argument. There is no free market with third party control.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My apologies, I see you are a top of the bell curve poster. As you were.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Midwit theory strikes again.

Low IQ: "Uhh yeah capitalism bad cuz uhh... gimme dat shit fo free, ya feel me??"

Midwits: "Capitalism is GREAT because I get to CONSOOM! So what if Jews control it all, are you a BIGOT or something?? Ishmael and his freind Tyrone on the magic picture box told me people who say mean numbers like statistics are EVIL RACISTS and people who buy every new product are good, smart goys!!"

High IQ: "Capitalism is bad because it facilitates the control and destruction of our nations by underhanded and disingenuous investors and businessmen who seek only endless, meaningless growth and profits no matter the cost to the nation or its people"

There really should be more research into this subject. Probably just a meme but there actually could be more to it.

[–]NayenezganiNot alt-right 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The more I think about the philosophical basis of right-wing libertarianism, the more insane it seems. If we were to take the concepts of voluntary association and individualism to their logical conclusion, then why don't we all stop being heterotrophic multicellular organisms? Lack of consent is also the rationale of some people who embrace anti-natalism. Remember this person who wanted to sue his parents for giving birth to him: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287

Regarding mitwit theory, retards are so lacking in their adaptive faculties that running on the bare minimum can only work if they were instinctually right. I think the Lindy effect might be applicable here. The longer certain forms of retardation persist, the longer they may be expected to thrive because of their proven durability.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Government itself is not an evil. The current Judeo-liberal regime is. Governments have done great things in the past and have built great civilizations: The Roman Empire, Imperial Germany, Japan, France and practically every other empire or civilization to exist in history.

The only two countries for whom the argument ''free markets built this country'' could be remotely assigned to is Britain and America. For Britain its mostly false considering the role of the Royal navy in forging and maintaining the British empire and its economy. Plus, the British government forcibly uprooted British farmers from their land with the enclosure act in a bid to get them into the factories.

Even for America, this argument sketchy but that's an enormous post in and of itself.

[–]StrategicTactic 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I would argue that point, but I think it goes away from the main again. I am not even saying that free markets built the country, but rather that government interference in the free markets is a contradiction and propaganda. In a system that allows change, such control will lead to further increase in government control, increase government spending, and societal stratification that comes with corporatism. If such is the end goal, then it should not be the starting point. Saying you are free to do what you want as long as it falls in line with our regulations is the same as saying you are free to move to the extent of your chains.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Government itself is not an evil.

How is it not an evil? It really can't even exist beyond a local level while population numbers remain sustainable. It's essentially organized slavery, or at least ownership and control over fellow humans.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So in terms of interference in the 'free market' I'm wondering what your opinions on banking are. At the moment in most countries we have a system where the state allows and provides the opportunity for banks to loan out around 10 times their actual reserves -- last Basel agreement is a requirement for banks to posses no less than around 11 percent of actual capital to their loans.

So in a 'free market' there would absolutely be no state central bank as lender of last resort to allow a bank to create money out of thin air. A bank would just have to loan out whatever currency it possesses and no more.

Would you prefer that to the way the state meddles in the banking sector right now and could you tell me why you would or wouldn't?

[–]StrategicTactic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Banking as currently done in the US (and most other places) is abhorrent. People should not hold any place to be sacrosanct, and that includes banks. Creating money out of nothing drives the cost of all existing money down, which is the primary cause of inflation- the devaluing of existing currency.

I would prefer that the state have no hand at all in the market, which would include the banks. To allow an exemption for any business is to subsidize that business and not allow it to fail. By not failing, you have created a tiered society (economically at least) where those employed at XYZ company are never allowed to fail, even when they should from poor business practices, and all the other companies still suffer from their choices. This can get far worse when you factor in social costs, as now if a upper tier business decides to implement a policy that all X people are not treated the same, the government has to step in AGAIN, causing a ballooning government. In a free market, people would have a competitor they would go to and that XYZ company would start to fail.

The interference of government is the reason why the Great Depression of the 1930s lasted so long. FDR is hailed as a hero president in high schools eager to encourage socialist control of the market, and yet even a moderate economist can tell you that the New Deal only prolonged the recovery. It is a simple fact that there is no one on the planet that can fully identify every existing market force, let alone predict every future trend. The only way that is close to doing so is when the government has total control of the market- socialism.