To what extent should govt meddle in the free market?

submitted by la_cues from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.