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 →

[–]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.