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 →

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 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.

[–]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.