I see arguments both ways about whether bad quality and things of that nature were caused by the free market, and to be honest with you, I'm not 100% sure about what the truth of this matter is historically. That being said, free market principles are perfect for this day and age, and any flaws that were found in a free market system in the past I think would be eradicated today. Easy and widespread communication between members of society seems to be the key to having a free market function properly. Today, with mass media and especially the internet, this communication is better and easier than ever. Now, more than ever, if any business tries anything shady, the world's gonna find out about it, and it's REALLY gonna affect their business. With the way the world can communicate today, it would be easier than ever to keep businesses honest, and thus I think now is the perfect time for a free market. (Go Ron Paul! )
To be fair the conditions today are the best they have ever been for either capitalism or socialism. One of the percieved problems of a free market is the absence of coercive welfare, and one of the problems of socialism is centralization of power and the inevitable tyranny and oppression. Increased interconnectivity has greatly improved our ability to empathize on a global scale, and this would hopefully improve the propensity to give charity and prevent oppression. Watch this: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g]RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilisation - YouTube[/ame]
I like what you say, and I agree, but there are many weird consequences to making such a choice, which would have a very positive and a negative outcry, and ultimately we would develop new problems, I think the best approach to a solution to our problems is not to make a big deal out anything, and instead focus on our thought processes, so that eventually we can come to terms with the truth of our individual reality.
If we didn't make a big deal over the atrocities the government has lead us to fund and support, what does our perception of reality even matter?
Yeah. Like the way that people have stopped buying BP gas since they had that oil spill that they're refusing to pay damages for. And it's all over the internet about how sick people in the gulf are getting from the nasty chemicals they used to hide... err... I mean clean it up. Freemarket forces are just like Government. They require participation and responsibility on the part of the consumer/voter or else it's just a corruption/irresponsibility fest. And Democracy has been working out great lately. <--- smiley required to denote sarcasm over internet.
BP has $20 billion set aside and has only paid out $4.7 billion. They are still processing millions of claims. They are not refusing to pay. In a free market, consumers would have greater consciousness than they do today. In a free market, there would be greater competition in the oil industry and this would harm BP more. In a free market BP wouldn't have had to drill so far off shore where it was too deep to cap a well, and BP wouldn't receive $1 billion annually from the DoD. Has any research been done on this, or are people just trying to cash in on the disaster? The free market is arguably harder work than government. The government simply takes are money while we go on about our day worrying whether Lindsay Lohan will go back to jail or not. Taxes absolve our responsibility as conscious consumers... Oh that? The government's taking care of that. In a free market we are forced to make the decisions that we today take for granted and pass onto corrupt bureaucrats.
Free market capitalism would ignite extreme growth. The effectiveness of free markets is so great, it's such a shame that liberals don't see it. The only reason we don't do it is because it's not conducive to the state. Free market capitalism requires a very small central government. That is why the government demonizes it, it's simply an act of self preservation by them. The problem is that the media is controlled by big corporations (who DO NOT want free market capitalism) and education is controlled by the state, who as I've said are against it also. So the media and our educational system both are tools used by the state and by corporations to brainwash people into believing that free market capitalism is bad, full of greed, causes poverty, whatever. And the saddest part of it all is that they have succeeded. Unfortunately brainwashing is very effective.
I still believe that nothing will stop the wealthy from influencing the government until eventually it is powerful and works in there favor. Money is power.
The wealthy influence the state because the state sets up the game that way. The state is nothing but a gang, a mob. And they collect dues for favors, just like the mob would. That is why the government needs to be downsized hugely. Take the power away from the state, and the wealthy no longer have an organized crime boss to give money to for favors. The very last thing the big banks and corporations would EVER want is a totally free market. That alone tells you it's the best thing for the people.
Sounds like your speaking of fascism rather than free market. Lets start with your statement 'Money is power', alright well who is in charge of the currency in this country? A monopoly on money is a monopoly on government policy is a monopoly on private industry. In regards to currency, by letting the free market choose the best currency, you are allowing the people to choose the currency that works best for them, not the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve. The whole concept of free market requires a strict hands off approach in business practices from the government. Take away the government's ability to stick it's nose in the private sector, and it doesn't make much difference what industries wealthy individuals would seek to monopolize.
I understand what a free market it, but there is nothing stopping the wealthy from bribing, lobbying or whatever in the government. Even if under a hypothetical US free market, what is stopping the rich from getting politicians in there pocket who introduce legislation that gives more power to the government? The US government is designed to keep the rich in power, you cant even win an office in the fed government without having money.
The people have to remain vigilant in keeping liberty. Liberty is never kept without being fought for. It's up to you.
There is no other option though. You either have liberty, or a statist government that will lead to dictatorship. Those are the only options. "Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." We are at the dependent stage now. Bondage is coming up very quickly, however. We need another revolution to bring us back to liberty and abundance, and hopefully we have learned enough from history, and possibly we have evolved enough, to not fall back into the loop again.
If the government didn't have significant power over things, bribing the government wouldn't do anything. That is the point. When you give the government serious power over things, that's when there is motivation to bribe them.
It doesn't matter if the people are faking it or not. It's swept under the rug either way. And any way, corporate buttlickers wouldn't believe it if 95% of doctors said "Yep, it's from BP Chemicals. Just like they don't believe 95% of climatologists and some don't even believe 100% of Paleontologists/Anthropologist (about evolution). [/quote] The free market is arguably harder work than government. The government simply takes are money while we go on about our day worrying whether Lindsay Lohan will go back to jail or not. Taxes absolve our responsibility as conscious consumers... Oh that? The government's taking care of that. and pass onto corrupt bureaucrats.[/QUOTE] Or... In the freemarket 90% of consumers will remain completely disengaged and just always buy whatever is the cheapest or whatever has the cutest puppies in the commercial, and it will be an Monopoly/Cartel fest. You always use grandiose terms like "In a free market we are forced to make the decisions that we today take for granted". Forced or what? If the sheep are forced to do it, then there must be a consequence if they don't. In your mind, what it the consequence of asleep consumers in a freemarket. Consumers who just buy the cheapest thing on the shelf? Consumers who base their buying habits off of trends? In my mind, free market + asleep consumers = the same thing we have today in elections. Asleep voters makes for rampant corruption in Government. Asleep consumers makes for a corporate field day in a free market. The OP's point was that Free Market has it's best shot at working now because [paraphrasing] we are awash in media and more interconnected than we've ever been meaning that companies have to act right because they're under constant surveillance by consumers visa-vi the internet. My point with the BP talk was demonstrating that while, yes, we may be more interconnected and awash in media than ever before, it doesn't mean that people are paying attention more. In fact, it's quite the opposite. If you go look at Youtube, you can find videos of people who claim to be sick from BP Chemicals. But can also be bombarded with corporate shills and advertisements that would make you think the oil spill was a good thing (Improved Wildlife Viscosity! - to quote the onion). You may chose to believe that the people who claim to be sick are just trying to get a payout. But you don't KNOW. So you can google it, put your confirmation bias blinders on, find one piece of information that confirms youe belief and poof.
Nope. Free markets generally don't create monopolies, they are created by fascist intervention by the state. Even if monopolies do exist in a free market, they wouldn't be like they are now. The restrictions against small businesses would be gone in a free market, and it would be much easier to compete with a huge corporation. There would be constant competition from start ups. There is not a single thing that a free market would do worse than the current fascist market.
The conclusion I point out: Freemarkets won't work as long as people are involved....as long as people are involved, we need rules to prevent fraud and distribution of harmful products...which puts us back into a non-free market... The idea is nice, but it assumes people will be honest and not engage in bad behavior in a market. I do agree there needs to be a huge reduction in oppressive laws that only favor big corps at the expense of the mom-n-pop shops.
There are still laws against fraud, even in a free market. That's like saying in a free market a corporation can line people up on the streets and execute them. Also it absolutely does not assume that people will be honest. There will always be people who try and fraud or otherwise take advantage of people, but the state makes that happen 100x more than it would occur on a free market. Example. The mega bank bailouts. That is MASSIVE theft of the people's money on a scale that would never be remotely possible without the state intervening in the market. The theft we will have in a free market can never be close to what we have in our current regulated market.