Do anti-capitalists deserve to be taken seriously?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Free Thinkr

There isn't one single alternative. Capitalists claim that we must have private ownership of land and capital (means of production) whereas socialists claim we must have public ownership of the same. They're both wrong.

Indeed they are both wrong, neither private nor public ownership of land and capital is a 'must have'. However, having both (ie. a mixed economy) has been found to work better than having just one or the other, and is way better that having nobody owning or being responsible anything.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Who owns land other than the government? The best that anybody else can get is "equity".

Indeed. I 'own' land, but that just gives me a certain amount of privacy and freedom. I still have to pay rates, still have to keep it tidy, aren't permitted to pollute it, don't have automatic rights to any minerals I might find on it. Which is fair enough. If all land was truly privately owned you wouldn't be able to go anywhere without trespassing on someone else's property, and they would have no obligation to make any facilities available to you.

Everybody likes to be free to do what they want. On the other hand, we all benefit from living in an egalitarian society which shares resources. Pure capitalism relies on 'greed' for direction, and tends towards inequality. Planned economies rely on altruism and the supposed competence of the planners. Neither system works as well as using the strengths of both. The trick is getting them working together to everybody's satisfaction.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by jj

So, Canada is a catastrophic failure, and the USA isn't?

Canada is socialist? When did that happen?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Virus

Still yet to meet an "anti-capitalist" that votes with their feet.

They all seem to like living in capitalist countries themselves.

It's too hot in Cuba or Venezuela, otherwise they'd be there in a heartbeat I'm sure.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

never been there, eh?
i have.
cuba also has the highest literacy rate in the world.(99.8%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._literacy_rate
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2103.html

And they can read whatever the government lets them!

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Canada is socialist? When did that happen?

It clearly has a lot of socialist policies with which its high standard of living could not be achieved if it were not the case.

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by megaresp

What kinds of things do you mean? What actions could we take that would change the way the world currently works?

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Serious questions. No traps, hooks or barbs intended or implied.

In part international laws about labor rights and the right to human health have to be developed or we will continue this cycle of madness. If there are already such laws, they need to be enforced in each country and each corporation, regardless of their international standing, must be held accountable by its home nation for its actions. Trade laws need to be developed that hold corporations responsible for their actions, point blank. That is the only way we will clean this mess up.

[megaresp]

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

In part international laws about labor rights and the right to human health have to be developed or we will continue this cycle of madness. If there are already such laws, they need to be enforced in each country and each corporation, regardless of their international standing, must be held accountable by its home nation for its actions. Trade laws need to be developed that hold corporations responsible for their actions, point blank. That is the only way we will clean this mess up.

I still don't see what role we (by which I really mean regular folk such as myself) could play in that. You're talking about western ideas on law making, law enforcement, attitudes towards corruption, and (in my opinion) the concept that a government ought to respect private property rights for everyone - not just massive corporations or the favourites of key officials.

I suspect the world's poorest nations would require a massive cultural shift in thinking among the general population. Then there's the establishment of infrastructure able to hold government to account, such as free elections, a free press, high rates of literacy and easy and rapid communication between people.

My guess is a strong sense of national identity (as seen in Australia, the USA, Canada and other wealthy countries) is useful too.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

There are few anti-capitalists that really deserve to be taken seriously. Often, they don't really understand capitalism and are arguing against a straw man, much in the same way that YECs argue against evolution by asking why there are still monkeys if evolution is factual.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

There are few anti-capitalists that really deserve to be taken seriously. Often, they don't really understand capitalism and are arguing against a straw man, much in the same way that YECs argue against evolution by asking why there are still monkeys if evolution is factual.

I agree. And economics, like evolution is a tricky subject to get your head around and can be counter-intuitive. Many people think transferring wealth is creating it. Or redistributing it counts as economic activity.

Of course it's "common sense" to have a committee of smart people plan the economy centrally rather than leave it up to market forces. Many highly intelligent people thought that, like Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russel. Socialism was taken seriously in academia.

It's now known to be a failure. After the Soviet Union collapsed, nobody wanted to be seen dead promoting socialism. Globalization lifted millions out of poverty. Thrusting some countries like South Korea from third to first world in a few decades.

Just as there are still twits who believe in racial supremacy, there are still twits who believe in socialism, communism, Marxism ect. We'll never be free of twists who believe silly things. Unfortunately it's socially acceptable to be a socialist twit and walk around with a Che T-shirt. And there are lots of silly people in government who don't trust economic freedom, or enjoy the political benefits of populist demagoguery, or political favors from well-connected cronies.

It doesn't help that crap like this is used in US schools:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

and not this:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

There are few anti-capitalists pro-capitalists/libertarians that really deserve to be taken seriously. Often, they don't really understand capitalism and are arguing againstin favour of a straw man, much in the same way that YECs argue against evolution by asking why there are still monkeys if evolution is factual.

ftfy

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by Virus

Just as there are still twits who believe in racial supremacy, there are still twits who believe in socialism, communism, Marxism capitalism, libertarianism, Free Market fundamentalism ect. We'll never be free of twists twits who believe silly things. Unfortunately it's socially acceptable to be a socialist libertarian twit and walk around with a Che Ron Paul T-shirt. And there are lots of silly greedy people in government who don't trust economic freedom, or democracy and enjoy the political benefits of populist demagoguery, or political financial favors from well-connected cronies.

ftfy

[StankApe]

internet communists are boring......

are you typing on "the people's computer " there?

[Free Thinkr]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Indeed they are both wrong, neither private nor public ownership of land and capital is a 'must have'. However, having both (ie. a mixed economy) has been found to work better than having just one or the other, and is way better that having nobody owning or being responsible anything.

But we also know, from the example of Hong Kong, that land ownership is not necessary or even beneficial to free enterprise. In fact, just the opposite: where land is treated as private property, producers are forced to pay taxes to the government and then pay landowners for access to the benefits and amenities their taxes just paid for. That's a nonsensical system that could not possibly do anything other than result in a society divided into haves and have-nots.

[megaresp]

Originally Posted by Free Thinkr

But we also know, from the example of Hong Kong, that land ownership is not necessary or even beneficial to free enterprise. In fact, just the opposite: where land is treated as private property, producers are forced to pay taxes to the government and then pay landowners for access to the benefits and amenities their taxes just paid for. That's a nonsensical system that could not possibly do anything other than result in a society divided into haves and have-nots.

I'm not sure exactly what you imagine the situation to be in Hong Kong, but you might want to take a look at this and this and see if it modifies your view somewhat. Hong Kong also does OK for overall economic freedom.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

It clearly has a lot of socialist policies with which its high standard of living could not be achieved if it were not the case.

What are these "socialist policies"? What companies, for example, have been nationalized?

[Free Thinkr]

Originally Posted by megaresp

I'm not sure exactly what you imagine the situation to be in Hong Kong, but you might want to take a look at this and this and see if it modifies your view somewhat. Hong Kong also does OK for overall economic freedom.

After WW2, the British controlled Hong Kong. The government allowed for standard free enterprise as in Britain, but it did something different with the land: instead of selling or gifting it away to individuals, it installed a lease system of land tenure. By leasing the land, it was able to keep taxes on production very lower -much lower than virtually anywhere else.

Hong Kong's system is far from perfect, but it got at the fundamental flaw of capitalism: treating land like any other commodity. Land ought to be administered for the common benefit of all, and those who are privileged with exclusive use of some part of it ought to pay compensation to those thereby deprived of its use. In this way, harmful taxes on production can be minimized. That's the superior alternative to capitalism.

[The_Animus]

I don't hold much stock in pointing to a case like Russia's communism failing and then generalize that failure to "communism, socialism, etc. can never work".

Microsoft introduced the tablet many many years ago and it pretty much failed. Did it fail because all tablets are doomed to fail? No. It failed because the circumstances at the time didn't support it. Technology wasn't good enough and there weren't enough supporting things like apps, GPS, etc to make it a multifaceted and useful product to the masses for the price.

In a similar way we as a species or as a society may simply not have been at the point where we could successfully implement communism/socialism/whatever.

My personal opinion is that socialistic ideals can work well for certain aspects of an economy/society but not for others.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

In the US alone, it was anti-capitalists who agitated for the easing of wage labor conditions in the 19th century and the abolition of child labor in the 20th.¹ Anti-capitalists helped to sustain the unemployed through the Great Depression.² Anti-capitalists organized the domestic resistance to the US war in Indochina.³ Anti-capitalists called out white supremacy and supported the civil rights movements (not just vocally but materially).⁴ Most recently it was anti-capitalists who led in denouncing the post-9/11 American war state.⁵
I would be rather more inclined to dismiss someone, if they dogmatically ignore or apologize for capitalism's failings.

1. Child labor laws make society poorer. Vocational training occurs more effectively on the job than in a classroom. Child labor laws put on-the-job training off limits. Thomas Edison was homeschooled and started work at 13. Hyram Maxim left school at 14 and apprenticed. David Farragut joined the US Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15. Robert FitzRoy went to sea at 14. Today, Swiss children may leave school for apprenticeship programs at 16.
2. Unemployment insurance subsidizes unemployment. The world supplies resources to which humans apply ingenuity and effort. Anything that discourages ingenuity or subsidizes a reduction of effort reduces net social income.
3. True. They supported the communists.
4. No. The Republican party originated in opposition to slavery. Martin Luther King was a Republican. The progressive Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow laws to the Federal government.
5. "Led"? Dunno, there are civil libertarians across the spectrum who object.

To the central question: Yes, anti-capitalists have to be taken seriously. So does colon cancer.

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by Virus

I agree. And economics, like evolution is a tricky subject to get your head around and can be counter-intuitive. Many people think transferring wealth is creating it. Or redistributing it counts as economic activity.

Of course it's "common sense" to have a committee of smart people plan the economy centrally rather than leave it up to market forces. Many highly intelligent people thought that, like Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russel. Socialism was taken seriously in academia.

It's now known to be a failure. After the Soviet Union collapsed, nobody wanted to be seen dead promoting socialism. Globalization lifted millions out of poverty. Thrusting some countries like South Korea from third to first world in a few decades.

Just as there are still twits who believe in racial supremacy, there are still twits who believe in socialism, communism, Marxism ect. We'll never be free of twists who believe silly things. Unfortunately it's socially acceptable to be a socialist twit and walk around with a Che T-shirt. And there are lots of silly people in government who don't trust economic freedom, or enjoy the political benefits of populist demagoguery, or political favors from well-connected cronies.

It doesn't help that crap like this is used in US schools:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

and not this:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

There's a difference between communism and socialism. So it's bad when people don't promote your version of propaganda?

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by WildCat

What are these "socialist policies"? What companies, for example, have been nationalized?

You seem to lack a thorough understanding of the word "socialism". It refers to social ownership, and does not refer exclusively methods of operation by profit seeking entities. It is clear that Canada has many "socialist policies". For example, Canada's healthcare system can be considered socialist because all members of society contribute to the funding and upkeep of healthcare. Because of this, this service belongs to all members of society and exclusively belongs to no one. For this reason, it can be said that this specific program is socialist.

*Notice I said socialist policies, and I mentioned nothing of profit seeking entities.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

1. Child labor laws make society poorer. Vocational training occurs more effectively on the job than in a classroom. Child labor laws put on-the-job training off limits. Thomas Edison was homeschooled and started work at 13. Hyram Maxim left school at 14 and apprenticed. David Farragut joined the US Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15. Robert FitzRoy went to sea at 14. Today, Swiss children may leave school for apprenticeship programs at 16.
2. Unemployment insurance subsidizes unemployment. The world supplies resources to which humans apply ingenuity and effort. Anything that discourages ingenuity or subsidizes a reduction of effort reduces net social income.
. . . <snip> . . .

That sounds like it came straight from the Gina Rinehart book on "How to make the world a better place for me".

[Gazpacho]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

4. No. The Republican party originated in opposition to slavery. Martin Luther King was a Republican. The progressive Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow laws to the Federal government.

So you know literally nothing about the civil rights movement except what fits into two-party great-man fairy tales. Martin Luther King and the others (there were others) received support from white anti-capitalists outside the Democratic Party (there is such a thing) who were decades ahead of either party in perceiving the wrongness of white supremacy.

[jj]

I wonder, the OP has never really defined what an anti-capitalist is, either, rather allowing the definition to float for the convenience of the plutocratic party and their fellow-travellers.

Is a law that bans cinnebar, for instance, as a lipstick ingredient, in fact an anti-capitalist law?

Let's have an example here, shall we?

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

4. No. The Republican party originated in opposition to slavery. Martin Luther King was a Republican.

False, Dr. King was neither Democrat, nor Republican. He never officially endorsed ANY party. While he was alive, he carefully coordinated with both political parties to promote civil rights. Awhile back there was a billboard poster that proclaimed MLKJ was a republican, which many of his close family and friends regarded as an absolute lie, and for good reason.

MANY (not all but many) of MLK's stances were socialist. In fact, the last speech he made in Tennessee was a socialist speech to the black members of the public sanitary works organization in Memphis. He wrote several letters to his wife about pro-socialism. If you are trying to use Dr. King as some poster child for Republicanism and Capitalism, you are grossly mistaken.

As for the statement of the Republican Party, the Republican Party has changed drastically, and those who originally supported the Democrats during the civil war are not the same people who support them today. Most southern democrats have firmly shifted themselves over to the Republican party, as a result both the Democrats and Republicans bare little resemblance to what they were in the 19th century. The republicans especially used racial tension to win the white southern vote starting after the presidency of LBJ; this was called "southernization".

[Caper]

Originally Posted by StankApe

A friend went while he was in college,(early 2000's) he said it was a dirty hellhole, kept getting hounded all the time for money, by hookers, by drug dealers... he did smuggle back some good stogies though.

I would never call it a dirty hell hole. It was pretty chill though.... the people do try and hit you up for money though... and literally the shirt off your back. It was really annoying when we were at the airport and a female airport worker was in the bathroom selling the toilet paper.

The people were really nice.... I think they would love a little capitalism.... and from what I saw, the reason the country hasn't collapsed yet is because the people have found a little capitalism in their communist world.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

False, Dr. King was neither Democrat, nor Republican. He never officially endorsed ANY party. While he was alive, he carefully coordinated with both political parties to promote civil rights. Awhile back there was a billboard poster that proclaimed MLKJ was a republican, which many of his close family and friends regarded as an absolute lie, and for good reason.
[Snip]

As long as he wasn't a registered DemocRat the writing was on the wall for all to see.

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by balrog666

As long as he wasn't a registered DemocRat the writing was on the wall for all to see.

You don’t know much about African American history or black people do you bro? I can tell by this half-cooked argument you’re trying to make. MLKJ never told anyone who he publically voted for. But contrary to your statement it is most likely that he was a liberal, but most likely not straight ticket. The guy was one of the first modern American Liberals. He believed the government should interfere with macroeconomics and there should be programs that guarantee employment. That’s not a very conservative platform by any reasonable measure.

Most blacks are socially conservative and economically liberal. MLK was hardly an exception to this rule. You can try at your historical revisionism, but it doesn’t make it true. Keep the Dr. out of this conversation if you aren’t willing to have a factual conversation about him please, thank you.

[respect]

Originally Posted by jj

Is a law that bans cinnebar, for instance, as a lipstick ingredient, in fact an anti-capitalist law?

No, was this supposed to be a serious question?

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by respect

No, was this supposed to be a serious question?

Just to play devils advocate, why not? Shouldn't I be allowed to purchase lipstick with cinnebar(mercury) in it?

Do you say no because of obvious health concerns? If so where is the line drawn between capitalism and anti-capitalism? Should nicotine be allowed to be sold in cigarettes? What about all the other toxins in them? How about alcohol? High fructose corn syrup? What is the method for determining which are which?

[respect]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Just to play devils advocate, why not? Shouldn't I be allowed to purchase lipstick with cinnebar(mercury) in it?

Do you say no because of obvious health concerns? If so where is the line drawn between capitalism and anti-capitalism? Should nicotine be allowed to be sold in cigarettes? What about all the other toxins in them? How about alcohol? High fructose corn syrup? What is the method for determining which are which?

There is no absolute lines in the sand, but regulations to protect public safety are not understood in common usage to be anti-capitalist, it isn't the government attempting to nationalize private property (socialism) or direct how private property is to be used to meet government production agendas (corporatism).

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by respect

There is no absolute lines in the sand, but regulations to protect public safety are not understood in common usage to be anti-capitalist, it isn't the government attempting to nationalize private property (socialism) or direct how private property is to be used to meet government production agendas (corporatism).

+1

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by respect

There is no absolute lines in the sand, but regulations to protect public safety are not understood in common usage to be anti-capitalist, it isn't the government attempting to nationalize private property (socialism) or direct how private property is to be used to meet government production agendas (corporatism).

Granted. But are those two (socialism, and corporatism, as you've described them) the only forms of anti-capitalism? My understanding of common usage of capitalism refers to the concept of "free markets". As such, government regulation of the market would be deemed anti-capitalist. However, I agree that regulations in the interest of protecting public safety are not anti-capitalist.

But what constitutes public safety? As you say I think hardly anyone would consider banning cinnebar from lipstick as anti-capitalist, but what about banning smoking from bars? That is also in the interest of public safety and yet I would bet many felt it anti-capitalist. Is the regulation in New York regarding soft drinks anti-capitalist or just protecting public safety? Are all government regulations in the interest of public safety automatically not anti-capitalist?

I guess it comes down to how capitalism is defined.

[jj]

Originally Posted by respect

No, was this supposed to be a serious question?

Why not? You're restraining the free market, which is represented most often as anti-capitalist.

What I have yet to see is an admission that every attempt at pure capitalism has devolved into corporate fascism.

But we all know that's what happens.

[respect]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Granted. But are those two (socialism, and corporatism, as you've described them) the only forms of anti-capitalism? My understanding of common usage of capitalism refers to the concept of "free markets". As such, government regulation of the market would be deemed anti-capitalist. However, I agree that regulations in the interest of protecting public safety are not anti-capitalist.

But what constitutes public safety? As you say I think hardly anyone would consider banning cinnebar from lipstick as anti-capitalist, but what about banning smoking from bars? That is also in the interest of public safety and yet I would bet many felt it anti-capitalist. Is the regulation in New York regarding soft drinks anti-capitalist or just protecting public safety? Are all government regulations in the interest of public safety automatically not anti-capitalist?

I guess it comes down to how capitalism is defined.

No, free markets and capitalism are not the same thing although they are often viewed to act together, but certainly free market socialism is not capitalism and crony capitalism is not free market activity.

But you bring up an interesting point which draws on systems blending together. People who work in or hang out at a bar that allows smoking can reasonably be expected to understand the risks of second hand smoking. But I am having a difficult time thinking of how bans can be classified, it really doesn't seem to fall under any non-capitalist systems, cronyism sounds best. Don't like how the means of production owned by others are being used? Get the government to bend them to your will.

I am very open to other ideas on this.

[respect]

Originally Posted by jj

Why not? You're restraining the free market, which is represented most often as anti-capitalist.

What I have yet to see is an admission that every attempt at pure capitalism has devolved into corporate fascism.

But we all know that's what happens.

The concept of free markets does not suggest that manufacturers can kill you with poisons. I would suggest that you grow up and argue with your opponents on real terms.

Also, "pure capitalism", by which you mean laissez-faire capitalism has never existed in the real world so it certainly hasn't devolved into anything, let alone corporate fascism. And countries that have been controlled by fascists and their means of economic control, corporatism, meant the word corporation in a much different sense than you do.

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for civility.

[jj]

Originally Posted by respect

The concept of free markets does not suggest that manufacturers can kill you with poisons. I would suggest that you grow up and argue with your opponents on real terms.

Ignoring your unwarranted ad-homs, how is a market free if you can't sell something that's bad for someone?

You clearly are advocating a regulated market, and stipulate as much when you say what you said in your first sentence.

[StankApe]

I've always taken the term "free market" to mean "no price controls, no subsidies, no regulation on trade as far as excess taxation or attempting to create parity" Not "you can sell anything you want and get away with it"

to expand:

If I lived in a village and was the only one who had goose eggs and due to this I sold them for $1 each, yet people complained to the magistrate who informed me that my egg prices were too high and I must drop the price to 25 cents a piece or in the hoosegow I go , is excessive regulation. People had the option of just refusing to pay my high price, buy a goose themselves and get in the egg business or simply wait until I dropped them myself to avoid having all these rotten eggs sitting around not making me any money. (that IMO is a free market)

If I'm selling chicken eggs (that normally go for a dime each) under the guise that they are actually goose eggs at a quarter each ,when my treachery is discovered, the magistrate can come lock me up for fraud. (that IMO is proper regulation of a free market)
Also, IF I discover that there's a new guy in town selling goose eggs too, and he's undercutting my prices and I sneak over under cover of darkness and kill his geese. Then the magistrate should come over and chuck me in jail (this is also proper regulation of a free market). If I go over and make a deal that we will both sell our eggs for the same price, or I offer to give him ten times market price for all his geese returning me to my monopoly, I would say that the Magistrate would be over regulating by chucking me in the dungeon...

[jj]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I've always taken the term "free market" to mean "no price controls, no subsidies, no regulation on trade as far as excess taxation or attempting to create parity" Not "you can sell anything you want and get away with it"

to expand:

If I lived in a village and was the only one who had goose eggs and due to this I sold them for $1 each, yet people complained to the magistrate who informed me that my egg prices were too high and I must drop the price to 25 cents a piece or in the hoosegow I go , is excessive regulation. People had the option of just refusing to pay my high price, buy a goose themselves and get in the egg business or simply wait until I dropped them myself to avoid having all these rotten eggs sitting around not making me any money. (that IMO is a free market)

If I'm selling chicken eggs (that normally go for a dime each) under the guise that they are actually goose eggs at a quarter each ,when my treachery is discovered, the magistrate can come lock me up for fraud. (that IMO is proper regulation of a free market)
Also, IF I discover that there's a new guy in town selling goose eggs too, and he's undercutting my prices and I sneak over under cover of darkness and kill his geese. Then the magistrate should come over and chuck me in jail (this is also proper regulation of a free market). If I go over and make a deal that we will both sell our eggs for the same price, or I offer to give him ten times market price for all his geese returning me to my monopoly, I would say that the Magistrate would be over regulating by chucking me in the dungeon...

Well, except for the issue of collusion, which you seem to support, and which is nothing like a "free market", I'm more or less with you, it's what I'd call a 'well regulated market'. But I think your collusion is just the same thing as other kinds of overregulation.

In your examples, regulation selling a false item does not support the idea of "caveat emptor" which is often presented as a free-market ideal. I do, however, agree with the idea that it's fraud and therefore actionable.

In the example where the geese are killed, that's damage of another's property, and is more in the line of theft and conversion. This has nothing much to do with a market, but is rather respecting property rights, which the goose-killer has violated.

In the final example, we have returned to regulation of a market via supplier collusion, and again, we really have something much less than a free market, because the customer is being, effectively, regulated, and as such, that should be out of line, too. In this case, the providers are imposing regulation that constrains the customer unfairly.

I didn't say this was a simple issue, that's for sure.

And thank you for at least offering a discussion, you've done better than some here who appear to practice a free-market religion and simply react with accusations of sacrilege when offered controversion.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by jj

Ignoring your unwarranted ad-homs, how is a market free if you can't sell something that's bad for someone?

Whether a market is free or not is determined by the pricing mechanism.

[jj]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Whether a market is free or not is determined by the pricing mechanism.

So then you disagree with the poster two articles up who talked about supplier collusion, which is restricting the pricing mechanism?

Could you please elucidate?