• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would a truly 100% free market work?

Would a truly 100% free market work?

  • Total voters
    43
radcen said:
Would a truly 100% free market work?

I'm talking 100% FREE, no regulation whatsoever.

In theory, as if we started that way and kept it that way. Going back to that extreme would be pretty much impossible now, so this discussion is in theory only.
Click to expand...

Of course it would- there were no regulations in the early days of the stock market. Of course there will be ups and downs, but the cream will always rise to the top.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Would a game of football work with no referees? Now admittedly, sometimes you're referees can suck, but for the most part you kind of need them to keep the game going. Otherwise one team would knife the other in the first play. And then it wouldn't be football, it would be arena style gladiators. Completely different sport.
Click to expand...

This is how I began viewing government as I transitioned from a right-libertarian to a left-libertarian. Everyone loves to hate on the refs... but does anyone really want to play/watch a sport without them?
 
Geoist said:
This is how I began viewing government as I transitioned from a right-libertarian to a left-libertarian. Everyone loves to hate on the refs... but does anyone really want to play/watch a sport without them?
Click to expand...

I agree that is a fairly appropriate analogy, the issue is finding that area of how much intervention in the market is reasonable and works. Many of the issues we see today are largely due to government interference in the market. The industries that perform the worst (healthcare, education, housing, etc) are largely the ones that are the most regulated, conversely those that are doing the best (tech, luxury items) are largely free of government interference. For instance take TVs, the quality has drastically improved while the cost to manufactor and buy has dramatically declined to the point that even the poor can afford a nice big screen TV in their home. In Healthcare and Education we are seeing the reverse with higher costs, less access, and lower quality.

While I agree that it shouldn't be a 100% free market, it should be relatively close with the government really only making sure to prevent monopolies and protect citizens rights. If the government has less control over the public sector there is less incentive for corporations to essentially buy favorable treatment from politicians. Arguing for more regulation and government control is basically arguing for more corruption and corporatism.
 
Nap said:
I agree that is a fairly appropriate analogy, the issue is finding that area of how much intervention in the market is reasonable and works. Many of the issues we see today are largely due to government interference in the market. The industries that perform the worst (healthcare, education, housing, etc) are largely the ones that are the most regulated, conversely those that are doing the best (tech, luxury items) are largely free of government interference. For instance take TVs, the quality has drastically improved while the cost to manufactor and buy has dramatically declined to the point that even the poor can afford a nice big screen TV in their home. In Healthcare and Education we are seeing the reverse with higher costs, less access, and lower quality.

While I agree that it shouldn't be a 100% free market, it should be relatively close with the government really only making sure to prevent monopolies and protect citizens rights. If the government has less control over the public sector there is less incentive for corporations to essentially buy favorable treatment from politicians. Arguing for more regulation and government control is basically arguing for more corruption and corporatism.
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent, there are certainly industries that generally do better with minimal government interference. However, on your examples of health care and education being examples of a failed regulatory system, I don't really see it that way. Or, at least, I don't see it has the main problem. We see more regulation in European health care, yet their costs are far lower than they are in the US. I see corporatism as the real problem here. The pharmaceutical industries and health care equipment industries are major culprits for the high costs. Many of our politicians do not want to regulate those costs because it would go against their free market beliefs. On education, too, we spend more per student than any other 'socialist' European country, yet we fall behind.
 
Geoist said:
I agree to an extent, there are certainly industries that generally do better with minimal government interference. However, on your examples of health care and education being examples of a failed regulatory system, I don't really see it that way. Or, at least, I don't see it has the main problem. We see more regulation in European health care, yet their costs are far lower than they are in the US. I see corporatism as the real problem here. The pharmaceutical industries and health care equipment industries are major culprits for the high costs. Many of our politicians do not want to regulate those costs because it would go against their free market beliefs. On education, too, we spend more per student than any other 'socialist' European country, yet we fall behind.
Click to expand...

I agree that corporatism is the issue, which is why I believe the government should have less involvement than more. The more power the government has the more incentive special interest groups have for buying politicians. If people truly want to decrease corruption in the government than increasing the size and scope of said government runs counter intuitive to your goal.

Not really fair to compare costs are mostly likely artificially controlled by government and not the market. For instance, they limit the prices drug companies can charge for medications, the US consumer is effectively paying the majority of R&D while the pay slightly more than the production cost. Should the US implement similar policies it would essentially slow the development of making new drugs and limit innovation, which is why even though some politicians actually do bring up stuff like importing drugs or limits on pricing it will likely not ever pass because too many are in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies and the rest know the potential pitfalls that could come from it.

As far as education, a more free market approach of competition in my opinion would greatly help especially for the poor who are forced into the worst of the school district's. Which is why I support school choice, good luck getting that as long as there are politicians in the teacher's unions pocket.
 
Masterhawk said:
Because that's what a 100% free market is.
Click to expand...

Anarcho-capitalists are people, and a rare breed they are. A "100% free market" is purely theoretical as it presumably refers to anarchy. Framing debates like this is kind of strange. It would be like asking liberals to defend totalitarian communism. Why should they be asked to defend totalitarian communism? Wouldn't that be a straw man kind of debate tactic? Free market principles shouldn't be framed as anarchy any more than liberalism should be framed as totalitarianism.

Back in 1960, the top tier for regular income tax was 91%, 25% for capital gains, and 52% for corporate tax. In 2017, the top tier for income tax is 39.6% and 35% for corporate tax. The maximum capital gains tax is the same as the income tax on the short term but only 20% on the long term.

So it's safe to say that taxes on the rich were higher back in the 1960s than they are today.
Click to expand...

What was the question I asked you?
 
Nap said:
I agree that corporatism is the issue, which is why I believe the government should have less involvement than more. The more power the government has the more incentive special interest groups have for buying politicians. If people truly want to decrease corruption in the government than increasing the size and scope of said government runs counter intuitive to your goal.
Click to expand...

Didn't we have less government involvement during the Industrial Revolution? We saw some of the worst government corruption during that time. That corruption was a major factor for the Progressive Movement. So while I believe you are right in that more government regulation could lead to more opportunities for bribery/corruption, at least the regulatory powers give the People (as represented by government) some leverage against the powers of the corporations.

Not really fair to compare costs are mostly likely artificially controlled by government and not the market. For instance, they limit the prices drug companies can charge for medications, the US consumer is effectively paying the majority of R&D while the pay slightly more than the production cost. Should the US implement similar policies it would essentially slow the development of making new drugs and limit innovation, which is why even though some politicians actually do bring up stuff like importing drugs or limits on pricing it will likely not ever pass because too many are in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies and the rest know the potential pitfalls that could come from it.
Click to expand...

So it is appropriate for the taxpayers to prop up the pharmaceutical companies but it would not be appropriate for those taxpayers to expect reasonable prices?

the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol — derived from the bark of Pacific yew trees — and it was marketed under an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The medical community called it a promising new drug in the fight against ovarian and breast cancer.

Since then, Bristol-Myers Squibb has sold $9 billion worth of Taxol worldwide, according the the General Accounting Office report released today.

The National Institutes of Health have received just $35 million in royalties from Bristol-Myers, however.

Bristol did not discover the drug. The federal government did — with taxpayer dollars — and then negotiated a licensing agreement with the pharmaceutical giant.
Taxpayers End Up Funding Drug Companies - ABC News


As far as education, a more free market approach of competition in my opinion would greatly help especially for the poor who are forced into the worst of the school district's. Which is why I support school choice, good luck getting that as long as there are politicians in the teacher's unions pocket.
Click to expand...

The poor currently pay little-to-nothing for public schooling. Forcing them to pay for private schooling does not help their situation.

Read up on Kevin Carson's take on "school choice." I think it is enlightening.
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
Didn't we have less government involvement during the Industrial Revolution? We saw some of the worst government corruption during that time. That corruption was a major factor for the Progressive Movement. So while I believe you are right in that more government regulation could lead to more opportunities for bribery/corruption, at least the regulatory powers give the People (as represented by government) some leverage against the powers of the corporations.



So it is appropriate for the taxpayers to prop up the pharmaceutical companies but it would not be appropriate for those taxpayers to expect reasonable prices?

the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol — derived from the bark of Pacific yew trees — and it was marketed under an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The medical community called it a promising new drug in the fight against ovarian and breast cancer.

Since then, Bristol-Myers Squibb has sold $9 billion worth of Taxol worldwide, according the the General Accounting Office report released today.

The National Institutes of Health have received just $35 million in royalties from Bristol-Myers, however.

Bristol did not discover the drug. The federal government did — with taxpayer dollars — and then negotiated a licensing agreement with the pharmaceutical giant.
Taxpayers End Up Funding Drug Companies - ABC News




The poor currently pay little-to-nothing for public schooling. Forcing them to pay for private schooling does not help their situation.
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest, I'm not equipped to really have any debate regarding the industrial revolution as I am largely ignorant of what actually happened other then the typical high school synopsis of the time (I blame the Mississippi education system :p )so will concede that point.

Don't get me wrong, I actually support legislation that would prevent drug companies from charging Americans more than citizens of another country. It would be my hope that the drug companies and tge US could then reach out to the other governments in hopes of making a more equitable arrangement where we all pay the same. My fear though and maybe the most likely of outcomes would be that the other countries would not respect the copyrights of those medications and the results could be disastrous.


When I was speaking about a free market approach and competition I was referring to the idea that parents could choose the school they send their children too rather than being tied to the district they can afford. The way it is right now is essentially wealth discrimination. This would force the worst of the districts to clean up their schools and reach out to parents to get them more involved.
 
Nap said:
Don't get me wrong, I actually support legislation that would prevent drug companies from charging Americans more than citizens of another country. It would be my hope that the drug companies and tge US could then reach out to the other governments in hopes of making a more equitable arrangement where we all pay the same. My fear though and maybe the most likely of outcomes would be that the other countries would not respect the copyrights of those medications and the results could be disastrous.
Click to expand...

Well, if there were some sort of agreement between the countries I'd imagine there would be stipulations on what would happen if a party broke that contract. Of course, we probably cannot expect China to honor such a contract, but I think it could work for most developed nations.


When I was speaking about a free market approach and competition I was referring to the idea that parents could choose the school they send their children too rather than being tied to the district they can afford. The way it is right now is essentially wealth discrimination. This would force the worst of the districts to clean up their schools and reach out to parents to get them more involved.
Click to expand...

I hear you, and I think that is reasonable, I just don't like how the current "school choice"/charter school movement is being directed.

I like Carson's solution:

Getting back to the Arkansas banana republic; if anybody should have right of “first refusal” of community assets, it should be the community itself. Not the local government, but the actual community, which paid to build the facilities in the first place. Unused school and office buildings could be repurposed as community hubs to house hackerspaces and workshops, free universities, tool libraries, farmers’ markets, low-cost hostels, and the like. Unused land — like all municipal land — should be incorporated into community land trusts, providing a perpetual and inalienable commons of low-cost land for housing that can serve as the kernel of a commons-based system of local land ownership.

This model, of mutualizing municipal property and opening underutilized buildings to community functions under the governance of the community itself, is being promoted in cities all over Spain — most notably Barcelona and Madrid. In these cities, local citizen coalitions, organized by former M15 activists, have taken over. And unlike the corporate enclosure — or crony capitalism — promoted by fake “free market” advocates in America, this is an actual libertarian policy. Which makes it a dead certainty that we’ll never see any of the “charterization” pushers like the Kochs, the Walton Family Foundation, or Reason magazine advocating anything like it.
https://c4ss.org/content/48648
 
Geoist said:
Well, if there were some sort of agreement between the countries I'd imagine there would be stipulations on what would happen if a party broke that contract. Of course, we probably cannot expect China to honor such a contract, but I think it could work for most developed nations.




I hear you, and I think that is reasonable, I just don't like how the current "school choice"/charter school movement is being directed.

I like Carson's solution:

Getting back to the Arkansas banana republic; if anybody should have right of “first refusal” of community assets, it should be the community itself. Not the local government, but the actual community, which paid to build the facilities in the first place. Unused school and office buildings could be repurposed as community hubs to house hackerspaces and workshops, free universities, tool libraries, farmers’ markets, low-cost hostels, and the like. Unused land — like all municipal land — should be incorporated into community land trusts, providing a perpetual and inalienable commons of low-cost land for housing that can serve as the kernel of a commons-based system of local land ownership.

This model, of mutualizing municipal property and opening underutilized buildings to community functions under the governance of the community itself, is being promoted in cities all over Spain — most notably Barcelona and Madrid. In these cities, local citizen coalitions, organized by former M15 activists, have taken over. And unlike the corporate enclosure — or crony capitalism — promoted by fake “free market” advocates in America, this is an actual libertarian policy. Which makes it a dead certainty that we’ll never see any of the “charterization” pushers like the Kochs, the Walton Family Foundation, or Reason magazine advocating anything like it.
https://c4ss.org/content/48648
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess my terminology of "school choice" is a bit misleading. I'm not really advocating for privatization of the education as I am a free market approach to looking at it. His solution would be able to fit with the overall idea. Tie government funding to the student and allow parents to decide which school gives their children the best opportunity to succeed then schools that know how to properly manage funds will grow while failing schools die out. The community can the repurpose the buildings to fit the needs of the community like he proposed. You would end up with not only better quality in the education system but more resources to better the community as well. It is a radical change from the way it is handled now and while there are negative consequences (longer commutes to school for example) I believe the positive outcomes would be far more beneficial to the current system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom