• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Happens When the Free Market has Its Way...

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
This weekend I caught glimpse of a jarring Seattle Times headline – “Pot products recalled for pesticides in Colorado, but not in Washington”.

Here, in 2016, was a perfect example of what industries will do when the free market “has its way.” The use of harmful pesticides on marijuana is hardly an anomaly. Over the course of history, we have seen that when businesses are given the freedom to either poison their consumers or not, the results have been disturbingly lopsided.

Why is this so?

The answers lie in the faulty assumptions of free market philosophy; the very theory which allows for industries to be free from government regulation.

>>>snip<<<

By prioritizing freedom above all other moral and political considerations, free market ideologists like Speaker Ryan put an uneven burden of responsibility on the consumer. Should it be up to me, the consumer, to dig into the marijuana industry and see if the pot I’m about to smoke is laced with harmful pesticides? Is the burden on me to see if the beef I’m eating at McDonalds is actually from a cow? Is that what “freedom” is all about?

Milton Friedman quipped that “underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” Such an unnuanced statement is as insulting as it is odious. One can believe in the power of the free market (and freedom) while also advocating for government regulation and the right for consumers to have adequate information to make a “rational decision.” To say otherwise is to believe in an ideology detached from human behavior.

The results are clear: when given unchecked autonomy, industries will not consider the long-term health of their consumers. That is an unfortunate byproduct of blindly allowing industries to have unchecked freedom. To quote Friedman again, “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” A terrific insight into a profound blind spot of humanity – too bad proponents of the free market don’t examine theirs.

[The whole short article is well worth reading and can be found here]

Are free, unregulated markets better than regulated markets? Why or why not?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
[The whole short article is well worth reading and can be found here]

Are free, unregulated markets better than regulated markets? Why or why not?

Nope.
Extremism at either end (zero-regulation or over-regulation) are bad, in my humble opinion.
Over-regulation will drive up cost, reduce choice, and also remove creativity. The market will stop reacting to changing demands, etc.
Zero regulation results in a trial by error approach to safety (as an example) and then puts the onus on individual consumers to even understand the lessons learnt, and whether a particular product has applied them.

Consider regulations around accurate ingredient identification in food. Without getting into specifics, this doesn't enforce anything other than transparency to the consumers, and actually promotes market forces to drive production. It also promotes renaming of common products so as to obscure this aim of transparency, but that's a little beside the point in relation to the OP. Regulation, when sensibly written, doesn't need to be stifling or overly costly.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
The problem with the "free market" today is that it isn't really free. Individuals are shielded from personal liability through corporate fictions and other legal methods. It doesn't scare a business proprietor to cut edges any which way he can manage, when his personal wealth is legally shielded apart from his business venture.

A true free market does not involve transactions between businesses and customers; it would be between individuals and other individuals.

If you (an individual, unshielded from personal liability) sell me (another individual) one of your goods, the following would occur:

1. You'd probably make sure that your product is as safe as you know how to make it;
2. You'd advertise that fact;
3. You'd sell your product only to those who you know on an individual basis (e.g. family, friends, local community) with similar standards as yourself - to those whom you trust and who trusts you and your product in return;
4. You'd be wary of selling to those whom you don't know (e.g. someone on the other side of the world, with different standards);
5. If you do decide to sell to those whom you don't know, you'd make sure you disclaim liability, and the stranger who purchases your good would have to willingly assume personal liability of using your product.

This ensures and encourages small, strong, cooperative, and cohesive local communities with shared standards; it also encourages people to be morally and ethically upright (lest they be personally sued to oblivion, with personal reputation and livelihood destroyed), with every individual in the community providing a check on every other individual in the community; it also discourages unbridled greed (a consequence of international trafficking in goods, corporate fictions to shield liability, etc.).


Obviously, this system doesn't work well for those interested in anonymously amassing great private fortunes.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Nope.
Extremism at either end (zero-regulation or over-regulation) are bad, in my humble opinion.
Over-regulation will drive up cost, reduce choice, and also remove creativity. The market will stop reacting to changing demands, etc.
Zero regulation results in a trial by error approach to safety (as an example) and then puts the onus on individual consumers to even understand the lessons learnt, and whether a particular product has applied them.

Consider regulations around accurate ingredient identification in food. Without getting into specifics, this doesn't enforce anything other than transparency to the consumers, and actually promotes market forces to drive production. It also promotes renaming of common products so as to obscure this aim of transparency, but that's a little beside the point in relation to the OP. Regulation, when sensibly written, doesn't need to be stifling or overly costly.
Where I see the greatest usefulness for regulation is when consequences are large.
Example.....
Real estate broker licensing is useful because the damage which a client could suffer from improper actions by the broker could easily exceed the broker's ability to make the buyer whole. This regulatory burden is minimal.....except for tedious continuing education (Boring!). So educational & ethical requirements are worthwhile. But I oppose regulating commission rates & other economic aspects.

That seems to cover a multitude of options. Can you offer something more specific?
See above.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The problem with the "free market" today is that it isn't really free. Individuals are shielded from personal liability through corporate fictions and other legal methods. It doesn't scare a business proprietor to cut edges any which way he can manage, when his personal wealth is legally shielded apart from his business venture.

A true free market does not involve transactions between businesses and customers; it would be between individuals and other individuals.

If you (an individual) sell me (another individual) one of your goods, the following would occur:

1. You'd probably make sure that your product is as safe as you know how to make it;
2. You'd advertise that fact;
3. You'd sell your product only to those who you know on an individual basis (e.g. family, friends, local community) with similar standards as yourself - to those whom you trust and who trusts you and your product in return;
4. You'd be wary of selling to those whom you don't know (e.g. someone on the other side of the world, with different standards);
5. If you do decide to sell to those whom you don't know, you'd make sure you disclaim liability, and the stranger who purchases your good would have to willingly assume personal liability of using your product.

This ensures and encourages small, strong, cooperative, and cohesive local communities with shared standards; it also encourages people to be morally and ethically upright (lest they be personally sued to oblivion, with personal reputation and livelihood destroyed), with every individual in the community providing a check on every other individual in the community; it also discourages unbridled greed (a consequence of international trafficking in goods, corporate fictions to shield liability, etc.).


Obviously, this system doesn't work well for those interested in anonymously amassing great private fortunes.

Do you think consumers generally make rational choices?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Nope.
Extremism at either end (zero-regulation or over-regulation) are bad, in my humble opinion.
Over-regulation will drive up cost, reduce choice, and also remove creativity. The market will stop reacting to changing demands, etc.
Zero regulation results in a trial by error approach to safety (as an example) and then puts the onus on individual consumers to even understand the lessons learnt, and whether a particular product has applied them.

Consider regulations around accurate ingredient identification in food. Without getting into specifics, this doesn't enforce anything other than transparency to the consumers, and actually promotes market forces to drive production. It also promotes renaming of common products so as to obscure this aim of transparency, but that's a little beside the point in relation to the OP. Regulation, when sensibly written, doesn't need to be stifling or overly costly.

How rational do you think consumers are in general? How well informed do you think they are?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Where I see the greatest usefulness for regulation is when consequences are large.
Example.....
Real estate broker licensing is useful because the damage which a client could suffer from improper actions by the broker could easily exceed the broker's ability to make the buyer whole. So educational & ethical requirements are worthwhile.

Hmm...that's a little different to how I'd assess (even realising we're talking generically)
It would be a basic ROI type of measure for me. An onerous or costly regulation should only be used where consequences are large.
A minor regulation (in terms of cost, etc) might be implemented even if the consequence are smaller, particularly if that regulation may promote innovation or consumer freedom (ie. grease the free market wheels, so to speak)
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
How rational do you think consumers are in general? How well informed do you think they are?

I think they can be very well-informed in certain areas. But I think it's rare that consumers are well informed across the board.
For example, I get used as a sounding board for tech purchases by friends. This actually makes sense for some sorts of tech, whereas others they would be better served to hit Google.
Food labelling makes far less sense to me. My wife understands the various names by which sugar can be 'hidden' on labels though.

Ultimately I don't care if consumers are rational or not. That is, ultimately, on them. But I do care if the means to a rational decision are hidden, or needlessly difficult to access.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Hmm...that's a little different to how I'd assess (even realising we're talking generically)
It would be a basic ROI type of measure for me. An onerous or costly regulation should only be used where consequences are large.
A minor regulation (in terms of cost, etc) might be implemented even if the consequence are smaller, particularly if that regulation may promote innovation or consumer freedom (ie. grease the free market wheels, so to speak)
Yes, ROI evaluation is critical.
Oddly, I know people IRL who oppose this consideration.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Do you think consumers generally make rational choices?
They'd have to, if they knew that the onus of responsibility is on themselves.

If they can't for whatever reason (e.g. incompetence), their local community - those who personally know the individual - would know of it and step up to guard that individual as a personal moral and ethical obligation.

The systems in place today, with endless laws shielding personal liability among other evils, promotes the destruction of personal and cooperative responsibility, and destroys local communities and culture.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
They'd have to, if they knew that the onus of responsibility is on themselves.

If they can't for whatever reason (e.g. incompetence), their local community - those who personally know the individual - would know of it and step up to guard that individual as a personal moral and ethical obligation.

The systems in place today, with endless laws shielding personal liability among other evils, promotes the destruction of personal and cooperative responsibility, and destroys local communities and culture.

Do you know of any culture or society that closely reflects your ideals?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Where I see the greatest usefulness for regulation is when consequences are large.
Example.....
Real estate broker licensing is useful because the damage which a client could suffer from improper actions by the broker could easily exceed the broker's ability to make the buyer whole. This regulatory burden is minimal.....except for tedious continuing education (Boring!). So educational & ethical requirements are worthwhile. But I oppose regulating commission rates & other economic aspects.


See above.


Do you agree with Speaker Ryan's view that menu nutrition labeling should be rolled back? Here's his justification:

"The government should not be placing more harmful barriers in the way of hardworking small businesses. This important legislation would roll back the FDA’s burdensome menu labeling rule, giving American restaurants, grocery and convenient stores the flexibility they need to be successful."
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Do you know of any culture or society that closely reflects your ideals?
I'd say any pre-industrial civilization centered around the local village.

Corporate fictions are the root of evil in this circumstance. Such fictions have caused the virtually unchecked growth of corporate industry and the human population, pillaging of the Earth's resources, and the growth of other personal and cultural immoralities for the sake of personal wealth. As Jeremy Bentham stated, "fictions are to law what fraud is to trade".
 
Last edited:

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
The problem with the "free market" today is that it isn't really free. Individuals are shielded from personal liability through corporate fictions and other legal methods. It doesn't scare a business proprietor to cut edges any which way he can manage, when his personal wealth is legally shielded apart from his business venture.

A true free market does not involve transactions between businesses and customers; it would be between individuals and other individuals.

If you (an individual, unshielded from personal liability) sell me (another individual) one of your goods, the following would occur:

1. You'd probably make sure that your product is as safe as you know how to make it;
2. You'd advertise that fact;
3. You'd sell your product only to those who you know on an individual basis (e.g. family, friends, local community) with similar standards as yourself - to those whom you trust and who trusts you and your product in return;
4. You'd be wary of selling to those whom you don't know (e.g. someone on the other side of the world, with different standards);
5. If you do decide to sell to those whom you don't know, you'd make sure you disclaim liability, and the stranger who purchases your good would have to willingly assume personal liability of using your product.

This ensures and encourages small, strong, cooperative, and cohesive local communities with shared standards; it also encourages people to be morally and ethically upright (lest they be personally sued to oblivion, with personal reputation and livelihood destroyed), with every individual in the community providing a check on every other individual in the community; it also discourages unbridled greed (a consequence of international trafficking in goods, corporate fictions to shield liability, etc.).


Obviously, this system doesn't work well for those interested in anonymously amassing great private fortunes.
That kind of system doesn't work on any manner of larger scale.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
That kind of system doesn't work on any manner of larger scale.
That's the point: the system I described does not support it; there shouldn't be a "larger scale".

The limits imposed by a true free market system works for the good of individual and community morals and ethics, and works to balance mankind with natural limits (e.g. population, resources, etc.). Those limits should be respected, not surpassed or bypassed through the use of legal fictions to feed the greed of business proprietors and their shareholders.
 
Last edited:

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
That's the point: the system I described does not support it; there shouldn't be a "larger scale".

The limits imposed by a true free market system works for the good of individual and community morals and ethics, and works to balance mankind with natural limits (e.g. population, resources, etc.). Those limits should be respected, not surpassed or bypassed through the use of legal fictions to feed the greed of business proprietors and their shareholders.
Or raise the standard of living either, right?
 
Top