What is your definition of a free market, and why do you think your definition is superior to all others? Are capitalism and free markets different? (I've seen someone say so before!)
I feel like political debates sometimes get lost when there is a difference in terminology. I'm looking for clarification here.
Liberals can answer too of course, but I am looking for exactly how a libertarian defines his/her terms. Links to libertarian thinkers who support your view are also appreciated.
To me, a 'free-market' is a market in which action between consenting adult individuals is un-hampered, and property rights are respected. It's the best definition seeing as it is the most consistent and violates nobody's rights.
This meets the definition of capitalism: "private ownership of the means of production". Unless you're one of these people who believe that when corporations lobby the government for favours, breaks, bail-outs, etc. that is 'capitalism' also. That is a kind of mercantilist system, or just plain old fascism. I only consider the US to be a little bit capitalistic.
This is the Miseian and Rothbardian view, and the view of most libertarians.
"Unhampered" how? Does this mean I can sign myself into slavery for 7 years? Or, that the boss can force me to work 100 hours a week? What do you mean by "unhampered"?
I was watching a debate about universal health care once, and the guy from the Cato institute argued against universal health care based on the inefficiency of government. The liberals shot back and said government doesn't NECESSARILY have to be inefficient, as long as everyone is held accountable and the rules are clear. The liberal basically said Republicans made the government more inefficient than it had to be.
The conservative shot back and said it wasn't realistic to believe that Republicans wouldn't be elected and make government inefficient. They are basically a necessary part of the equation when evaluating a universal health care system, unless you were to turn the U.S. into a one party state (which is kind of already is anyway, but I think you get the point).
I'm not sure that corporate monetary influence on politics is not inherent in capitalism either.
Unhampered in that individuals are allowed to make contracts with each other without molestation. So yes, you can sign yourself into slavery for 7 years if you wanted to. No boss can "force" you to work 100 hours a week, but can compel you if it is explicitly stated he can in a voluntarily signed contract.
Government is inherently inefficient in everything it does because all governmental actions are aggressive. Value can only be ascertained through voluntary trade between individuals. It is never a matter of "getting the good people into power".
Take away the politics and the temptation of aggressive power is not there. Compel corporations to compete in the market instead of lobbying government.
by Josak4 years ago
With all the controversy about Obamacare we have forgotten the real facts and issues. Here is a reminder of them. (links at the bottom.)According to Harvard university studies 45 000 people die yearly in the United...
by Paul Wingert5 years ago
My dad listens to this clown only to mock him and I happen to catch this babbling idiot tell his listeners that he would pack up and move to Costa Rica (a country that has universal health care) if the Health Care Bill...
by Tony Lawrence4 years ago
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 … oesnt-WorkTruth. Why are so many of our young people so enthralled by this very dangerous idea?
by James Smith3 years ago
This is partially a joke - everyone thinks Jesus agrees with them. A question to consider though: although Jesus advocated compassion, charity and liberty, he did not advocate the use of violence to achieve any end,...
by Don W6 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the...
by James Smith3 years ago
The modern left/right dichotomy is essentially a scam - an identification as either one is incoherent, and to say that cherry-picking from each 'side' is somehow 'moderate' is patently absurd. Every 'moderate' I've ever...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.