How does a free market work, how does a libertarian world work, and what must be done?

[Matthew Zak]

alright tell me how a free market works, show me how a libertarian world works, outline everything that is to be done and must be done. if ron paul were able to do everything he wants, tell me what comes of it. you guys never outline any plan in these threads, just spout a bunch idealistic theories, so tell me.

tell me what happens, how it helps the majority of people and what becomes of the good ole' USA.

I neither have the time, nor the will at the moment to answer this person the way they want to be answered. Everything they've asked has been addressed, but they either pretend it wasn't in hopes to perpetuate the disposition that Ron Paul offers no solutions, or they simply don't understand.

How would you respond to this?

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Without a gun to your head.

[Sam I am]

Begin to explain to him "everything" in painful detail, until he gets bored out of his mind, and regrets asking such a stupid question.

[Matthew Zak]

Begin to explain to him "everything" in painful detail, until he gets bored out of his mind, and regrets asking such a stupid question.

Been there, done that. Sadly, people who will grasp at any reason never to vote for a republican, someone not named Obama, or not afraid of terrorists is going to rally behind that person's fallacious post and have faith in the misconception that an answer hasn't been presented.

I could spell it out, paste essays, post videos, and put my own interpretation behind each (as I have done) but I'm simply not getting through to them.

[Matthew Zak]

If anyone has a new approach to this question I would love to read it. I feel like I'm speaking a different language.

[LibertyEagle]

Go on to the next person. Don't waste time on people without ears to hear.

[freshjiva]

I'd suggest directing your friend to read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson".

If he doesn't want to read 250 pages, try to have him watch this 2-minute video by Milton Friedman and ask him to answer the question he poses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

After that 2-min question, here's a fantastic introduction into free markets and why its the most efficient, fair, and moral, by Dr. Tom Woods:

http://mises.org/media/4841/Why-Free-Markets-Matter

Encourage your friend to spend some time looking at free market economics, browsing through mises.org, reading Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Hazlitt, and Rothbard.
His question is very elementary, and therefore will require spending time to understand.

To get him started, here is Tom Woods' definition of free market:

Free market is simply the sum total of voluntary exchanges, bounded by private property rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'd suggest directing your friend to read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson".

If he doesn't want to read 250 pages, try to have him watch this 2-minute video by Milton Friedman and ask him to answer the question he poses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

After that 2-min question, here's a fantastic introduction into free markets and why its the most efficient, fair, and moral, by Dr. Tom Woods:

http://mises.org/media/4841/Why-Free-Markets-Matter

Encourage your friend to spend some time looking at free market economics, browsing through mises.org, reading Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Hazlitt, and Rothbard.
His question is very elementary, and therefore will require spending time to understand.

To get him started, here is Tom Woods' definition of free market:
Why doesn't Friedman give credit to Leonard Read in that video?^^ The whole thing is almost lifted directly from "I, Pencil" (http://www.fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/). /curious

[KingRobbStark]

Why doesn't Friedman give credit to Leonard Read in that video?^^ The whole thing is almost lifted directly from "I, Pencil" (http://www.fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/). /curious

I think he did. He has demonstrated this example several times on video, and on one I think he did credit him.

[AlexAmore]

Wanna know something both really funny and really sad? Liberals are all for science being taught in schools. They are all PRO-SCIENCE. Well I got NEWS for liberals, economics is a SCIENCE. Now go learn it! It's not political. It's science.

I think of liberals talking about economics like "Christian scientists". You can't start with a political leaning and then only read/listen to the supporting theories. That's not science, and liberals bash Christians all the time for it.

[zyphex]

http://vimeo.com/9857126

[fisharmor]

alright tell me how a free market works, show me how a libertarian world works, outline everything that is to be done and must be done. if ron paul were able to do everything he wants, tell me what comes of it. you guys never outline any plan in these threads, just spout a bunch idealistic theories, so tell me.Don't know if this has been said.
The point of the free market is that there is not "one". There is not "one market". There is not "one plan", "one thing to be done", or "one thing that will come of it".
The entire point of it is that it is not a directed economy. The writer doesn't understand this. There is no puppetmaster. There is nothing to be done which can not be done by individuals.
The undeniable fact is that this type of economy results in increased standard of living, and directed economies result in reduced standard of living.

50 years ago China's directed economy was a place where parents swapped children so they didn't have to live with the shame of having eaten their own child to survive. Today, China's freeER economy is knocking us down a peg.
It took the statist top-down telephone system 70 years to get phone service to a majority of the population here: in 30 years since deregulation, we've gone from 1920's era rotary technology to having our phone with us as we travel, which is also a hand-held computer that rivals the power of the deregulation-era's warehouse-sized supercomputers.

It's so obvious that all the writer needs to do is grasp the concept of unclenching the federal fist and letting people do what they feel is best to advance humankind.


tell me what happens, how it helps the majority of people and what becomes of the good ole' USA.We stop marching down the road that ends with us swapping children with other families so we can eat.

[CaptUSA]

Well I got NEWS for liberals, economics is a SCIENCE. Now go learn it! It's not political. It's science.

The problem that arises is that it's a natural science. And as such, it must be viewed in those terms.

When you finally come to the realization that the free-market economy is not an invention of man, but a force of nature, you will soon understand that economists are essentially weathermen. Only that economists’ instrumentation of measurement is far more imprecise.

Of course we have all these political rainmakers and rain dancers that attempt to dazzle us with their slick performances that require a substantial amount of our energy and wealth, but they will never work.

And since that energy and wealth are the very drivers of our system, it can only hurt.

It would be the equivalent of a rainmaker promising to create rain for the price of the nearest cloud.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Well, there's no way to get them to instantly realize all the benefits of free market, just like you can't explain Quantum Physics or Biology or any other science instantly but what you can get them to do is question the role of government & how good (bad to be precise :D) it has been for the people as a whole, until they don't realize that the government is NOT the solution but the problem, they won't be interested in the markets.


Do you think government, ie politicians & bureaucrats, do a good job of "regulating" the market? Or do you think they're bought by rich guys to make rules that favor them? You can look at all the countries that elect their government democratically & you'll find that governments everywhere are corrupt, the extent of corruption may vary slightly between different democracies but all are very corrupt, so why do you think people always elect the corrupt people? It's because those are mostly the kind of people that enter politics, barring an odd exception, they all want to have government power & once they have it, they use it to benefit themselves, they make "regulations" that favor big businesses that bribe them & fund their campaigns, & make promises to voters that they know they can't fulfill just to get elected & wield power.

So one must ask the question, can we keep conceding more & more power to such corrupt politicians & bureaucrats in the vain hope that they won't misuse their power? This is the very question that the Founders had asked themselves, they were inspired by European Enlightenment Era thinkers who believed that every person had a right to his life, liberty & property & no other other person or any government should've the power to take them away unless the person in question has violated someone else's rights to life, liberty & property. The Founders knew that no man can be trusted with power over other men, he'll always try to misuse it for his own benefit but there was definitely a need for an arbitrative body whenever a person's rights were violated by another so they settled for a very limited form of government because they knew that the bigger & more powerful the government is, the bigger the scope of its power, the more power politicians & bureaucrats will have to misuse & to fill their pockets at the expense of the common people. This is most evident with the recent bank bailouts, even though it was the banks & government's fault for creating the bubble & the crisis, the politicians voted to bail them out while the ordinary citizens are still suffering the consequences, & bankers & politicians are doing pretty well.

So is government (ie politicians & bureaucrats) really the solution for making things better? If not, then why not consider & look deeper into a different method of doing things?

Again, in order for us to engage them, we must destroy their belief that government can breed prosperity or solve our problems, & when they're to the point where government's destructiveness becomes obvious to them (& that shouldn't be too difficult to do I presume :D), then they'll be a lot more open to the alternative ie free market.


Wanna know something both really funny and really sad? Liberals are all for science being taught in schools. They are all PRO-SCIENCE. Well I got NEWS for liberals, economics is a SCIENCE. Now go learn it! It's not political. It's science.

I think of liberals talking about economics like "Christian scientists". You can't start with a political leaning and then only read/listen to the supporting theories. That's not science, and liberals bash Christians all the time for it.

+1
FANTASTIC ANALOGY
Yes, just the way liberals say that Christians should at least study & understand science before they disregard it, liberals must be told to at least study & learn about the free market before they disregard it. It's very unscientific, if they start with a political ideology & then refuse to study others.

[tremendoustie]

alright tell me how a free market works

People trade goods and services freely, and nobody sticks a gun to anyone's head.



, show me how a libertarian world works


People don't use aggressive violence, or the threat of it. Force is only for defense.



, outline everything that is to be done and must be done.


People must stop imagining aggressive violence is okay if it's popular.




if ron paul were able to do everything he wants, tell me what comes of it.


You'd be free to live your life and property as you choose, so long as you don't harm others.




tell me what happens, how it helps the majority of people


People would not be under the thumb of a massive, extortionist, invasive, government/corporate machine.



and what becomes of the good ole' USA.

If you mean the land, it remains much as it is now. If you mean the people, we'd be freer, happier, wealthier, and more independent. If you mean the federal government extortionists and busy bodies, good riddance to 'em.

If you have a more specific question, I'd be happy to answer it.

[Jace]

..

[Paul Or Nothing II]

So "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is not necessarily the best example of free markets or libertarian economics.

You should've read it more carefully, he's NOT saying China is a free market, he's just saying that it was very closed earlier & people suffered but after they reformed it & freed it up considerably (again, NOT completely), it has witnessed a tremendous growth over the last 3 decades. Notice he's said FREER, not free, indicating that even freeing up the economy significantly brings in considerable benefits so obviously if it were completely free then the benefits would be even greater due to further reduction in costs & greater freedom & productivity.


50 years ago China's directed economy was a place where parents swapped children so they didn't have to live with the shame of having eaten their own child to survive. Today, China's freeER economy is knocking us down a peg.