Argue for the free market here:

[synapz]

I think it's important to not only make a stand for Ron Paul, but also for those things he believes in.

With that in mind, I think it would be a good idea for anyone willing to leave a little note here about how this Digg article is a good thing for the free market under the discussion.

http://www.digg.com/business_finance/Justices_End_96_Year_Old_Ban_on_Price_Fixing

[kalami]

What exactly is there to stand up for? The ruling has already been made in favor of non-government regulation.

[synapz]

What exactly is there to stand up for? The ruling has already been made in favor of non-government regulation.

A good number of the comments are against this ruling, and I think it would be good to show some support for the free market there.

Diggers tend to get upset with anything that looks like the government encroaching on their wallet, and I think it is upon us to make the point that this is not happening.

[Bluedevil]

That is great. There also was a ruling against affirmative action in the last day or two.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19475846/

atleast the courts are going in the right direction.

[zMtLlC]

That is great. There also was a ruling against affirmative action in the last day or two.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19475846/

atleast the courts are going in the right direction.

Yeah, but remember the "Bong Hits for Jesus" ruling...

[xcalybur]

I understand the need for government to get out of businesses way, but this allows for collusion. There needs to be a law stating that companies can't get together (Oil, Internet, Cable, Telephone, Cell Phone, etc.) and set a minimum price. There needs to be a law that states this is illegal, otherwise those large businesses will do it.

[Cunningham]

Free Markets will make you look and feel ten years younger and more attractive to the opposite sex. It's the new black. It's free of additives. One size fits all, don't settle for less. It removes embarrassing stains. It entertains in-laws. It's the only product you'll ever need. Some assembly required.

[IrrigatedPancake]

I understand the need for government to get out of businesses way, but this allows for collusion. There needs to be a law stating that companies can't get together (Oil, Internet, Cable, Telephone, Cell Phone, etc.) and set a minimum price. There needs to be a law that states this is illegal, otherwise those large businesses will do it.

If they're setting a minimum price higher than what they need to maintain production of their service, and competition is possible, it seems like a competitor would just offer a lower price and put them out of business or force them to lower their minimum price.

[ChooseLiberty]

The free market sounds great.

Someone please precisely define "the free market" in detail here:

????????????????????????

Thanks in advance.

[beermotor]

If they're setting a minimum price higher than what they need to maintain production of their service, and competition is possible, it seems like a competitor would just offer a lower price and put them out of business or force them to lower their minimum price.

Right. You don't need laws to get around this, what you need is an unregulated market so anybody can compete with the price fixing big boys.

[SJohnsson]

A free market describes a theoretical, idealised, or actual market where the price of an item is arranged by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that item not being regulated by a government (see supply and demand);

aka the freedom for individuals to associate and exchange to better themselves

the only government interference should be to prevent fraud or force of one individual on another.

[fsk]

The free market sounds great.

Someone please precisely define "the free market" in detail here:

Thanks in advance.

The "free market" means zero government regulations and zero taxes. A truly free market would be no government at all. All functions would be performed by private industries. You would have one or more private police forces. You would have a private justice system.

A completely "free market" would not be total chaos. Most large corporations and abusive industries have their market position backed up by government violence.

[Gee]

A free market is one where property rights and contracts are enforced (generally by government). Thats it. Ideally no violence, theft, or permitted polution is possible, and no fraud is possible. A person company cannot sell someone a good or service based on false claims, and theft through government taxation (i.e. subsidies of any form to anyone) is impossible.

[angelatc]

My husband is in the seafood business, and he'd be happy to show you example after example where governments were forced to step in and regulate fishing practices because the independent fishermen of the area were indeed going to fish certain species, and their livelyhood, right into extinction. Dr Paul's stance is that people are too smart to do that, but we've absolutely seen examples where they were too greedy not to.

Part of it is probably a deviation of the entitlement mentality, where the fishermen figure that as long as there is no law against it, then there's nothing wrong with it.

Now, in lots of those instances, the government was quite willing to mess things up in addition to protecting the species that was being abused, but two wrongs etc etc etc.

[Gee]

My husband is in the seafood business, and he'd be happy to show you example after example where governments were forced to step in and regulate fishing practices because the independent fishermen of the area were indeed going to fish certain species, and their livelyhood, right into extinction. Dr Paul's stance is that people are too smart to do that, but we've absolutely seen examples where they were too greedy not to.
Thats because of a lack of property rights. No one "owns" those fishing areas, so there is no one to look after them. Its a bag-of-popcorn mentality, where everyone tries to grab for the resources before the others can get it. If the area fished (or even just the rights to fish the area) were owned by a number of entities, the owners would of course preserve their property's output as best as they are able.

So yeah, I'd say in that case government involvement is better than nothing. But property rights are better still. A market solution would probably work best in situation like that, where fishermen would literally buy the rights to take a certain number of fish from the area per year, or something like that (similar to proposed carbon markets for greenhouse gas emissions).

[ChooseLiberty]

Who, if anyone, defends the commons in a "free market" as in the fishing example?

[constituent14]

Gotta say this...

I have alot of concern over the commons as we collect a significant portion of our groceries from right-of-ways, railroad beds, things of that nature.

Private property rights are too stringent in some respects and not stringent enough in others. It would take me a long time to articulate what I mean by this so I will keep it brief.

Everyone's home is their castle and I'm fine with that... Come in uninvited and well, I live in Texas.

But ... so much property is absolutely wasted because people have the right to waste it. Literally millions of productive acres have been stolen by big money investors so that jerky yankees can fly down here in their private jets and shoot some animal (docile, domestic, and driven in for the occassion), or lawyer, in a canned hunt. Let's not talk about the effect this has both on price of property/acre, and the local's property tax rates. And it would be one thing if these folks earned it... but let's face it, it is all bought on margin. The means by which it is purchased are ill and underhanded at best (see inflation, wall street, counterfeit). And no, they haven't earned it... sitting behind a desk stressing out over facts and figures IS NOT WORK.

Meanwhile, the fruit of God's many blessings rots on the vine... and yes in this country, particularly this part of the country, many many people go hungry everyday. Is it their fault that some prissy necktied maggot has nothing else in his life to make him feel like man?

But I digress.

We really need to look at the way we see water. Down here this issue is huge (much more so than people have yet to realize). The housing bubble in the urban markets (paid for by our children and grandchildren, not by the working stiffs pretending they've done their share) is taxing our water supplies and running up the cost of this basic human necessity ($50/month in this apt.) beyond reason.

This relates to energy deregulation as well. When the commons were dammed to provide energy to the masses, the hoarding made sense (sort of) seeing as the end result was PUBLIC utilites. Now that those utilities are owned and operated by large private corporations, why are they still allowed to control the flow?

So when the money changers get to create the money with which they buy up and hoard the resources... well someone explain to me what that has to do with free markets!

[sorry this post might be a little inflammatory, but these issues are front and center in my life, I see it everyday]

[fsk]

So when the money changers get to create the money with which they buy up and hoard the resources... well someone explain to me what that has to do with free markets!


Some people would say that a lot of property currently "owned" is not legitimately owned. It was stolen via financial tricks and government force.

I'd be content to end the ability of these people to steal further. Let them have what they already stole, but prevent them from stealing further. Without government-endorsed grants and perks, they would rapidly squander their wealth.

[Gee]

A good reason the rich go after real estate are the tax laws (1041 exchange, etc), which make owning land more lucrative than it might otherwise be. Also, many environmental restrictions mean that it is more economical not to develop the land (to do something like "wetlands restoration", or "reforestation") and just use it as a hunting ground. In a lot of places, the government will pay for that stuff...

So yeah, it really doesn't have a lot to do with the free market.

The sad part is, even with scenarios like you describe, the free market is better at allocating any scarce resource better than bureaucracies are. Although, the market certainly does not distinguish between leisure and productivity.

[angrydragon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54JnHFDhowY

A total free-market.

[angelatc]

But ... so much property is absolutely wasted because people have the right to waste it. Literally millions of productive acres have been stolen by big money investors so that jerky yankees can fly down here in their private jets and shoot some animal (docile, domestic, and driven in for the occassion), or lawyer, in a canned hunt. Let's not talk about the effect this has both on price of property/acre, and the local's property tax rates. And it would be one thing if these folks earned it... but let's face it, it is all bought on margin. The means by which it is purchased are ill and underhanded at best (see inflation, wall street, counterfeit). And no, they haven't earned it... sitting behind a desk stressing out over facts and figures IS NOT WORK.




As an accountant by trade I would disagree with that last statement. It's not the government's job to decide what is and isn't "work." They sold their services, bought the land, and when it becomes worthwhile to them to sell the land they will indeed sell the land.

[constituent14]

I don't recall saying that was the govt's job. and yea, once some other thief scams their way into the money, they'll bring more of their fake monopoly money and drive the price up even further.