Topic: What does a Free Market mean to you? - page 5. (Read 6176 times)

Well sorry then. Why don't you go create them?

More seriously, do you really believe a country with no public roads or education or parks or museums or laws against pollution would be a nice country? Might there not be some reason that countries with effective goverments refuse to tread the path you advocate?

Then what will homogenize the immigrants and keep children out of the labor force?

I think you missed the part about a free market requiring an effective police and court system that can enforce agreements and penalize the use of force or fraud. I don't think Somalia has that. Also, just having a free market doesn't ensure success or prosperity. You need gas in your car for it to run, but you need other things too.

As stated elsewhere.  As the wealthy landowner it seems that I can get very similar results to things like oppression, apartheid, slavery - without initial force (in your specialized usage of the term).  i.e. I can control wages and the kind of jobs (via contracts with businesses), I can control movement (via road contracts) and I can control where people live (via contracts for the land they lease) which bathrooms they use etc...  Should these oppressed folk rebel, escape whatever...they will be hunted down and returned by your government (terms of the contract).

Right, let's do away with public education. Create the free market for our children's sake. You can be responsible for the roads outside your house to. And if there's a war people can hire gangs to protect their property, competition will prevent them from becoming governments. If only it can be realized, it will be paradise. Wait... It already exists here on earth... Somalia. I'll persuade them to accept bitcoin.

Buys plane ticket

First, monopolies like Microsoft and Apple rely very little on patents. They don't even rely on copyright, because it doesn't provide them sufficient rights, in their opinion. They rely on contracts. Second, they'll mostly likely fail no matter what. Unless they can keep innovating and providing the products their customers most want, they'll be eclipsed by a more agile competitor.

The most effective way to maintain a monopoly in a free market is to be the most efficient company, providing the products your customers most want at prices they are happy to pay. Some market segments are 'natural monopolies' in the sense that they have unusual factors that make monopolies more likely in those segments. A good example is operating systems -- there is a benefit to running the same operating system many other people are running even if it's slightly inferior for your particular application. In these areas, a monopoly can be a little bit worse than their closest competitor and still maintain near-monopoly market share.

But if we all benefit from running the same operating system, even if it's not the very best one, why shouldn't we? Until a competitor is sufficiently superior that it's worth the cost of switching, of course.

There are market failures that can occur in a free market where you can have near-monopolies even when it's not particularly efficient. But they are so rare as to be almost non-existent compared to regulatory failures. (And, of course, advocates of free markets believe that it is entirely appropriate to use force to break up monopolies maintained by force or fraud, just as it is appropriate to do so for non-monopolies maintained by those means.)

It's hard to take this kind of comment seriously, but just in case, the answer to your question is: The prohibition on the use of force except in defense and the requirement that people honor their agreements.

These are all equal to: Those who have the most resource decide. What's the civilization part to differentiate it from any animal world?

no it does not. why would it fail?
monopolies like microsoft or apple, would fail if they are not allowed to keep their patents.
which they will not be allowed to on a free market.

its still not in my interest to sell you the plutonium. i could just make the plant myself, and sell the electricity.

I though free markets prevents forming of monopolies.

If not, then it fails.

But i want to produce electricity and i pay well.

You forgot that blowing up the plant is the secret part of plan or can happen as just an accident.

no. those who can offer most services and goods decides
and even then only if you want to buy from them.

Free Market = Those who have the most capital decide

Yeah man, that happened once already, in Chernobyl!!!
Oh wait, it was in centrally planned economy, exact opposite of the free market. Whoops.

if all plutonium holder would form a monopolies on plutonium, then there would be one.
and honestly if they are smart enough to purify plutonium, they will also be smart enough to not sell to you.
it is not in there interest to destroy the earth, they would self die of it. 

I am lucky then there are no monopolies on free market. Huh.

im not stopping you, go build.
just give me one good reason i should sell you my plutonium.
wanna pay $1million per gram? not selling, sorry.

No really i want to understand. What is the difference of freedoms between.

You stopping me from building nuclear plant and government from enforcing taxes on you.

go away troll!

Even more importent it doesnt mean they dont.

And now government is free to own your ass and you are free to stop it and they are free to put you in fail etc,etc , do you consider it free market ? How circular logic is that.

no. i did not make a regulation. i did just say that you are unskillful. and i don't think anybody would sell you plutonium, they would not be stupid enough. you because there is a free market, it does not mean people are selling.

it's not a regulation, it's a self-defense against what i perceive as your violence towards me.

you are free to try to build it, i am free to try to stop you, you are free to try to stop me from stopping you, etc, etc.