isn't slavery a compelling argument against "let the free market reign"?

[unblock]

viewed through a completely economic lens, slavery is a prime example of what the free market is capable of -- seeks, even -- in the absence of regulation. throughout time and throughout cultures, people and groups in power have subjugated people and groups out of power for their own economic benefit.

i am a capitalist, but just like football, it needs good, solid, sensible rules and good, solid, sensible referees.

if you permit holding and tripping and facemasking and so on in football, it ceases to be football and is reduced to "who's the biggest bully". it would be a joke of a sport at that point.

similarly, if you permit anti-competitive behavior, trusts, monopolies, monopsonies, externalities, fraud, and so on, it ceases to be capitalism and is reduced to "who's the biggest bully". it is a joke at that point.

slavery inherently involves violence of one form or another, usually including physical, and as such is often viewed differently from other forms of economic bullying. it's worse, in that sense, but there's no economic rationale for saying that slavery should be illegal but fraud or price-fixing should be permitted. all violations of the basic requirements for capitalism to work properly are crimes against the economic system, and there needs to be a power (government) strong enough to enforce those rules.

to whatever extent the government becomes unable or unwilling to enforce those rules, the economic system becomes a joke.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Some rightwing libertarians defend the confederacy

and claim that slavery would have gone away on its own. There is no compelling argument within rw libertarianism that prevents one from selling one's own body into bondage.

[unblock]

9. right, there's a difference between slavery and indentured servitude in that sense.

assuming you really did enter into long-term servitude freely and knowingly, at least from a right-wing libertarian perspective.

in reality, not being able to exit a contract at any price is one of those things that renders the entire contract suspect, as in, it's simply impossible to look at such a contract and say that the servant clearly wasn't coerced or defrauded lacking the capacity to understand the contract somehow.

[Statistical]

12. Slaves never entered into a contract.

That is a very weak argument.

Had slaves entered into a contract to sell themselves that would be one thing however they didn't. Not only did slave owners own the slaves but they also owned any children from the slaves. There is no free market principle that would indicate that slave owners would ever give up "prepaid" labor.

With a slave the owner is buying a lifetime (and with their children future lifetimes) of labor upfront. Looking only at economics it would make no more sense for slave owner to give up slavery. They have paid all (well most) of the labor costs up front. Getting anything less than full value of that labor has no economic gain.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Those are two related arguments, not one.

'slavery would have ended on its own' is separate from the ability to sell one's self into servitude. The former is used to justify opposition to the federal side of the civil war, while the latter lessens the perceived evil of bondage by making the rather common practice of indentured servitude just another consumer choice and an exercise of free will.

[Statistical]

47. Slavery would never have ended.

Say you purchase a service from me. Statistical Labor Inc. You pay an upfront for infinite amount of work. Say you pay me $100,000 upfront and I will provide in a contract for 2000 hours of labor per year forever.

Why would you ever stop using the service? More specifically why would you stop using this prepaid labor you already purchased (with no recourse for no longer using it) and start paying for labor on an hourly rate.

You wouldn't. Nobody would or at least wouldn't based on economic sense.

Slavery is essentially just pre-purchased labor. For a fixed upfront price (plus very small monthly fee) one was purchasing an certain amount of annual labor for an infinite amount of time.

I would like to see any economic theories which claim slavery would have ended on its own.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Slavery dwindles with the tractor.

It is cheaper to keep and does more work. But you are correct that absent laws prohibiting the practice it never goes away.

[Statistical]

50. The only thing I can think of that potentially could have ended slavery non-violently ...

would be a system where the govt allowed existing slaves to remain as slaves and prohibited purchasing new ones. Then provided a open offer to buy slaves from slave owners. The price would rise with inflation and cost of labor. If the govt wanted to encourage more rapid decline in slavery it could provide a premium to the price paid.

At some point the cash value of slaves would be worth more than their future potential work and slowly the slave supply would be bought out by the govt. The govt would then free any repurchased slaves and the pool of slave labor would decline.

However it would have taken decades (if not a century) and likely today there might still be some holdouts where people held on to their slaves for non-economic reasons.

[mdmc]

43. Some liberals too

me, in fact..

I think there were a great deal of patriots fighting for the south.. many were anti-slavery..

Stonewall Jackson for one..

[Warren Stupidity]

48. That is a most dubious assertion.

"James Robertson wrote about Jackson's view on slavery:<19>

Jackson neither apologized for nor spoke in favor of the practice of slavery. He probably opposed the institution. Yet in his mind the Creator had sanctioned slavery, and man had no moral right to challenge its existence. The good Christian slaveholder was one who treated his servants fairly and humanely at all times."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson

He came from a slaveholding family and was very much a part of the slave-based southern aristocracy that he gave his life to defend. "Patriot" - meh.

The revisionist history of the civil war is part of our awful post war history that took African Americans from emancipation to "The Nadir" and 70 more years of serfdom and apartheid.

[DailyGrind51]

2. Along with child labor, a "free" market means that your company is free

to fire you at will, deprive you of health benefits or pension, cut your wages, or tell you what you can or cannot have on your person or work station. "You", on the other hand, are "free" to either quit, or cry in your beer about how miserable you feel!

[drm604]

3. I never thought of it that way but I think you have a good point.

Slavery, or something very close too it, would seem to be the end "goal" of an untrammeled free market.

The so-called "invisible hand" is amoral and seeks to maximize income while minimizing costs. Totally free labor would be the asymptote of that curve wouldn't it?

If you think about it, at least in modern times many, perhaps most, advances in the economic well being of the common man have occurred because of restrictions of one type or another on the free market.

Certainly you can go too far in the other direction, but there definitely has to be a balance.

[FredStembottom]

18. Capitalism does not recognize the difference between a wrench.....

... and the man holding it.

That vital distinction must be imposed.

Regulated capitalism - ask for it by name.

[notesdev]

4. A ref doesn't help

if he never calls a foul against the biggest bully... and they're best buds who go drinking after every game.

Be careful about what you ask for, you might just get it.

[unblock]

7. right, as i said, the government has to be able and willing to enforce the rules

in football, it is well known practice to "work the ref", to indimitate them to make future decisions in your favor. similar things happen with politicians, legislators, and regulators. some refs i'm sure get more direct bribes, as do politicians (though politicians have created for themselves a very neat system of legal bribery through campaign contributions, cronyism, and post-government consulting and book tours.

[Statistical]

5. Generally speaking free markets don't violate fundemantal rights.

By the same logic me robbing and killing your family is just the free market at work. Had you spent more on security you would have not suffered that economic fate. Both murder and slavery violate fundamental rights protected by the Constitution thus your example is at best flawed.

"i am a capitalist, but just like football, it needs good, solid, sensible rules and good, solid, sensible referees."
I agree I just think your example is a poor one.

"Slavery inherently involves violence of one form or another, usually including physical, and as such is often viewed differently from other forms of economic bullying."

It isn't that slavery involves bullying that makes it an abomination. It is that slavery violates the fundamental rights of those being enslaved.

[drm604]

6. Properly regulated free markets may not violate fundamental rights,

but the totally untrammeled free markets of some libertarians wet dreams most certainly would.

The constitution theoretically would prevent old fashioned chattel slavery, but it wouldn't necessarily prevent things very close to it. Without minimum wage laws, companies could extort labor in exchange for minimal room and board (dormitories with cots and gruel) from people who are otherwise destitute. Without workplace safety laws, they could ignore the long term well being of those people and work them to death. That may not be literal slavery but it's pretty damned close.

[unblock]

8. on the contrary, from an economic point of view, robbing falls into the same category

from an economic point of view, laws against theft are just more regulation, without which capitalism would become a joke. against, you need laws and government in order to prevent capitalism from becoming a joke.

there are certainly some (admittedly extreme) libertarians who don't even support the idea of a public police force, who believe that protection from robbery should indeed by handled by the free market.


more broadly, i agree that slavery and murder and other crimes go (way) beyond the economic impact, and have reason to be outlawed for reasons having nothing to do with the economic aspects; i was simply trying to view the issue through an economic lens only, putting the other aspects aside for this thread.

capitalism is, in principle, based on the idea that the people involved in economic transactions are freely entering into those transactions. hence robbery and slavery cannot be reconciled with capitalism (indentured servitude is more complicated in this sense), but in practice you need laws and regulations (a strong and willing government) to make sure this doesn't happen.

[Statistical]

11. "hence robbery and slavery cannot be reconciled with capitalism"

Exactly that was my point. It seems we agree more than we disagree.

Slavery is a poor example simply because "free markets" as expressed by Smith implies a market in which physical force isn't used. A "market" in which physical force is used (slavery, robbery, fuedalism, demanding lower prices or more labor under threat of violence) isn't "free". It is a force driven market. The buyer & seller or laborer & owner aren't reaching a decision based on market principles but rather via threat of violence.

It isn't laws that kept slaves on the farm it was the threat of violence and death if they didn't. Laws enabled slave owners to exert that violence but it was violence that was a means of control. Slavery is no more "free market" than feudalism was.

"(indentured servitude is more complicated in this sense),"
Now that would be a better example. Less "shocking" but more accurate. There is nothing in free market principles that would prohibit indentured servitude.

So my point was I agree regulation is needed. Even Adam smith believed in regulation. He used words like "free of unnecessary charges". Also a cornerstone of a free market is one where buyers & sellers reach an agreement free of coercion and fraud. Obviously that requires a third party. A market controlled by coercion and fraud is no more free than one controlled by threats of physical violence. Technically that third party can be any entity however many free market economist including Smith indicated the government is an acceptable third party. Smith also indicated that free markets must be free from monopolies.

Most so called "free marketers" (aka teabaggers and the like) haven't even read Adam Smith or Milton Freedman works. "free market" does mean (and has never meant) and absence of government. That is anarchy and will quickly reorder itself into a might makes right social structure, one that as we discussed above can never result in a free market.

In Summary are free market isn't one that is free from all regulation.

A free market is a market where buyers and sellers are free from:
* monopolies
* violence
* coercion
* fraud
* excessive regulation
* etc

All these violate free market principles because they place barriers between sellers & buyers and thus affect prices by conditions other than free market conditions.

[unblock]

22. i think we're differing only on terminology

perhaps instead of arguing against "let the free market reign" in the op subject line, i should have argued against "let the people and businesses do whatever they can get away with".

an important distinction, but i think that's the real difference between the modern republican attitude vs. the true conservative or even a more liberal attitute. modern republicans are proponents of "let businesses do whatever they can get away with" but insist on calling that the "free market".

my main point is that laws and government are needed to ensure that we have a "free market" where people play by the free market rules instead of "let buseinss do whatever they can get away with".


what you're calling "free market" principles i've referred to as genuine capitalism. geez, it's so hard to find uncorrupted terms these days! to me, "capitalism" is the way it's supposed to be when everyone plays by the rules, and "free market" is when there are few if any regulations, hence the disconnect.

[Statistical]

25. That I agree with.

"i should have argued against "let the people and businesses do whatever they can get away with".

Yes.

"modern republicans are proponents of "let businesses do whatever they can get away with" but insist on calling that the "free market"."

Republicans are very good at co-opting names and then exploiting them. Patriotism is another example. Someone advocating business can do whatever they want (including slavery, or fraud, or monopolistic abuse) is not advocating a free market. Just because they call a lead gold doesn't make it so.


"what you're calling "free market" principles i've referred to as genuine capitalism. geez, it's so hard to find uncorrupted terms these days! to me, "capitalism" is the way it's supposed to be when everyone plays by the rules, and "free market" is when there are few if any regulations, hence the disconnect."

Makes sense now. However technically capitalism is simply the method of ownership. For example although it doesn't exist it is possible to have a free market economy in which all ownership is by the state.

for example if China had 8 oil companies all state owned they could compete against each other using free market principles but it would clearly be a communist system not capitalism.

However I do concede that Capitalism & free markets are routinely interchanged which makes a "pure" definition difficult.

You may want to read Adam Smith (one fathers of free market theory). You will find that most of Republicans claim is false. Adam Smith was significantly concerned about violence, fraud, coercion, and monopolies because a free market system can not exist with these outside influences. Given that some other entity is necessary to protect the market from them Adam Smith wasn't anti-government. Rather he was against government choosing winners and losers (which was very common at the time).

[unblock]

30. i've read adam smith, though college was a long time ago

and as we've agreed, the terms have been co-opted....

actually adam smith helped form my views expressed in this thread, what HE wrote about made sense; what republicans have advocated doesn't. at least, the oft-touted benefits of capitalism/the free market (efficient allocation of resources, etc.) don't pertain to the system republicans advocate.

[Romulox]

14. In a truly efficient market, whoever wants the item most will pay the most to acquire/defend it

This is basic economic theory.

"hence robbery and slavery cannot be reconciled with capitalism"

It's merely a species of capitalism--it is only set apart because it is useful to established capitalists that it be so. Seizing an "uninhabited" land and exploiting it is not different in type or kind from exploiting a formerly inhabited land. Look up the most profitable developer in your area, for example, then wonder which Indian Tribe used to roam the land that it sells to see that this is obviously true... :hi:

[Statistical]

16. No it isn't.

That if your economic theory but it isn't free market economic theory.

A market controlled by violence is not a free market because it isn't free of violence or intimidation.
It is A market it just happens to be a forced market. Slavery, robbery, feudalism would all be examples of where violence is used to disrupt free market principles.

The basic principle of a free market is one in which buyer AND seller FREELY (hence free market) enter into a transaction. That can't happen in a market controlled by violence or threats of violence.

Slaves being sold into slavery wasn't a free market transaction.
Lands being seized by Native Americans wasn't a free market transaction.
A robber breaking into my home and stealing the results of my labor isn't a free market transaction.

None of those transaction involve both parties willingly entering into a transaction.

No free market economy exists and likely has never existed. There are simply free-er markets. Markets than come closer to the free market principles.

[Romulox]

17. The distinction between economic violence and physical violence is bogus.

"The basic principle of a free market is one in which buyer AND seller FREELY (hence free market) enter into a transaction."

A man's basic needs make this statement a nonsense. I cannot chose not to eat tomorrow.

"Slaves being sold into slavery wasn't a free market transaction."

You mean No True Scotsman (I mean Capitalist!) would do such a thing, surely? Because capitalists auctioned men and women off like cattle as sure as you sit in that chair.

"Lands being seized by Native Americans wasn't a free market transaction."

Selling those self-same stolen lands today is sure as hell considered a "free market transaction". :hi:

[Statistical]

21. Just because someone does something doesn't mean that it is part of the system.

If I am a Capitalist and you piss me off so I kill you and burn your family alive in your home that doesn't mean that killing and burning families is a cornerstone of free market principles.

"Because capitalists auctioned men and women off like cattle as sure as you sit in that chair."
Of course they did. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with free market principles. Capitalist countries go to war despite that being a net drag on the economy doesn't mean that war is a requirement for capitalist countries.

People murder each other in democracies that doesn't mean the murder is functional requirement for Democracies. Some of the same capitalists who sold slaves also beat their wives, sexually abused their children, committed fraud, killed people in anger, and a whole host of other human vices doesn't mean those are a foundation for free market principles.

"A man's basic needs make this statement a nonsense. I cannot chose not to eat tomorrow."
No but you could grow your own food, hunt, or buy from another vendor. You aren't required to enter into a specific transaction.

The point is that you claim that violence is an valid method of property exchange in free market system is false. It isn't and never has been. Even Adam Smith spoke out against fraud, monopolies, violence, and coercion since those undermine the potential of a free market system.

As I indicated in previous post there never has been, is not, and likely never will be a 100% free market economy. There are simply free-er markets.

[Romulox]

24. The problem with prescriptive definitions is that you describe an ideal, a fantasy

I describe "capitalism" as it is practiced here in the USA, 2010. What you describe is an ideal that exists nowhere.

The bulk of wealth in this country is real property. Every inch of it was stolen, extorted, or gotten in battle. So a realtor or developer today is not a "true capitalist" therefore? It doesn't work. "Capitalism" is the system we can observe, not something we imagine.

[Statistical]

27. Free markets aren't the same thing as capitalism.

Free markets describes a system in which prices are set between buyer and seller based on free market principles.

Capitalism is a method of ownership. While there is some overlap they aren't the same thing.

The bulk of wealth in this country is real property. Every inch of it was stolen, extorted, or gotten in battle. So a realtor or developer today is not a "true capitalist" therefore? It doesn't work. "Capitalism" is the system we can observe, not something we imagine.

Meh. Just because violations occurred in the past and it can never be completely "unwound" so we shouldn't even try? Please.

Obama isn't a member of a true Democratic government thus we should get rid of it and go to a monarchy.

You made a false claim (violence is valid method of property exchange in free market system) and I correct it.
Like usual you will never admit it so there really is no point in going further.

[The2ndWheel]

10. I wouldn't say that slavery is the absence of regulation

It's just a different kind of regulation.

"similarly, if you permit anti-competitive behavior, trusts, monopolies, monopsonies, externalities, fraud, and so on, it ceases to be capitalism and is reduced to "who's the biggest bully". it is a joke at that point.

slavery inherently involves violence of one form or another, usually including physical, and as such is often viewed differently from other forms of economic bullying. it's worse, in that sense, but there's no economic rationale for saying that slavery should be illegal but fraud or price-fixing should be permitted. all violations of the basic requirements for capitalism to work properly are crimes against the economic system, and there needs to be a power (government) strong enough to enforce those rules."

So there needs to be a bigger bully to enforce those rules?

Government regulation is still the "free market" at work. The human institution of government is as arbitrary as anything else. It got to where it is today because it's usually been the biggest bully.

[Romulox]

13. In a free market, why shouldn't a man be free to use violence to get what he wants?

Economic violence is only possible because corporations force the state to pay for their protection. While I do not advocate violence, it's hard to understand why the state should offer protection to private actors in a truly "free" market. :shrug:

[Statistical]

15. No.

Cornerstone of free market economic system is one in which buyer and seller are free from violence, coercion, fraud, monopolies and excessive governmental regulation.

A market in which might makes right isn't a free market.
A market in which buyers & sellers have no protection or recourse from fraud isn't a free market.
A market dominated by monopolies isn't a free market.
A market dominated by political control isn't a free market.

[Romulox]

20. You're using passive voice here.

Specifically which actors provide this marketplace "free from violence, coercion, fraud, monopolies and excessive governmental regulation," and through what coercive mechanism?

It seems that the "first cause" of all so-called "free markets" must be a societal subsidy--so called "free market" actors can only exist if they pass significant costs on to others as externalities (such as their physical protection from violence.) Conceptually, this makes the entire concept of the "true free market" seem like an exact analogue to the "true communism" that the world has yet to see--that is to say, a cheap rhetorical trick and nothing more.

[Statistical]

23. Adam Smith even aknowledges that perfect free markets have never existed.

They likely never will. I also indicated that in the above posts twice.

Just because an absolutely perfect system doesn't exist doesn't mean that one can't subscribe to the theory and work towards "free-er" systems. Nothing is black and white but rather a graduation of gray.

No absolute Democracy exists. If a true Democracy is an impossibility should we abandon it and go back to Monarchies?

Free market theory would state that given two system one which is closer to perfect free market than the other that system would be more efficient.


"It seems that the "first cause" of all so-called "free markets" must be a societal subsidy--so called "free market" actors can only exist if they pass significant costs on to others as externalities (such as their physical protection from violence.)"

Of course however in a free market system ALL entities are actors. Thus the cost (rule of law, Police protection, militaries, etc) are shared by all entities. There is no burden on society because society is the sum of the actors in the system. A worker is merely a seller on one's labor. An employer is merely a purchaser of the labor.

[Romulox]

The point is that analytical model is self-contradictory

It should be alarming to you that your idealized model is self-contradictory on such a basic level--to which, in a truly "free" market, individual actors, not states, would be tasked with providing their own protection, roads, and medical care for their employees. "Freedom" from coercion means freedom from businesses' externalities (such as having to pay for physical protection of these businesses' wares, e.g.)

Of course however in a free market system ALL entities are actors. Thus the cost (rule of law, Police protection, militaries, etc) are shared by all entities. There is no burden on society because society is the sum of the actors in the system. A worker is merely a seller on one's labor.

This isn't logical. My community takes from my pocket to hire police to investigate shoplifting at Wal Mart. This is a burden on me, not the least of which because I do not shop at Wal Mart. But even leaving that to the side, Wal Mart has passed on part of the costs it should expect to incur in a truly free market to we, the taxpayers. This is in addition to all the other externalities Wal Mart passes along--from pollution and traffic to the medical care that the community must provide to its workers.

None of that has a thing to do with "free actors choosing freely, etc. etc." But profiting from such externalities is a significant portion of Wal Mart's business model.

[Statistical]

28. Walmart has lower prices as a result of not paying that cost.

All stores are victims of crime thus you pay for Police protection of all actors (yourself included).

However since all stores pass on that cost to taxpayers they don't pass it on to consumers. You don't buy from Walmart but you buy from somewhere, store xyz. Since store xyz doesn't have to employ a private 24/7 army to protect their assets and investigate their losses their prices are lower.

If Walmart is getting a special "deal" that is a violation of free market. Government can counter act the the effect of free markets by providing special protections or incentives. Favoring one enterprise over another, or promoting one product, or banning another.

A free-er market system would be one in which these "special protections" Walmart gains that others don't (I am not sure which ones exist) are removed.

"This is in addition to all the other externalities Wal Mart passes along--from pollution and traffic to the medical care that the community must provide to its workers."
Is this unique to Walmart or to all entities? Do you pay for your pollution? If not then Walmart hasn't gained an advantage. Now if Walmart is exempt from paying for pollution but another business must then you would have a point.

[Romulox]

35. Efficiency dictates that producers and consumers pay their own way

You are now defending externalities as a part of your idealized "free market"? Truly, it is all things to all people. :eyes:

[Statistical]

46. It would be more efficient for each actor to purchase everything themselves?

Really? What a bogus argument.

We collectively fund things like Police, military, roads because it is far more efficient to have a single entity funded by all actors then each individual contract it out.

You seem to think free markets or maybe 'free-er' markets is a better term can't exist inside a government. That somehow it has to be pure anarchy. That simply is false.

Smith indicated that govts (or some as of yet undiscovered 3rd party) are necessary specifically because free markets can't exist without protection from violence, fraud, monopolies, and coercion.

[Romulox]

51. I said "pay", not "purchase". It's clear that "true capitalism" is as malleable as playdough-

"True capitalism" appears to consist only of the good bits of modern economic activities, ("productivity") and none of the bad bits (pollution, cost of workers' medical care, e.g.--naturally the "true capitalist" will pass along his costs to others!)

"free markets can't exist without protection from violence, fraud, monopolies, and coercion"

Then they are not really "free markets", are they? They are little fiefdoms protected by monies coerced from people who do not profit from them. The ideology just doesn't stand up to real world practice. :hi:

[Statistical]

52. Of course they are free markets.

As in FREE from VIOLENCE, FRAUD, MONOPOLIES, and COERCION. Not "free" as in "free beer".

"They are little fiefdoms protected by monies coerced from people who do not profit from them."
You don't benefit from Police protection? Really. Only Walmart does. You must live in a really weird reality. You could always move to the workers paradise in Somalia. None of your wealth will be coerced into providing Police Protection, rule of law, infrastructure, or property rights.

"True capitalism" appears to consist only of the good bits of modern economic activities, ("productivity") and none of the bad bits (pollution, cost of workers' medical care, e.g.--naturally the "true capitalist" will pass along his costs to others!)

You pass on the externalized costs also. Do you pay for the pollution you cause? Should pollution be internalized? Of course but that has nothing to do with free markets. Also you keep equating capitalism with free markets. You are aware they aren't the same thing. Capitalism is a method of ownership. Free markets is an economic model used to allocate resources and set prices. One could have 100% state owned, or worker owned companies and still have free markets.


Cost of workers care isn't a requirement. It is merely a form of price. (wages + benefits) = price of labor. If I found a job that paid 20x my current salary but with no benefits I would take it and provide my own health care. Personally I think no employer should be allowed to offer health care. It has completed distorted and broken the system. Employers simply provide wages and employees use those wages on things they want/need such as health insurance.

[Romulox]

53. In my prescriptive definition they are not.

Just like highwaymen aren't businessmen in yours. It's all very arbitrary. But thanks for your time.

[DirkGently]

19. Good example. It's child labor & the 7-day workweek combined.

... slavery is the natural result of a completely free market. After all, it was the great profitability of slavery more than racism or anything else that kept it around in America for so long.

[Nye Bevan]

26. You have it backwards.

In a free market a black man can work for whichever employer he likes and can choose where he wants to live. Slavery involved the Government stepping in and and denying him both of these rights (along with many others). In a free market a black man from Alabama can move to Boston and start a business. The Fugitive Slave Law that prevented this was a horrible example of Government interference in free markets.

[Statistical]

29. Thanks. You said what I said in a lot less words.

Very concise.

[unblock]

31. what i'm saying is that the market won't be free unless the government ensures that it is so.

left to their own devices, people and businesses will bully and overpower and tromp on each other until the many submit to the few. what we have today is looking less and less like a "free market", and this is in large part due to the government relinquishing its role as referee over the last 30 years or so. we are increasingly left with the illusion of freedom; our "choices" are being reduced to distinctions without differences.

i agree that the government can take many actions, some support free markets, others work against them. laws supporting slavery certainly shows that government can work against free markets, and i'm not disputing that point. it's rather a straw man argument to say that just because government can do bad means it can't do good.

today, we do have laws against slavery, but government can support slavery simply be refusing to enforce those laws. in fact, slavery does exist today (though certainly not as widespread nor with explicit government approval as it did prior to the civil war) because the private sector finds it to their advantage and are able to get away with it (at least to some extent). today, government is needed to enforce laws against slavery.

government could support slavery if it were inclined to do so, but government support is hardly necessary for slavery to exist.

[Nye Bevan]

32. A functioning free market requires secure property rights, enforceable contracts

and a functioning legal system. That's why you're generally better off starting a business in the United States than in Zimbabwe or Russia.

[brentspeak]

54. On that same token, one is better off starting a business in Germany or Sweden than the U.S.

Businesses in non "free market" nations like Germany and Sweden don't have to worry about being snuffed-out or bullied by monopolies such as Wal-Mart. Their consumer base is also less likely to be weakened/victimized by free market financial industry games. Iceland went the "free market" route -- total economic disaster was the result.

[pampango]

33. Yes, if slavery only exists in societies with "free markets". n/t

[unblock]

34. the existence of government-supported slavery has nothing to do with this

i'm saying that government is needed to prevent slavery as well. please read the entire o.p., not just the subject.

[seattleblue]

36. A free market is also a free labor market.

So slavery or even feudalism would not be part of it.

[unblock]

38. left to their own devices, companies would and have engaged in slavery

government and suitable laws and enforcement are needed to ensure that the labor market remains "free".

[seattleblue]

39. In economic history I have not seen evidence of that.

Corporations which have used slave labor have been those where the governments have been dictatorships. Henry Ford doubled the wages of his workers so they could afford the cars they were building. He didn't want slaves.

[unblock]

42. slavery exists TODAY, right here in AMERICA:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12576

Called human trafficking or forced labor, modern slavery thrives in America, largely below the radar. A 2004 UC Berkeley study cites it mainly in five sectors:

-- prostitution and sex services - 46%;

-- domestic service - 27%;

-- agriculture - 10%;

-- sweatshops or factories - 5%;

-- restaurant and hotel work - 4%; with the remainder coming from:

-- sexual exploitation of children, entertainment, and mail-order brides.

It persists for lack of regulation, work condition monitoring, and a growing demand for cheap labor enabling unscrupulous employers and criminal networks to exploit powerless workers for profit.

[seattleblue]

56. Your link had no link to the "2004 UC Berkeley study"

I would like to see where UC Berkeley states there is slavery in the U.S.

[brentspeak]

55. The free labor market -- globalization -- has resulted in a new, modern-day feudalism

1) An unprecedented widening income and asset gap between the rich and everybody else.

2) Colossal credit bubbles -- credit meant to make up for the reduced wages of previously well-compensated workers -- which have burst spectacularly and resulted in the socialization of private debts (taxpayers are literally working to pay for the mistakes of rich people).

[seattleblue]

57. I think most of that is correct

I just don't think globalization equates with a free labor market or free market in general. Globalization has crushed the free market in the U.S. in my view.

[MikeNY]

40. The marriage of corporations and government is slavery

Often times the talking heads want you to argue over gay marriage - but the real marriage that is killing our country is the one that takes place every day between government officials and big business. So much tax payer money is lost in micro-transactions through crony capitalism, that many House members from across the aisle feel that the Senate is completely under the control of corporate lobbyists. There is nothing wrong with a free market - but its pointless to start a chicken and egg argument. What is more important are the facts on the ground. Politicians love contracts. They love awarding contracts to their business people friends. And they are in it to win it. When you elected your representatives into office, they swore an oath to protect your rights, not the rights of a non-existent being called a corporation. A free market doesn't involve slavery because the market would realize that freed men are more productive - this happened in the industrialized northern states before the Civil War. Agrarian culture and pre-industrial society is slave based, because the slave owners own all the means of production on their farms/plantations. You can argue this same principle happens in a communist dictatorship.

The reality is, free market capitalism has created the greatest innovation the world has. Einstein wasn't ordered by the U.S. government to create his theory of relativity. Alternating and direct current electricity weren't pioneered by Tesla, Westinghouse, and Edison while they worked at the Department of Energy. Let's be real here. Our economic system allows you, the author of this thread, to put your mind into something great, and make something of it.

Now, what has gone on over the last few decades is something completely different - and that is the consolidation of a whole bunch of mega corporations entering different industries due to the marriage between government and business. It is the reason banks were able to act as insurance companies, violating New Deal provisions, and it is the same reason provisions barring interactions of derivatives were stripped from New Deal legislation in the 90s. It is the reason everyone was forced to switch to digital TV - to prevent someone from running a pirate TV station on an analog channel. Now youd need to put a satellite into orbit if you wanted to compete with Time Warner. Do you see where the collusion leads? A lot of it, admittedly, is under the guise of "regulation" when it is anything but.

[unblock]

41. all that consolidation happened under the guise of DEregulation

i agree that the government has been increasingly serving the interests of big business, but usually it has been in the name of letting the free market reign.

as others have pointed out, there is a terminology problem here, i'm using the term "free market" in the republican, libertarian, let businesses do whatever they can get away with sense. left to their own devices, the free market will eventually lead to a very fee heavily consolidated and powerful businesses in a position to enslave us, and aside from that, there are also small businesses engaging in slavery.

government could certainly be used to support slavery, but also slavery cannot be prevented without a government insisting on enforcing freedom.


incidently, einstein's special theory of relativity came out when he was in switzerland, and his general theory of relativity when he was in germany. he didn't come to the u.s. until much later.

[MikeNY]

58. True but lets not make a mistake about what makes govt possible

The success and livelihood of the people is what makes a democratic republic possible. At current time, Citigroup considers the United States to a plutocracy. The reason for this is clearly a robber barren approach to governance. The US Treasury is a giant piggy bank for corporations. If slavery were re-instituted in the United States today, it would be counterproductive to business interests in MOST sectors. Remember that slavery was abolished only because - and I do say only - because Lincoln was heavy anti-slavery. His Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the south and did not abolish slavery until the 13th amendment. Then, the 13th amendment was deemed unenforceable in the stubborn south, and the 14th amendment was passed. Then, if we get into this argument, we start to argue about a meritocracy vs. cronyism type of system that exists today. There is a good argument that slavery was abolished for economic and war reasons. European nations increasingly saw the US as being uncivilized for still keeping slaves, but the British had no problem trying to establish trade deals with the Confederates.

Reality tells us that slavery is bad for business in a post-industrial society. Free market capitalism cannot exist as long as government awards any type of crazy contract with a corporation - because then you have opened pandora's box. Where there is money, there is greed, and where there is greed, there are politicians. If you think, even for one minute, that our elected representatives and their unelected appointees are even the least bit altruistic when it comes to this issue - I want whatever you are smoking.

Almost every single financial calamity that has taken place over the last 30 years has been the result of government expansionism in the WRONG areas. The government doesnt spend most of your money on actually helping people - it gives it away to proxies that can send it to the Cayman Islands and line the pockets of their friends!

[PVnRT]

44. An acutal free market would not allow slavery

Part of a free market is that everyone has equal access to the market to buy and sell goods, including their labor. In fact, because slavery was encoded by law, with the government recapturing and returning runaway slaves and making sure that their owners could keep them in line by whatever means necessary, it especially violates every tenet of laissez-faire capitalism as well.

When the wingers start gushing about the "free market," what they really mean is corporatocracy. No market of any kind can exist without rules, and because the players have a vested interest in seeing that those rules favor them, a neutral third party (i.e., a government) has to write and enforce them.

[unblock]

45. exactly! that's what i've been trying to say

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Let me just adress slavery

Been doing a LOT of reading, and one of my surprises was just how little sense slavery actually made. Not only that, in the history of the early republic it was THE brake to the industrialization of the South. Yes, that came as a surprise.

But slavery was actually very expensive. Now cheap labor makes more sense. (And yes I found that in the literature). You see a slave I got to feed and cloth, but a worker I can fire, and don't have to worry about that.

It is more complex than that. But it was surprising... that said, some folks would like to go back to owning slaves, and I suspect there are other reasons for that. But yes, that was a shock... ah the more one reads...