Milton Friedman on the Basis of the Free Market

[spfccsmft]

Actually, people buy huge amounts of shit products all the time.

[HConstantine]

How can he be so stupid?

[cpblackangel88]

He's 100% correct.

[shumich]

I agree with you that the state should be libertarian in nature. Perhaps if government did not step in between the disputes of labor and business, there would be better and more efficient relations between the two. Also, wouldn't it be nice if there were a limit to the amount of lobbyists a corporation could send to Washington? Mike Huckabee has recently noted that their are 70 lobbyists per member of Congress. I'm still trying to figure out Regulatory Committees. They're more accountable in EU.

[VoluntaryGov]

Well, I'm actually not only for a libertarian government. I am for any form of government that is voluntary. That does include Communist, Socialist, Theocratic, Monarchic, etc. This can even include Democracies and Republics if they are contractual and voluntarily chosen. What I disagree with is drawing imaginary lines on geographic maps and claiming to own land based on that premise alone. There exists many alternatives to land ownership than 'english commonlaw'...

[VoluntaryGov]

For example, John Locke theorized that just land ownership exists only by mixing ones labor with nature, thereby creating a useable object of which responsibility could now be claimed.

I just dont understand the morality in drawing a line across a map and claiming that because someone is born south of it they must obey a certain set of laws and beliefs, while those who were born north of it must obey a completely seperate set of laws.

[VoluntaryGov]

There is a clear reason for the number of lobbyists. The business that don't purchase the coercive ability to use the gun from the government, will eventually find themselves facing it. When the gun becomes involved, mutually beneficial trade can kiss itself goodbye. Those who are willing to use it will always triumph over those who are not willing. The difficult thing to get people to understand is the solution is not to penalize those who hire the gun, but to get rid of the gun entirely.

[smiledammit24]

@VoluntaryGov I know you wrote this comment like 11 months ago. I do find your position to be rather common sense, but these boundaries aren't exactly arbitrary. Nations (and their provinces) draw their boundaries based upon who lives within those boundaries--people with a shared language, religious beliefs, customs, political beliefs, etc. Those boundaries stay relevant because the governments involved usually regulate who can cross them.

[rmcdaniel423]

@smiledammit24 They are called "political maps" for a reason. They are not called "cultural maps".

[smiledammit24]

@rmcdaniel423 And what does "political" mean? Your politics are decided by several dozen factors, which may include your religion, your language, your racial biases, your gender biases, your place on the social ladder and what that means to you, whether or not you're educated...you see what I'm getting at here? They might as well be called "cultural maps" because so much of what is political is defined by your culture.

[richmocha]

@VoluntaryGov We maintain these borders to preserve our law and political system(corrupted as ours has become). If we were to get rid of borders everywhere, that would not necessarily be a good thing, as most of the world does not believe in the classical liberal principles America was founded on.

[shumich]

Consumers don't need to be educated right? Besides, if a corporation sells me something that kills me, won't the market take care of it? We don't need regulation for that stuff. I don't mind dying.

[VoluntaryGov]

Not sure who said consumers don't need to be educated. Although that is exactly what government agencies like the FDA, AMA, or USDA in fact do. I am not promoting uneducated consumers. I am promoting the market solution to that very problem. Private agencies such as Consumer Reports, the B.B.B. or one of the thousand instant review websites available on the web give consumers instant access to endless amounts of information. And you should be able to buy something that kills you.

[VoluntaryGov]

Cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, etc are great examples of things that greatly increase your chance of an early grave. The only person that can make that decision is the consumer himself. You can not eliminate risk from the equation, even with the magical wand that government claims to wield. Take for example the recent peanut butter salminella (sp?) outbreak, or any of the other various contaminated products that slipped through the FDA's grasp since it's founding.

[VoluntaryGov]

I have failed to also mention the simple idea of reputation as an effective regulating function of the market. To give you an example, if a corporation such as Dell, Walmart, or McDonalds releases dangerous or low quality goods that consumers do not want, those consumers (and many others) will label that company as dangerous or inferior and likely seek out competitors for the good. This is a reason every major corporation attempts to offer 100% consumer satisfaction, and serve the consumer.

[shumich]

What if someone sells me something they say is ibuprofen but is actually rat poison? The truth is that the free market is the best way to go most of the time but not always. What about advertising and marketing? Some of these agencies have a tendency to exaggerate the truth if not outright lie. Can we, as consumers, organize, with or without government assistance to demand the truth? Consumer Reports is awesome. I just wonder about advertising's influence on it sometimes. Business has power too.

[VoluntaryGov]

Good point Shumich, but you need to further consider business reputation as a self regulating function of the market. We can assume that all companies operate with their own self interest at heart, for all profit based companies, that means making money. If found to be 'bribing' a information corporation or non profit, not only does the informant lose a massive portion of its customers, but also the corporation bribing it. The risk is generally too large for it to be undertaken by either.

[VoluntaryGov]

I do however advocate your approach to organizing without the coercive power of government, but don't forget, it will still be possible to 'bribe' such an organization.

[shumich]

Your points of view always enrich my thoughts with opportunities for deeper speculation. I know that people in general will never be beyond corruption. I happen to believe that government and business are just as corruptible as each other. How do we hold them accountable? In the marketplace or the voting both? I guess that both could work for government. Would it be fair to actually elect CEOs. I think they tried it once w/ GM. Didn't work if I recall correctly.