Does anybody believe in the free market?

[GreenWyvern]

@MrDibble

One that says anarchism *necessitates *unregulated markets. Like you said right at the start.

What I originally said was “If by ‘free market’ you mean a market that is totally unregulated… NOBODY wants that except anarchists.”

To repeat the definitions I posted above:

@GreenWyvern

noun: anarchist

A person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy.
noun: anarchy

1. A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.

2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

“A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems” implies unregulated markets.

“Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual” necessitates unregulated markets.

[fedman]

@Gatopescado

I thought I understood basic microeconomics till I started talking to a friend who sells on Amazon. I got really good grades and everything!

Remember the part where the intersection where supply meets demand equals price? That sounds logical, but in order to maximize profit, if demand is high you reduce supply so that price (demand) goes up.

[MrDibble]

@GreenWyvern

“A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems” implies unregulated markets.

“Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual” necessitates unregulated markets.

“Implies” - to a completely uneducated-about-anarchism outsider.
“necessitates” - to someone who doesn’t think self-regulation can exist.
:smack:
I’ve already cited actual anarchist thinkers and their positions on markets. I suggest you look them up before you go spouting off about what the wordy-book told you things imply or necessitate.

Look, even just skim-read the damn Wikipedia article on anarchISM for what anarchists actually believe. It’s not the best source, but it’s a damn sight better than the dictionary. Anarchists don’t want anarchy (in the sense of disorder and chaos, which is of course usually the *first *dictionary definition that comes to mindbut rarely the only one and certainly not the relevant one for a political discussion.), we want anarchism (a stateless society). Not the same thing.

Then, think about what you just tried to do - you tried to tell someone who actually follows an ideology that they don’t know what they’re talking about, when it comes to their own ideology. Because a book of word definitions said different.

And they wonder why Great Debates is dying…

[GreenWyvern]

@MrDibble

Then, think about what you just tried to do - you tried to tell someone who actually follows an ideology that they don’t know what they’re talking about, when it comes to their own ideology. Because a book of word definitions said different.

Actually, I never said anything remotely like that.

I did read that Wikipedia article, the first time you posted. My response was that most people would think that anarchism has something to do with anarchy (which according to the article it doesn’t), so if you don’t want people to get the wrong impression you should use a different term.

But if you don’t “give a flying fuck” whether people get the wrong impression of what anarchism is, then fine.

[septimus]

@MrDibble

A gift economy is not a market economy. We have no way of saying for certain that very early prehistoric “trade” was one or the other, but we can certainly say that human societies have existed based on the former. Without losing their “human nature”, apparently.

I was going to make the same comment, though I won’t hunt for a cite.

And gift exchanges, unnecessary in a small group where values and debts are well-known, might have been common with long-distance trade! The gift items may have been plentiful for the gifter, but scarce for the giftee. (Over time, default exchange rates might develop, but gifting avoids worry about short-term cheating.) The gifts might have involved bride exchanges or tributes or ransoms rather than simple trades.

[Max_S]

@MrDibble

Which I stand by - anarchists don’t want unregulated markets. we either want*no *markets, or else *very *tightly regulated ones, depending on flavour of anarchism.

To wrap this up, do you “believe in the free market”?

I’m guessing that’s a negative, but the side-track about anarchism here is confusing me a little bit. I don’t see room for a free market in the various economic theories I associate with anarchism. To use your words, a free market isn’t no market, and it probably isn’t a tightly regulated market either.

I suppose you could take a Libertarian- or individualist-anarchist position that still allows for cooperative business entities and somewhat capitalist competition. I knew someone in college who tried to take a view like that.

~Max

[fedman]

@Hari_Seldon

Let me just point out that one example of our unfree markets are non-compete agreements that many companies insist that all employees sign. I am not talking about the people who have real trade secrets (although what Pepsi would do if they had the Coke formula passes my imagination) but employees who just want better pay on the basis of their experience. A typical example of capitalist overreach.

I have never heard of an injury caused by a rogue hairdresser. On the other hand I read of a case a few years ago (sorry I cannot cite it) of someone who knew how to do cornrows that no licensed hairdresser could do. Her customers were quite happy but she was put out of business by the licensing bureau. She could not afford the cost of the training.

do you remember a couple years ago, Jimmy Johns (??) had “non-compete” restriction for ex-employees before lawsuits ended practice? What exact secrets did they have?

[fedman]

@Oredigger77

Well, most of my work has been writing articles for regional publications and talking to the industry lobbying groups (ADI, ACSA, and DISCUS) about getting it added to their platforms. The original version of the Craft Spirits Modernization Act had a provision to legalize home distilling but that was removed when it was rolled into the Trump tax cuts. I spent hours talking to my local congressmen and senators about the CSMA but it never even got brought up for a vote.

In general, I’d like to bring spirits (and to some extent wine) into regulatory parity with beer. Currently you can brew beer at home, make wine and (in some states) grow weed but you can go to jail for distilling even a drop of potable alcohol and can lose the property you’re distilling on. Further once we are in the realm of taxed spirits beer is taxed (federally) at $0.11/gallon while 40% abv whiskey is taxed at $2.16/gallon and most wine is at $0.57/gallon. These excise taxes should be equalized with my preferred method being to equalize at the craft beer level and all alcohol should be taxed at $0.92 per proof gallon.

Both of these things will help the craft spirits industry because allowing home distilling will enable people to perfect their recipies and processes before spending the money to go pro. This will increase the quality of craft spirits. Right now we generally, have people either with more balls then brains who are either willing to break the law and learn how to distill before investing but then we expect them to become perfect rule following robots after years of being law breakers or people with more money than brains who are willing to invest hundreds or thousands or millions if dollars into something they know nothing about.

are you talking about brewing/distilling for personal use or selling? I can’t see gov’t taxing home-brew (how would they know about it? This isn’t 1929)