# The single most reprehensible thing the free market ever did? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329 "2010-07-28T17:26:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/41 "2010-07-28T21:16:07Z")
But there we are: the government decides that if you run away from the person who calls himself your master, the government itself will step in and help your master recapture you and return you to work. So if you get your car stolen, and the local sheriff instead of helping you, beats the crap out of you and goes out for a drink with the car thieves, is that the free market in operation? The government declares that your status is that of a slave, and assists the slaveholder in keeping you in that status, and gives you no access to the court system against your so-called master. And if anyone helps you to escape your master, they are breaking the law. And this is the free market. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/42 "2010-07-28T21:21:08Z")
[QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] Near as I can tell, you seem to believe that the government not declaring the purchase or sale of slaves to be illegal as an example of “direct manipulation of the system.” [/QUOTE] Um…no. ‘Direct manipulation of the system’ to me means that they changed laws to encourage slavery (changing the definition and terms of slavery, for one thing, making it life long, and then making the decedents also slaves, etc etc), not simply turned a blind eye to it. As far as I can tell, you and others mean ‘free market’ to equal just about anything, instead of the narrow definition the term actually means. > [@](#): > > Which makes no sense in the case of the US, because slave trading was already happening before we were a nation, and the most the Constitution did was to declare that slaveholders had a right to have their slaves returned if they escaped. Yeah, but the Constitution is not the sum total of all laws that were passed…in fact, it doesn’t really include any of them, just broadly sets out how the government will work. Folks like Jefferson and Washington, admirable men that they were, were slave owners and they had direct control of the system. Many (most) of the people in Congress and the Senate were also slave owners, and had a vested interest in the slave trade and slavery…and the laws passed directly reflect this. This wasn’t just turning a blind eye to slavery, this was active manipulation and direct intervention to encourage and perpetuate the system. Same goes for the Brits during their own participation in the trade. Many in their Parliament as well as their Prime Ministers and other officials had vested interests in the slave trade, or were slave owners themselves. We aren’t talking about the governments just being passive or turning a blind eye to slavery, we are talking about the governments directly controlling it because the people controlling the governments controlled the trade, and because the governments involved directly and indirectly benefited from that trade…it brought in huge revenue after all, and allowed the various aristocratic classes the chance to further enhance their power and wealth. All of those factors are pretty much diametrically opposed to any definition of ‘free market’ I’ve ever heard, as I’ve said. If you guys are just going to call anything you want a ‘free market’, then to me there is no point in debating. You just change the definitions and then ‘free market’ could be anything at all…which means, the definition is worthless or meaningless. So, any discussion about what was or wasn’t the most reprehensible thing done by the made up definition is pretty much worthless and meaningless. [QUOTE=Lemur866] Well, “free of government regulation” doesn’t work either, because without government regulation a free market won’t exist long. If Og is free to bash you on the head with a rock and take your goods, that’s not a free market. So some system of laws has to exist so that Og won’t crush your skull. [/QUOTE] Certainly…I agree. Which is why I said “I’ll even concede that regulation has a role in ‘free markets’”. But what happened during the slave trade went a bit beyond mere regulation, IMHO of course. Obviously MMV. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/43 "2010-07-28T21:30:45Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > Um, the practice of destroying “excess” food/crops to keep prices high while millions starve? Related: The [Irish Potato Famine.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine) Not that the famine, or potato blight, itself resulted from market forces. But, when it hit, most Irish were entirely dependent on the potato as a food source, because most of the best farmland was owned by English absentee landlords, who grew cereal crops for export to England, where they could get a better price for them. So, during the Famine, a million Irish died of starvation, and a million more were driven by hunger to emigrate, all **while Ireland was growing food and exporting it.** If the food had been kept and eaten in Ireland, the landlords would have suffered a reduction in income; and perhaps the common English would have had to pay more for breadstuffs, but they would not have starved to death by the millions. And don’t try to tell me that was a result of feudalism rather than the free market; by that time, there was no practical distinction between the two, to the extent we can even speak of feudalism surviving to that date. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/44 "2010-07-28T21:45:10Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] > Near as I can tell, you seem to believe that the government not declaring the purchase or sale of slaves to be illegal as an example of “direct manipulation of the system.” Um…no. ‘Direct manipulation of the system’ to me means that they changed laws to encourage slavery (changing the definition and terms of slavery, for one thing, making it life long, and then making the decedents also slaves, etc etc), not simply turned a blind eye to it. As far as I can tell, you and others mean ‘free market’ to equal just about anything, instead of the narrow definition the term actually means. [/QUOTE] “Changing the definition and terms of slavery?” You’re going to have to be less vague. Does “slavery” have some precise definition that makes it somehow impossible to exist in a free market? As for making it lifelong and the decedents slaves, would the government need to declare such a feature for your horse to make it and its offspring your property? Do you understand that a slave in a chattel slavery system would be considered not much different than a horse? ---
**Author:** ![Staale\_Nordlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Staale\_Nordlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staale_Nordlie)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/45 "2010-07-28T21:49:11Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Well, “free of government regulation” doesn’t work either, because without government regulation a free market won’t exist long. If Og is free to bash you on the head with a rock and take your goods, that’s not a free market. So some system of laws has to exist so that Og won’t crush your skull. > > Markets can arise independently, but they cannot exist under anarchic conditions. Not to hijack the thread, but this isn’t true. [Free market anarchism.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/46 "2010-07-28T21:55:30Z")
> [@Staale\_Nordlie](#): > > Not to hijack the thread, I believe that this horse has already fled the barn, been captured, and was sold as a slave. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/47 "2010-07-28T21:59:19Z")
> [@Staale\_Nordlie](#): > > > [@Lemur866](#): > > > > Well, “free of government regulation” doesn’t work either, because without government regulation a free market won’t exist long. If Og is free to bash you on the head with a rock and take your goods, that’s not a free market. So some system of laws has to exist so that Og won’t crush your skull. > > > > Markets can arise independently, but they cannot exist under anarchic conditions. > > Not to hijack the thread, but this isn’t true. > > [Free market anarchism.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism) That is an ideology, not an example. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/48 "2010-07-28T22:00:44Z")
[QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] Does “slavery” have some precise definition that makes it somehow impossible to exist in a free market? [/QUOTE] Not at all. You could certainly have slavery in a free market. That has nothing to do with the history of slavery in the US or New World, however. What I meant by changing the definition and terms of slavery over time is that initially slavery was pretty much indentured labor. Blacks were treated pretty much the same way whites were from places like Ireland…i.e. as indentured servants who had to fulfill a term of indenture. Gradually, however, that changed, and eventually it focused on blacks. It went from terms of indenture, to life long slavery, to generational slavery and into making it nearly impossible to even grant freedom to slaves…and this was done through the mechanism of state (or Empire when the Brits were in charge) to Federal laws. > [@](#): > > As for making it lifelong and the decedents slaves, would the government need to declare such a feature for your horse to make it and its offspring your property? But the government DID declare those things, and shifted over time what slavery actually meant. It didn’t start off as life long and generational slavery, but gradually shifted to that, and gradually focused mainly on blacks. > [@](#): > > Do you understand that a slave in a chattel slavery system would be considered not much different than a horse? Yeah, I understand that perfectly. Do YOU understand the points I’ve been making? Because this question seems to indicate that the answer is ‘no’. [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States)is a pretty good article from Wiki on slavery in the US. Just to highlight some of what I’ve been saying: > [@](#): > > The first record of African slavery in colonial America was made in 1619. The White Lion, an English pirate ship under the Dutch flag, had captured 20 Angolan slaves after a battle with a Portuguese ship, the São João Baptista (St. John the Baptist), bound for Veracruz, Mexico[10]. The Angolans were from the kingdoms of Ndongo and Kongo, and spoke languages of the Bantu group[10]. The White Lion had been damaged first by the battle and then more severely in a great storm when it came ashore at Old Point Comfort, site of present day Fort Monroe in Virginia. Though the colony was in the middle of a period later known as “The Great Migration” (1618–1623), during which its population grew from 450 to 4,000 residents, extremely high mortality rates from disease, malnutrition, and war with Native Americans kept the population of able-bodied laborers low.[11] With the ship in severe need of repairs and supplies and the colonists being in need of able-bodied workers, the English pirates traded human cargo for food and services. > > In addition to African slaves, Europeans, mostly Irish,[12] Scottish,[13] English, and Germans,[14] were brought over in substantial numbers as indentured servants, sometimes referred to as “white slaves”.[15] Indentured servants, sometimes shipped as punishment by local parishes, were particularly common in the British Thirteen Colonies.[16] Historians estimate that more than half of all white immigrants to the English colonies of North America during the 17th and 18th centuries were indentured servants.[17] In the 18th century, numerous Europeans traveled to the colonies as redemptioners.[18] The white citizens of Virginia, who had arrived from Britain, decided to treat the first Africans in Virginia as indentured servants. As with European indentured servants, the Africans were freed after a stated period and given the use of land and supplies by their former masters. Anthony Johnson, a former indentured servant from Africa, became a landowner on the Eastern Shore and a slaveholder in his turn.[19] The major problem with indentured servants was that, in time, they would be freed, but they were unlikely to become prosperous. The best lands in the tidewater regions were already in the hands of wealthy plantation families by 1650, and the former servants became an underclass. Bacon’s Rebellion showed that the poor laborers and farmers could prove a dangerous element to the wealthy landowners. Following the dominance of chattel slavery, there were few migrant European laborers and small farmers other than those who could afford to pay their passage and support themselves. In addition, improving economic conditions in England meant that fewer laborers wanted to migrate to the colonies as indentured servants, so the planters needed to find new sources of labor.[citation needed] > Slaves on a Virginia plantation (The Old Plantation, c. 1790) > > The transformation from indentured servitude to racial slavery happened gradually. There were no laws regarding slavery early in Virginia’s history. However, by 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery The point I’m making is that whether or not slavery could exist in a ‘free market’ is moot, since it existed in a system that was pretty much diametrically different than what a ‘free market’ actually is. Rather than players trading on at least a quasi-level playing field, governments and aristocrats with privileged access manipulated the system and laws in order to perpetuate their system and maintain and expand their power. This is NOT how a ‘free market’ works, at least it bears no resemblance to anything I’ve ever heard called a ‘free market’. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/49 "2010-07-28T22:01:52Z")
I think slavery is a winner so I’m going to add “recently” to the question: The Dole company intentionally using a pesticide they knew would cause cancer and infertility for thousands of poor workers. Thus causing cancer and infertility in thousands of poor workers. The BP oil leak would be the most recent, but not as evil as intentionally killing people or turning them sterile to save a buck by not switching to safer pesticides. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/50 "2010-07-28T22:12:03Z")
Never heard of the Dole thing you are talking about, but I suppose some recent answers would be Ford and their magic gas tanks on the Pinto, or the Union Carbide disaster in India which killed thousands. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Staale\_Nordlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Staale\_Nordlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staale_Nordlie)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/51 "2010-07-28T22:31:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That is an ideology, not an example. The link contains examples of how free market anarchism could work, as well as historical examples of societies with strong anarcho-capitalist tendencies. It address Lemur866 claim that simple use of force and theft would make markets impossible unless people are forced to obey rulers/government. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/52 "2010-07-28T22:37:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] > Does “slavery” have some precise definition that makes it somehow impossible to exist in a free market? Not at all. You could certainly have slavery in a free market. [/QUOTE] Gee, thanks. > [@](#): > > That has nothing to do with the history of slavery in the US or New World, however. What I meant by changing the definition and terms of slavery over time is that initially slavery was pretty much indentured labor. Blacks were treated pretty much the same way whites were from places like Ireland…i.e. as indentured servants who had to fulfill a term of indenture. Gradually, however, that changed, and eventually it focused on blacks. It went from terms of indenture, to life long slavery, to generational slavery and into making it nearly impossible to even grant freedom to slaves…and this was done through the mechanism of state (or Empire when the Brits were in charge) to Federal laws. Could that be because the we later banned [the importation of slaves?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves) If you can’t replenish your stock through outside sources, don’t you need some way to maintain your existing stock in order to continue using slaves? Doesn’t that sound like one of the many compromises on slavery that the era is known for? The only thing this shows is the government’s attempt to slowly and contentiously wind down the institution of slavery. It didn’t eliminate it, nor did it expand it. It doesn’t represent some kind of government takeover of slavery. The changes in the particular aspects of American slavery represents the conflict between those who wanted it abolished, and those who wanted it maintained in some way; we’re dealing with private citizens in either case. > [@](#): > > The point I’m making is that whether or not slavery could exist in a ‘free market’ is moot, since it existed in a system that was pretty much diametrically different than what a ‘free market’ actually is. Rather than players trading on at least a quasi-level playing field, governments and aristocrats with privileged access manipulated the system and laws in order to perpetuate their system and maintain and expand their power. > > -XT At best, all you’ve established is that American slavery was subject to regulations, which you already acknowledged could be a viable part of a free market. You haven’t explained how the government itself benefited from slavery (did the federal government own slaves?). And modern aristocrats and free marketeers today utilize their access to manipulate the system in their favor. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a free market. Regardless, you haven’t show that influential Americans used undue influence to encourage or expand slavery in America outside the normal legislative process, so I’m not sure what you’re even getting at. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/53 "2010-07-31T01:17:02Z")
I’m sure there’s a long list of unsustainable environmental exploitations that can be laid at the feet of modern free-marketers. I was going to say the international chattel slave trade, but the laissez-faire crowd would argue that was a partially unfree market–fair enough:p–& things like driving aquatic species to extinction for lack of enforceable claims of control of ocean fisheries are worse. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/54 "2010-07-31T03:38:42Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I was going to say the international chattel slave trade, but the laissez-faire crowd would argue that was a partially unfree market–fair enough:p Thing is, that’s a universal excuse for them. No market is ever free enough for them, so if you allow that as an excuse they’ll just dismiss every bad aspect of the free market that has ever existed as not counting because the market wasn’t free enough. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/55 "2010-07-31T05:52:20Z")
Class Action lawsuits-the law firm makes millions, the members of the class get little or nothing. A case of enormous rewards for no useful work. No societal benefit, as the members of the class pay (ultimately) the penalties and awrds. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/56 "2010-07-31T12:39:28Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > Um, the practice of destroying “excess” food/crops to keep prices high while millions starve? That’s a government thing. Quite a lot of the things attributed to the market in this thread are, in fact, government things. My nominee would be **tobacco**. The current widespread popularity of tobacco, from its relatively obscure origins not all that long ago in historical terms, is purely a market-driven thing. And how many people has it killed? How much cancer and emphysema? Environmental spills are yucky but tobacco probably kills more people in one year than all the environmental disasters that have ever happened in human history combined. Smoking kills at lest half a million people EVERY YEAR. And the number of smokers is going up worldwide. I was once told if I wanted to make good, consistent returns on my investments, I should invest in tobacco companies. I looked it up, and the guy was right; they earn well and pay out dividends every single year. I won’t do it, though. It’s blood money. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/57 "2010-07-31T16:50:58Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > At best, all you’ve established is that American slavery was subject to regulations, which you already acknowledged could be a viable part of a free market. You haven’t explained how the government itself benefited from slavery (did the federal government own slaves?). And modern aristocrats and free marketeers today utilize their access to manipulate the system in their favor. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a free market. Regardless, you haven’t show that influential Americans used undue influence to encourage or expand slavery in America outside the normal legislative process, so I’m not sure what you’re even getting at. I don’t believe that slavery falls under free market because one of the parties, the slaves, is not free by the definition of the transaction. The definition I am working with for free market is the following: > [@](#): > > "Free market” is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. Note that in slavery the slaves are not there by voluntary agreement. They are there by force. Therefore, since one of the parties is not there by voluntary agreement, the transaction is not a free market transaction. Unless you believe that the slaves were property of course. Since the governments involved defined certain people as property, the slave owners were operating in a market \*defined \*by the government. The government defined certain people as property and then let that market behave as though it was a free market. The fact that the government applied free market principles to a market does not actually make the market free. That isn’t a problem with a free market, that is a problem with the government. Slee ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/58 "2010-07-31T16:55:26Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Note that in slavery the slaves are not there by voluntary agreement. They are there by force. Therefore, since one of the parties is not there by voluntary agreement, the transaction is not a free market transaction. > > Unless you believe that the slaves were property of course. Since the governments involved defined certain people as property, the slave owners were operating in a market \*defined \*by the government. The government defined certain people as property and then let that market behave as though it was a free market. The fact that the government applied free market principles to a market does not actually make the market free. > > That isn’t a problem with a free market, that is a problem with the government. > > Slee I guess that explanation makes sense, since the slave trade didn’t happen until the government declared that slaves were property. Oh, wait…that’s not what happened at all. But nice try. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/59 "2010-07-31T17:05:36Z")
What about the discontinuation of production for certain antivenoms, because they’re not profitable? The current US stock of Coral Snake anti venom expires in october, and as a result, people will either die or be forced onto ventilators for weeks, maybe months, while the venom clears itself out of their system. But, because there are only 100 or so corral snake bits a year in the USA, it’s not profitable enough to produce, so individuals who are bitten will incur 100s of thousands of dollars in medical bills, for weeks long intubation and ventilation. Also, Arizona ran entirely out of scorpion anti venom, because a single man was making all of it for the entire state and retired, but that’s a bit off topi , and I just thought it was interesting. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329/60 "2010-07-31T17:07:56Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > [@sleestak](#): > > > > Note that in slavery the slaves are not there by voluntary agreement. They are there by force. Therefore, since one of the parties is not there by voluntary agreement, the transaction is not a free market transaction. > > > > Unless you believe that the slaves were property of course. Since the governments involved defined certain people as property, the slave owners were operating in a market \*defined \*by the government. The government defined certain people as property and then let that market behave as though it was a free market. The fact that the government applied free market principles to a market does not actually make the market free. > > > > That isn’t a problem with a free market, that is a problem with the government. > > > > Slee > > I guess that explanation makes sense, since the slave trade didn’t happen until the government declared that slaves were property. > > Oh, wait…that’s not what happened at all. But nice try. The fundamental idea is the same even if the government is not a player. It you cannot grasp the idea that in a free market all individuals must voluntarily agree to the transaction, that is your problem. Slavery is based upon force. By definition force is not an option in a free market. What is so hard to get about that? Slee [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-single-most-reprehensible-thing-the-free-market-ever-did/548329.md?page=4)