Talk:Free market/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Incoherent and Biased

This article is so incoherent it's practically useless. First it argues for a system that is "free" of all coercive measures. Then it argues for a government to .... you guessed it, protect coercive measures! private property ownership in is government coercion--a set of regulations--granting a monopoly access to a defined area of land, and/or of rights to use the natural resources upon that land. corporations are government coercion, creating a legal fiction that would be impossible to implement in a true free market. rights to use of the broadcast spectrum is government coercion. patents, copyrights, and trademarks are government coercion.

then it goees on to conflate this incoherent version of the free market with what in economics is called a "perfect market".

then it strikes out against "Fiat money". can anyone point to a government that issues "fiat money"? not debt-based, or assett based... fiat.

in reality what this article describe a "Free Market" that has just enough government to "protect me from my slaves". it needs to be scrapped and rewritten by honest people. Colorless Green Ideas 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The above person appears to be a communist or far leftist.

The idea is to allow people to act freely from coersion from arbitrary government power and from others. No one has the freedom to kill or steal. An authority of some kind is needed to provide incentives to prevent and protect. Examples, Courts, Military, Laws/Rules. In addition the free market requires the protection of competition. This does not mean people are being "coerced" as they never had the freedom to coerce! (Gibby 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Wrong, I am neither. I am a free-market progressive. Where did I say anything about "freedom to kill"? I simply argued that any system that claims to be "free of all coercive measures", but then goes on to advocate coercive measures is incoherent and absurd. license based private property ownership is, in fact, coercive; it takes land--which is a fixed supply--and gives the licensed owner a legal monopoly on its use. the licensed owner can use to full force of the government to protect their annexed land. Now I am not against private property ownership, I support it completely, but I acknowledge what it is: a system of government regulations, which are by definition coercive. The more land that is claimed by license, the less there is available for those who come later (or are born later!), the higher price they must pay, the higher their barrier to entry into the market. In a true free-market, private property ownership would be created by labor and occupancy and use of a site. Absentee ownership could not exist. I am not arguing for that, as I am not an anarchist, I am just saying let's call a spade a spade. Government protection of private land monopolization, while being necessary for a functioning market, is coercive, and there's no way around that. Colorless Green Ideas 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking and protecting land can only coercive if that taking was stealing. If the land was originally unowned, then it taking that land for yourself can't be coercive. In other words, finders keepers. The only way to argue that it is coercive would be to try to approach it from a communist POV and hold that all land is owned collectively a priori, but you're going to have a hard time proving that to be the case. Taking what belongs to no one can't be coercive. RJII 02:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, in fact, taking and protecting land can easily be coercive. Large landowners take up vasts swaths of land (Ted Turner owns ~2 million acres), that they could never convert to ownership through labor in an occupancy and use system. Only license based private property can make this possible. I don't consider the Communist perspective, I consider the usufruct perspective--in a system without government monopoly land protection, the only real way to own land is through occupancy and use. In such a system, go try and fence off 10,000 acres and call it your "property". Not a chance. Now go back and try to prove that all the land that we own wasn't not originally occupied and used by Native Americans. You can't, because most of it was. Government protection of land monopolization is necessary for a functioning market, and for that it is good, but that doesn't make it non-coercive. Absentee land ownership is the biggest entitlement program. Colorless Green Ideas 07:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If government is needed to protect private property rights that does not prove the free market won't work. In fact, most people who argue for free markets like Friedman and Hayek argue that a government is necessary for exactly that reason. Leftists, particular populists go for the easy strawman by conflating free markets with complete anarchy which even anarcho capitalists don't even believe in. Even they have a authority in their free market it just happens to be a corporate authority rather than a government.

And the ownership of land does not mean no one else can own that does not own land already.

And, land is not the only means of wealth. Neither is money. That is another leftist mistake.

(Gibby 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, re-read my posts. Nowhere do I say that free markets don't work, or that land and money are the only means of wealth. My only complaint is concerning the argument that somehow this definition of free market as outlined in the article is somehow "free of coercion". I'll quote myself just to make it clear : "Government protection of land monopolization is necessary for a functioning market". Let me now quote Thomas Jefferson on the subject : "The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and to live on. ... Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

See, I do not deny the rightness, or efficacy of law based property ownership. I also realize that we no longer live in a majority subsistence based agriculture system. The point remains valid, though. Anytime wealthy individuals can monopolize large tracts of idle land owing to government monopoly protection, there is coercion against those who have no land and are now fenced off. This applies equally to other types of enclosure such as patents, copyrights, and even publicly traded corporations. This Laissez-faire market system may or may not be the best system, I don't know, but it is most definitely not "free of coercion". Colorless Green Ideas 04:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And as I said, leftists and those who generally attack the free market make the bad assumption that Laissez-faire free market means NO GOVERNMENT. However, no free market advocate argues that a free market MUST be absent a government or any authority that protects something like private property. THomas Jefferson may not be referring to property rights in general but property where only certain people may aquire them, or property rights that favor a certain group over another, or property rights where laws are so complex as to give benefit to those who already own capital. Such is not a free market.

However, if someone bought land and did not use it, and others were free to buy the land at the time of the purchase then this is a free market transaction free of coersion. Free markets always imply no coersion. Unless you are trying to conflate issues together and make strawmen.

Copyrights, patents, are not coersion either, it is protection of property. IF there were none there would be theft, and theft is coersion. Stop conflating issues. (Gibby 04:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, again, I am not attacking the free market--I enjoy the free market, and support it. I also never implied that a free market entails "NO GOVERNMENT"; quoting myself for the third time: "Government protection of land monopolization is necessary for a functioning market". My only argument is with the implication that the free-market is "free of coercion".

Your introduction of patents and copyrights make my point even clearer. Patent and copyright laws have been responsible for some of the most coercive and intrusive government actions in the past decade. Colorless Green Ideas 06:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh so you defined property as coersion...**rolls eyes** Not allowing people to have property is coersion. Not allowing people to profit from private property is coersion.

Furthermore, without patents and copyrights, WHERE IS THE INCENTIVE TO PRODUCE AND INNOVATE IF YOUR PRODUCT IS STOLEN or "SHARED"?

Your going to end up with a bunch of crap for services and products. ANd exactly how do you define "free market"? You are seriously going to have to explain how any of this is coersion. (Gibby 14:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Gib, do you know why the tech boom flourished in Silicon Valley rather than in Boston? They both had existing industries that were equally able to expand into the new market, as well as a supply of top notch enginners from local universities. In fact, Boston had more mature computer industries. So what happened? California had more liberal intellectual property laws. In Boston engineers often had to sign agreements not to seek employment with a competitor for 2 years after leaving a job. Engineers in CA were not restricted in this respect, and switched jobs often. The market innovated faster and they had to grow with it, so they kept in touch with a large group of peers, sharing knowledge about what they were working on, and what was happening in the industry. Laws that enable the forceful restriction of idea sharing may be highly profitable for an individual or a firm, but only at the expense of the entire industry and its customers. Ideas are intangible, and thus cannot be "stolen" they can only be shared. In fact, they must be. The only thing stopping that is government enforced patent monopolies that prevent individuals from building upon the knowledge that is naturally freely available to them. It is a failure of your imagination that you cannot see how people would have an incentive to produce without the iron fist of government monopoly protection.

If all the land is fenced off, and I don't own any but I want to use my natural right to mix my labor with the earth, I am coerced when I am forcibly removed from the fenced off land. Same for ideas. If I must pay a tax for the use of an idea that happened to be in existence (even if I didn't know about it) before I came around, than I am being unjustly coerced.

I do not define property as coercion. I define government monopoly restraints against entering that market as coercion. However, I recognize that a certain amount of this is necessary for a functioning free market. Property in liberal democracy has never been about absolute ownership, it has always been about the balance of the rights of the property holding individual against other property holding individuals, non-property holding individuals, and future generations. The question you need to ask yourself is this: what is the goal of property ownership? dominion or liberty? Your answers so far have indicated a preference for the former. Have fun defending feudalism. Colorless Green Ideas 19:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sad you do not realize how absurd it is to compare libertarianism to feudalism. It is one of the worst conflations and logical errors I can imagine...not to mention a stretch of the imagination.

Feudalism was a coersive system whereby land and rights were restricted to a privileged class. Classical Liberalism, from which modern libertarianism derives much of its political and economic thought was a rejection of Feudalism and mercantilism (aka conservatism).

Feudalism= 1 Ruling class of social elites, who dominate land and wealth by law, restricting access to all others. 2. Own, literally own the labor and body of others. 3. Serfs are tied to the land and have their freedom of movement, thought, and speech severely limited.

Libertarianism= No ruling class of social elites, anyone with a means of acquiring wealth can have wealth. To acquire wealth you merely need a body. Each person owns their own body, mind, and subsequently their labor which they may SELL! No one owns another person. Your ability to move upward does not rest on birth into a social class. Freedom of speech, and thought, and mobility are not only guaranteed they are essential.

Your ideas of private property somehow being coercive and feudalistic are sophomoric. In no way are future generations prevented from acquiring property in the most developed world and they aren’t even free market liberal societies. The third world has serious restrictions on property rights which have arisen from 2 developments...continued elitist protectionism and or socialist overregulation, both of which make the cost of acquiring property so high, the poor cannot acquire it.

Perhaps you remain aware of the United States, whose population not only grows but the usable space diminishes not only as our society builds wealth but as we expand private property into new ownership....did you know...people actually buy and sell property? It happens all the time. I think you need to seriously re-examine your outlook. And never pull that feudalistic bs conflation again.

The answers you seek is not in attacking free markets, limited government, liberalism, or libertarianism, it is in attacking big government intrusion. Try reading Hernando De Soto's "The Mystery of Capital" as a starter. (Gibby 10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Ah ha... that failsafe technique: accuse me of attacking things that i had either not attacked, or had not even been mentioned in the course of our conversation: free markets i never attacked--only your definition implying "non-coercion", limited government was never mentioned, liberalism was never mentioned, and libertarianism was never mentioned. i support the former three things, libertarianism is, however, a joke because it's impossible: people won't vote for it, so it must be acheived through non-libertarian means, thus making whatever result categorically not libertarian. i support a more free-market, more limited government, and true classical liberalism in the vein of thomas jefferson and thomas paine. my only argument has been that the only natural right in regards to land is that of usufruct, and that property rights in land ownership is a social gift of liberal democracy; a right created by positive law, and enforced by the government. law based-property, though much more efficient than usufruct, necessarily leads to accumulation of land, thus eventually violating the usufruct rights of the many who do not own land as you yourself confirm in your reference to DeSoto's work. the elite accumulate idle land.. land becomes more expensive. the poor squat on idle--usually public--land and create ownership via their rights of usufruct, but their ownership is not recognized by the government, is tentative at best, and they are thus unable to transform their property into capital. law based property rights that violate the usufruct right are immoral. property rights in ideas and language through patents and copyrights are obviously only made possible when based on positive law, are only enforcably by "big government intrusion", and arguably are not even more efficient than other possible law based systems.

you can have your "libertarianism", but please stop perverting the free market, liberalism, and limited government. limited to only those who already have theirs, is the effect of your "limited" government. Colorless Green Ideas 08:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

you are the one who has perverted what the free market is. You define it as making things free, eliminating private property...essentially your economic ignorance will make people slaves, not free them, it will destroy functioning economies and send us backwards in time. Not progressive, you are regressive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs) May 10, 2006.

Land

Title to land ultimately has to rest on force or the threat of force.

There's an old joke from the American West about a young hobo approaching an old landowner and saying, "I want your land." The landowner says, "Too, bad, son, it's mine." "Oh, yeah?" says the hobo, "How'd it come to be yours?" "I inherited it from my father." "And how'd he get it?" "From his father." "And him?" "Well, as it happens, my great grandfather fought the Indians for it." "Great! I'll fight you for it!" - Jmabel | Talk 16:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it has to be held by threat of force. But, that in itself doesn't make it not free market (not that I'm insinuating that is your point). To have a free market, you have to have force --but defensive force to protect private property. You can't have a free market without private property, because private property is what is traded. Now, as far as private property in land, classical liberals have a labor theory of property --the Lockean conception. You create your private property in land by mixing your labor with unowned land. If an Indian, per your example, works the land, then he owns it and anyone who forcefully dispossesses him of it is violating his natural private property rights. The Indian could not, however, claim land that he hasn't worked --the wilderness. That's open for anyone who wants to claim it by mixing their labor with it. If you have to fight the Indians to do it, so be it. They would be violating your right to private property if they tried to stop you from homesteading on it or farming. You have as much natural right to create your own property out of the unknowned wilderness as they do. That's the classic Lockean conception of property in land. RJII 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth—and this is getting off topic—most native North American methods of agriculture made distinctions like that very tricky. Because land in North America was generally abundant, intensive agriculture as known in much of the rest of the world was relatively rare. People would tend plants to some degree around a settlement or along a migratory route, but, as a rule, wouldn't intensively cultivate a specific plot of land. Which is to say, they were somewhere between pure hunter/gatherers and settled agriculturalists.

There does seem to be a certain inherent problem with the labor theory of property, in that (if applied purely) it effectively says pure hunter/gatherers have no property rights, no matter how long they've been there, and that it is also liable to be applied that way by those who inaccurately perceive non-intensive agriculture to be hunter/gatherer activity.

Of course, Europeans who came to the Americas didn't hesitate to take land from the tribes or nations that practiced intensive agriculture, either. - Jmabel | Talk 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

and of course they didnt hesitate to pay or trade for the land either. Of course most leftists totally ignore that point... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs) May 10, 2006.

Certainly there were times there were many honest dealings, but that is a bit like Sinclair Lewis's line in Elmer Gantry, "I'm sure you often tell the truth." My point, though, was that the labor theory of property was no more respected by Europeans in the Americas than any other sort of land tenure. Consider what happened even to the urbanized natives of the Inca and Aztec capitals. - Jmabel | Talk 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry I have to agree that the article does have a very high Bullshit Index®. Any information on what a "free market" is and a brief explaination of how it works is lost in all the fancy sounding noise. There's a good article in there somewhere!SecretaryNotSure 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Safe and Secure

I think minimum wage, social security and extrinsic motivation should precede in any society before freemarket principles are implemented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mundlapati (talk • contribs) 28 April 2006.

• Safe and Secure

Market economy / free market economy

I think a lot of stuff in the article may need to be merged into the market economy article. According to this source, "market economy" and "free market economy" are synonyms. [1] "Free market" seems to refer simply to price freedom, where "free market economy" refers to a more comprehensive laissez-faire system that is also called "market economy." I noticed that when you click on "Market economy" in the MS Encarta Enyclopedia takes you to the "Free market economy" article. What do you guys think? RJII 01:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Artificial"

The current lead sentence reads "A free market is a market where price is determined by the unregulated interchange of supply and demand rather than set by artificial means"; this is cited to Barrons Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms. I don't have that at hand. Is the word "artificial" from the cited work? It is clearly POV, amounting to a claim that unregulated markets, free of force and fraud, are "natural". In what (non-ideological) sense is trade more "natural" than force? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the definition from the source: "market in which price is determined by the free, unregulated interchange of supply and demand. The opposite is a controlled market, where supply, demand, and price are artifically set..." I would think "articially set" means government is setting the price. This is in contrast to government sitting back and allowing price to find its own level as a result of supply and demand. If you want, we can change "artificially set" to "set by government." RJII 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be a lot more comfortable with something like that. The implication that a particular type of economy is "natural" always bothers me. Everyone seems to think the other side is "unnatural".

That said, does "set by government" fully cover the matter? What about monopoly or monopsony? - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-market groups"

From the article: "The term free market economy is sometimes used to describe some economies that exist today (such as Hong Kong), but pro-market groups would only accept that description if the government practices laissez-faire policies, rather than state intervention in the economy." "Pro-market groups" here seems POV at best. No group is identified. I read this as a stalking horse for unnamed extreme libertarians. Note that, if taken as definitional of "pro-market" this suggests that, for example, the U.S. State Department is other than "pro-market" (see, for example, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/market/mktec8.htm), a characterization that they would almost certainly reject (see, for example [2]).

Catholic Position

Unfortunately, the teachings of the Catholic Church may be getting construed by writers such as Michael Novak [3]to justify the immoral practices usually associated with the free market and capitalism. The Church's actual position may help reveal the other options available than just those presented in the article. JBogdan 23:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the "Catholic" position on free markets more important than say the "Hindu" position on free markets. Or for that matter Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc. I think this is an assumption that everyone needs to know (or cares) about what the Catholic church has to say about something not directly involved in religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.168.13 (talk • contribs) July 30, 2006.

That last comment was accompanied by this edit to the article, which removed the remark on Catholic doctrine. I think it should be in the article. Insofar as there is a clear Hindu doctrine on markets (I believe there is not) it would make a fascinating addition. Ditto any other major religion. - Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing the deletion. I will readd the Catholic position, but I tweaked it some from what was on the article (discussions of the topic are on the Capitalism page). JBogdan 01:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"self sustained government"

Recently added sentence "It also creates a self sustained government." I'm afraid I'm missing the point. Admittedly, I'm tired, it's late; still, can someone clarify, possibly by wording it better in the article? - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians and the "right-wing"

I removed the qualifier "right-wing" to describe libertarians in the "Ideology and ethics" section, paragraph two. In addition to the main problem of the nebulous definition of the left-right political spectrum, there is also the problem of the various categories of libertarians who have been labeled "left-" or "left-wing." Seems most encyclopedic to just leave it off. -- RayBirks 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

I added a header at the top of this talk page for cleanup and to re-locate the table of contents to the top of this page. -- RayBirks 01:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Polemic

The following was inserted as a second paragraph of the lead; I have removed it as a wholly uncited pro-market polemic:

A free market acts as a co-operative democratic wealth distribution system on the basis of merit and the supply and demand for goods and for labour. Products and services made available in the market are those that are demanded by a quorum of the population. Free markets are self organised and controlled systems that are self correcting through built in feedback loops correcting for shortages and over production over time and adjusting for changes in demand as determined by the market (people). Resources are chanelled to supply and develop capacity for more of what people want by way of a temporary price premium until more capacity is developed. By rewarding merit and working with human nature and motivations and not against them free markets are a natural phenomenon. Free markets naturally find a stable equilibrium of both supply and demand through human want and need. Products and services are subjected to a process of darwinistic selection in that they survive on their merits as determined by the forces of supply and demand.

Just in case anyone thinks this was simple statement of fact, the following is a far from exhaustive listing of some assumptions here that are by no means clearly factual:

• That markets are co-operative: they can at least as easily be said to be competitive.
• That markets are democratic: one dollar, one vote? Assuming a reasonably even distribution of wealth, markets can have democratic effects, but if one starts from an uneven distribution… well, just try telling Detroit that the automobile industry's decision to largely abandon their city was democratically arrived at.
• Meritocracy in the labour market? How is a free market necessarily more of a labor meritocracy than, for example, a civil service system? (Apparently, the writer of this felt a need to link merit twice.)
• Human nature: there can be endless debates over that is, but I'll say something cynical here: at any given moment "human nature" is deemed to be whatever is compatible with the system of the moment.
• "Free markets naturally find a stable equilibrium…" Not even according to most economists: depending on what it is reacting to, a free market can oscillate wildly. Consider stock market crashes, or the tulip mania.

Anyway, there may be parts of this worth salvaging, but I couldn't find them. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

I say no: Free market should be about the theoretical construct and market economy about actually existing market economies and market elements of economies that are note primarily market economies. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: I oppose the merger for the reasons given above by Jmabel. -- RayBirks 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Same reasons. "Free market is also an ideological label. MGTom 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. It is reasonable to have a page discussing EASCHS TYPE of market, children of the overall page. ORganizing the discussion this eay keeps each page on a tight theme and helps organizse concepts and expression. - deliberatus

Oppose But, this article has a lot of content about free market economy which should be deleted or moved to the market economy article.Anarcho-capitalism 16:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC) o ye then Support Free market sounds something that is not a theoretical construct but market economy does. Foant 22:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Presume this talk section about the Criticisms section merge proposal. I've also started a section on the Critique of Capitialsm talk page so this vote redundant with the one there. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism

Anarcho-capitalism, Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists did indeed believe in a "free market". However, their conception of such was different than that of capitalists or Anarcho-capitalists, so their perception of such will not be the same. Individualist (non-capitalist) and Mutualist Anarchists did indeed oppose hierarchy within the workplace and within the market. It was an integral part of their philosophy and should be mentioned in this article. Their opposition to capitalism is not based on some over-simplified LTV (their LTV was different than that of Adam Smith and David Ricardo anyway). The LTV can be used to justify capitalism as well.

Even the Individualist and Mutualist Anarchist articles not their thoughts on worker ownership and hierarchy:

Ref: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29#Free_association

An operation that can be performed by an individual without the help of specialized workers does not require association. Proudhon argued that peasants do not require societal form, and only feigned association for the purposes of solidarity in abolishing rents, buying clubs, etc. He recognized that their work is inherently sovereign and free. In commenting on the degree of association that is preferable Proudhon said:

"In cases in which production requires great division of labour, it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among the workers... because without that they would remain isolated as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage workers, which is repugnant in a free and democratic society. But where the product can be obtained by the action of an individual or a family... there is no opportunity for association." Source: http://www.mutualism.de/mutu/mutu.htm

For Proudhon, mutualism involved creating "industrial democracy," a system where workplaces would be "handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . . We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social Republic." Guerin, Daniel (ed.) No Gods, No Masters, AK Press, vol. 1, p. 62 He urged "workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism." This would result in "Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed." The General Idea of the Revolution, Pluto Press, p. 277 and p. 281 Workers would no longer sell their labour to a capitalist but rather work for themselves in co-operatives.

As Robert Graham notes, "Proudhon's market socialism is indissolubly linked to his notions of industry democracy and workers' self-management." "Introduction", General Idea of the Revolution, p. xxxiii K. Steven Vincent notes in his in-depth analysis of this aspect of Proudhon's ideas that "Proudhon consistently advanced a program of industrial democracy which would return control and direction of the economy to the workers." For Proudhon, "strong workers' associations . . . would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how the enterprise was to be directed and operated on a day-to-day basis." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984, p. 230 and p. 156

Proudhon warned against private property without equality:

"The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the people . . . will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers and vagrants.'" Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. What is Property? p. 118

So did Tucker:

the greatest amount of individual liberty compatible with equality of liberty." (Instead of a Book, p.24]

So their envisionment of a free market should mention more than a measly belief in the LTV which is a somewhat minor point of their belief in the free market. Full Shunyata 08:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A free market is a trading situation without aggression or fraud. That's all market anarchists of any stripe mean by a free market.Anarcho-capitalism 13:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Different Merger?

support Free Market is a discussion of a logical sub-set of the concept of market, it and its corrolary controlled market shoudl really be in the same article discussing markets generally. A whole article to itself is undue prominence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red Deathy (talk • contribs) 29 November 2006.

Can we see a comprehensive proposal? There are numerous related articles. I have no problem, in principle, with refactoring, but I want to see at least one article in this area that deals mainly with economists abstractions and (either in that article or a separate one) market ideology, and at least one that deals with actual market economies (or market aspects of economies) in the real world, the same way that we deal with, for example gift economy. - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in merging this as it is a concept of it's own and people would want to search for "Free market" not "Markets" or "Market economy" Which have totally different meanings! Lord Metroid 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it a concept of its own? Freeness of a market is a scalar quality of market, a simple redirect to markts and a considerable improvement in that page would do the trick - Free market economics could well sustain a page. Please don't remove my proposal tag until a few more peopel have had a chance to comment - one poster has agreed already and others might. i'll [probably remove it myself in January.--Red Deathy 08:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

oppose Free Market should be dominated by a history of philosophies, Markets should discuss primarily their economic properties. Markets are the thing being studied, Free Market is a philosophy about how they *should* (or should not) operate. Conflating the two greatly risks the Naturalistic fallacy. Also, Free Market would clog the article on markets, which should contain primarily economic information, rather than a parade of historical approaches. The Free Market is an idea discussed throughout history, the Market is the thing itself, so they are conceptually distinct. Thomas B 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Should instead/first be merged with Laissez-faire. Thomas B 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment well, I beleive there is already a free market economics page, so given that we have that, markets and laissez faire I think it's fair to say that this page has a hard time justifiying it's existence (although it's text does a better job of describing markets than the market page, go figure).--Red Deathy 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the Index of Economic Freedom

First, shouldn't "economic" and "freedom" be capitalized? Second, the section talks about countries traditionally considered to be capitalistic getting high scores "but the model was improved as time went on" (or something like that). Is this supposed to mean initially the scores were biased by the evaluator's perceptions or that initially the model had some inherent flaw that caused it to favor capitalistic economies or what? The section is a bit confusing, and I don't know enough about the topic to try to fix it.Happytrombonist16 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do tax discrepancies undermine a free market?

Say you tax companies A & B 10% on their profits. Then you decide to reduce company B's taxes by 5%. You have favored Company B and made the market unfree, have you not? So a free market depends on equal application of taxation right? Is there a label for the unequal application of taxation that undermines a free market? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crewbin (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

All sorts of things in the real world differ from an ideal model of a free market. No, I don't think there is a special name for this particular inequality.

One could reasonably ask whether any tax is part of an idealized free-market model. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whitman quotes

The first Martin J. Whitman quotes, footnotes 11 and 12, refer (via 'ibid.') to a non-existing or deleted earlier reference. 83.161.110.76 09:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge from

This is a theoretic article, but in the article market economy, the "invisible hand" is theory, which should be merge into this article. The "free market economics" section in that article is basically equivalent to this article. We have duplicate sections such as "economic freedom" and "communist comparisons". We have Adam Smith. We also have the same criticism.

We already have the practical economics article: laissez-faire

I'd say merge. Thanks

Singwaste (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Laissez faire covers free markets in practice while this article has theory Lord Metroid (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose First of all, the proposed target is unidiomatic. Of the two obvious fixes, Theory of free markets would be better than Theory of the free market. More seriously, neither describes the article. Laissez faire is in fact a discussion of theory; this contains a lengthy, although not particularly neutral, section on practice. The best solution is probably to merge, while remembering one of Raul's Laws: An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No consensus has been reached after five days and no further discussion seems forthcoming so I am removing this from WP:RM --Lox (t,c) 12:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)