How so, pray tell? Remember, black markets are the result of political prohibition. Governments are gangs writ large. Voluntary exchange with open pricing and consumer choice does not offer that kind of incentive.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Unregulated (FREE) markets fall prey to large cartels, guilds, and powerful robber-barons.
Without a powerful referee (Government As Referee Framework, GARF), the small (individual) players will inevitably be forced out (or otherwise eliminated) by larger players.
FREE-MARKET = MOBSTER ETHICS
Laws (regulations) that protect the rich from the poor are REDUNDANT and IDIOTIC.
The powerful don't need laws to survive.
The POOR need laws to protect their individual rights and individual liberty from the RICH.
The market is no longer free when the robber barons take over. They make their money because of the free market, then engage in carpetbagging to rig the system in their favour, thus they can grow fat and lazy. In a truly free market, you can't sit on your laurels and expect to keep making money.
In other words, everything you said is technically correct, except for the assertion that free markets are run by mobsters. The "free" market that most "capitalist" countries have is under the thumb of the mob, certainly, which is why the quotation marks are necessary.
Do you believe FREE-MARKET = UNREGULATED MARKET?
Because if you believe some regulations and an effective enforcement mechanism are required to insure "fair play" and to mitigate MOBSTER ETHICS, then it doesn't sound like a "truly" FREE-MARKET.
The most damage inflicted in the name of the FREE-MARKET is with the bludgeon of "deregulation".
I was looking specifically at the past, explaining how we got to where we are now. The market used to be completely unregulated, and healthy competition existed, until the most successful players bribed the government to regulate the market in their favour. Mafioso behaviour, such as blackmail, extortion, or outright threats to remove competition, was never legal, since such activity has nothing to do with the market itself. Bribes, of course, go a long way in facilitating illegal behaviour.
When it comes to the de-regulation actually implemented, such measures work only in favour of big companies - rolling back laws from regulatory agencies such as the EPA and OSHA. In order for de-regulation to work in favour of small businesses, such measures must include reducing minimum wage and lowering all business taxes (self-employment tax, payroll tax, etc.) as well.
Even the Amish have MOBSTER ETHICS.
Large groups of brainwashed/enslaved operating on the FEUDAL HIERARCHY model have dominated individual "freedom" for thousands of years.
I agree.
Isn't it funny that Disney doesn't have to pay its employee's overtime if they call them "entertainers"?
And don't start talking about "minimum wage" without explaining how restaurant servers still get paid $2.13 an hour.
You seem fixated on this "mobster ethics," which is an oxymoron, but let me break down my thinking for you: if there are no regulations on the market, but there are laws that prohibit people from intimidating each other (such as the rich intimidating the poor), then healthy competition can exist. If those laws are not enforced for whatever reason (bribery immediately comes to mind), then competition is removed. This has nothing to do with market regulations, and everything to do with violation of basic human rights. The market is simply one casualty of this breakdown. The market doesn't need an impartial referee, society at large does - unless, of course, the citizens are allowed to be their own arbiters of justice (as opposed to being disarmed and thus being made dependent on the government). If you couldn't gather, I'm every bit the anarchist gun enthusiast that @jacobtothe is, I just don't make nearly as much content on the subject.
Now then, regarding the exceptions to current minimum wage laws: first, Disney is a terrible example. Disney is one of the many lobbying giants, and is almost single-handedly responsible for corrupting copyright law as we know it. Besides, I'm sure you're familiar with the old saying "the law is like a spiderweb: the flies get caught, the hornets fly straight through." The same goes for the restaurant industry at large, because while there are plenty of small restaurants, the industry itself is huge, and most of the restaurant business is controlled by a handful of large companies. Of course, the problems with the entire food service industry are too numerous to go into here, so unless you want to write an article about such and move this discussion to your blog, I would suggest not even touching that one.
Here's a perfect example of a "friendly citizens brigade"
Click to watch 6 minutes,
The free market is a regulated market, but a government monopoly is anti-market, and inevitably twists its power to distort the market through cronyism. Government is not immune to the psychological and economic problems of monopoly, but is the only organization capable of propping up cartels and monopolies in the face of market pressure.
Please explain which regulations you believe are essential for a FREE-MARKET to maintain its "FREE" status and what enforcement mechanisms are appropriate.
What problems do you, the proponent of monopolized regulation, see, and how does government fix these alleged problems?
My primary assertion at the moment is that a "truly" FREE-MARKET is 100% UNREGULATED (no "government" or member consensus referee).
A truly unregulated 100% free-market is a dog-eat-dog mafioso playground.
Your assertion is, and please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, that a "truly" free-market is somewhat regulated.
I'm willing to accept that, but at first blush it seems like a contradiction in terms.
That's why I'm asking if you have any specific regulations and or enforcement mechanisms in mind.
I'm not "advocating" for anything one way or the other, I'm just trying to make sure we're both speaking about the same thing.
(1) I'm asking if you have any specific regulations and or enforcement mechanisms in mind.
Free markets do not fall prey to these robber barons. Such people need political protection. Subsidies and regulatory capture are necessary to such schemes.
Why do you imagine a monopolist referee (government) is immune the waste and abuse inherent in all other monopolies?
The larger the bureaucracy, the slower it is to react to change. Unless propped up by government, these megacorporations are unsusrainable in the free market.
Regulations are always sold as protections for the poor and disadvantaged, but implemented to benefit the political class. The real-world effect is more expenses and red tape for entrepreneurs, startups, and home businesses.
The powerful do need laws to survive. That is why they lobby government so aggressively. And we cannot change this rigged game.
"The powerful do need laws to survive," and at the same time, they do not. You're both right, allow me to explain.
There are two types of power players: the conqueror, and the dynastic heir. The conqueror becomes powerful by beating the other power players at their own game. These are the powerful who do not need laws to survive, as they can work with any system, either eschewing or exploiting the rules to get ahead. The dynastic heir, on the other hand, is one who has power handed to them, and cannot win a game that isn't rigged in their favour; these are the powerful who do need laws to survive.
Mafiosos do not enjoy subsidies and are awarded no political protection, and yet, they thrive in unregulated (lawless) areas of the planet.
They thrive because over-regulation or outright prohibition has created a black market. Their violence is a mirror of the government's violence, because government is itself a mafia writ large.
Mafiosos thrive in 100% lawless environments like remote refugee camps and abandoned war-torn no-mans-land.
MOBSTER ETHICS = NATURAL LAW
I'm still developing my Government As Referee Framework (GARF), but I'm imagining it as a collection of strictly regional (geographically city sized) transparent, independent entities with no FEUDAL HIERARCHY, acting as HOLACRATIC cells.
I agree, that's what I'm trying to address.
BIG GOVERNMENT = GOOD FOR MOBSTER CORPORATIONS
NO GOVERNMENT = GOOD FOR MOBSTER CORPORATIONS
Accurate
Unsupported assertion. As I stated in another reply, corporations are a government-created legal status. Corporations rely on government bailouts and handouts. The predatory megacorporations are not economically sustainable when consumers are free to choose, and competitors are free to offer alternatives. That is why the ones surrounding us today have used government to squelch all competition they can.
I agree that CORPORATE WELFARE exacerbates an already horrifying power imbalance.
However, CORPORATE WELFARE is not the core "problem".
If we cut all corporate welfare and gutted intellectual property laws (thoughts =/= property) and "deregulated" everything, we'd still have a horrifying power imbalance.
Well organized feudal hierarchies (MAFIOSOS) have always dominated individuals and small family based tribes.
Today we call them "corporations", but they've existed since the dawn of time.
We've swallowed their lies claiming they are "job creators" and "innovators" and their mergers are "good for consumers".
They sucker individuals into their schemes with hypnotic architecture and promises of "untold riches" and "merit based reward".
By the way, most of these manipulative propaganda tactics were demonstrated by the first "multinational organization", everyone else is just trying to put their own spin on it.
NO GOVERNMENT = GOOD FOR MOBSTER CORPORATIONS
MOBSTERS THRIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT
No, they do not.
If the police force was dissolved, they'd just hire their own private armies (many have already done this, look at the history of the Pinkertons).
I am familiar with the history of the Pinkertons. I also know about companies like Blackwater/Xe/whatever they have rebranded themselves to be now. However, it should be noted that while we have had problems like them, the latter especially exists as a government-sponsored organization. The Pinkertons were also expensive, and garnered bad PR that cost even more.
Corporations rely on externalizing enforcement costs through government. That is unsustainalbe if they need to handle it directly. Further, you're conversing with a gun guy. I support an armed populace equipped to withstand such an onslaught.
Meanwhile, the government wages wars at home and abroad with an uncountable death toll and incalculable cost to all of us. It is the true enemy if you are worried about the health and welfare of the most vulnerable.
How'd that work out for Ruby Ridge and Waco?
I agree.
They do this at the behest of "the military industrial complex" (MOBSTER CORPORATIONS).
Our focus should be on insulating the function of government from corruption.
Click to watch 5 minutes,
Armed people made problems for the Pingertons you mentioned. Armed people were not attacked by the police for protesting the quarantine. Armed Black Panthers scared the California government into making new prohibitions in the 60s. Armed protesters stopped the cops in the Bundy Ranch standoff.
Yes, the government responded with force to the Malheur protest and ambushed a man on his way to peace talks. The government used its legal system to entrap and Randy Weaver. The Waco siege was a publicity stunt that went sideways. It's not a guarantee of success, but it is a tool we need.
War is the health of the State. The MIC is corporations with charters and subsidies from the State that serve the State as it exercises its most essential function besides internal enforcement.
Guns in the hands of citizens sometimes work to their advantage and sometimes they just provide an excuse for the police to shoot them dead (they had a gun!).
If you really want to "defend yourself" you need one of these!
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22254/russia-illegal-laser-weapons/
Stop giving your money to MOBSTER CORPORATIONS.
The corporations derive their legal status, subsidies, trade protectionism, intellectual property laws, etc. from the government, not market processes. The root problem is not businesses and markets.
The corporations derive their legal status, subsidies, trade protectionism, intellectual property laws, etc. from the threat of force which just happens to be provided by "the government" at the moment, but they are fully capable of hiring their own enforcers (Pinkertons) if and or when "the government" is dissolved.
The ability to inflict economic and or physical force is "the root problem".