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.
Others have written more on this topic. I defer to them.
Dairy farmers used to mix their milk with pond water before "regulation" and a credible threat of enforcement.
Looking at history, "self regulating markets" don't seem to have the best track record.