[whatshisface]

>It's the exact opposite of a free market. It's misuse of a common resource.

Why can't free markets result in the misuse of common resources? I feel like some are trying to square a circle here. Free markets aren't axiomatically the definition of good, and it's okay for something good to not be a result of them. There are these things known as "market failures," where unattended economic activity will lead to people's goals not being achieved. Overfishing and carbon emissions are market failures; far from being the opposite of a free market, they are well-recognized consequences.

[ganafagol]

Ok sure. That's like saying time dilation is a physics failure in newtonian physics. Technically correct, and entirely unhelpful to solve the problem.

The problem here being that writing "based purely on the market forces (i.e. excluding carbon taxes) coal is still a very viable option." suggests that since we all want free markets we'll need to accept this. No we don't.

We also don't say "well purely on human nature forces we'll have a few alpha males who keep a harem of women and try to kill all competition that's not submissive". Technically correct, but entirely unhelpful to find a way how to move forward.

A free market needs rules. "Free market" does not equate "do whatever you want". Without rules that are enforced, you don't have freedom either.

[whatshisface]

I think the source of the confusion here is a massive positive esteem laid on the two words "free market," which confuse people into thinking that anything good has to be labeled a free market. Labeling a system that requires government intervention a "free-market" mechanism is, just like in your example, just as much of a misuse of language as labeling quantum mechanics a Newtonian mechanism. Minimum wages, antitrust action, taxes, bans, sanctions, and subsidies are all examples of interventions in free markets, and they can be good or bad, just like the features of the state of nature (a free market) can be good and bad in different situations.

I'm really against this idea of redefining the baseline so that whatever policy choices we like are defined as the absence of subsidies and the presence of a free market. Subsidies are when the government intervenes to give money to those who trade in certain goods. Intervention is defined as doing anything other than letting people sort it out for themselves. Likewise, a free market is not one where everything we don't like is banned, it is a market where there are no constraints on the participants' process of trade and price determination.

[ganafagol]

A free market needs government intervention. Somebody else mentioned enforcement of rules. I think that's exactly right.

Might sound paradoxical at first, but what would you get without enforcement?

[whatshisface]

>what would you get without enforcement?

You would get the societies depicted in Snowcrash and Cyberpunk 2077. People would hire private security to perform the security tasks they need, just like multinationals do in third world countries. If you don't want that to happen, one has no choice but to restrict the freedom of at least one market. (The market for mercenaries.) Some countries go further and restrict other markets, for example the markets for weapons. It does not make any sense to call gun control a free-market mechanism, that's just not the right use of the term.

[ganafagol]

Ok I think I'm beginning to see where you are coming from.

Thanks for the debate!

[slashdev]

A free market with rules is not technically a free market in the economic sense of the term.

In reality all human markets have rules and the ideal free market doesn't exist (nor is it ideal in any non theoretical sense.)

I think you're just confused about the terminology here, you're using a different definition to everybody else.

My feeling is you're equating free market to capitalism, but you can't do that.

[wildmanx]

Freedom and rules are two sides of the same coin. Just doing whatever you want in a market does not make it a "free market". If somebody can go and hold a gun to your head and thereby persuade you to give them your goods for free, that's not a free market. A free market needs enforcement of rules of trade. And those rules include that you don't damage other market participants without compensation. Be it a potential bullet to the head, the mentioned "crap on the streets", or carbon emissions in the atmosphere.

[whatshisface]

>If somebody can go and hold a gun to your head and thereby persuade you to give them your goods for free, that's not a free market.

It's a free market if you can hire private security to stop them. The ban on the violent trade (often called the "monopoly on violence") is an example of an area in which modern liberal democracies do not permit complete freedom in the markets they host. I guess the slogan could be, "not every policy liberal democracies like is a free-market policy."

[mbrodersen]

In a fully free market, slavery, selling of body parts, hard drugs, murders, torture for hire, kid porn, kid workers, nukes owned by private citizens etc. would be fully allowed. Very few people actually want that.