I don't even understand what "free market" means in practice anymore.
Are price fixing agreements "free market" because companies should be free to enter into such agreements? Or are they not "free market" because they distort the market?
Are non-compete clauses "free market" because employers and employees should be free to set/accept terms of employment? Or are they not "free market" because they place artificial restrictions on the pool of competitors in the market?
You could go on and on with things like anti-poaching agreements, vaccination requirements, and immigration restrictions. All things you will find people both supporting and opposing using the "free market" as an argument.
The medical industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in existence, but within those very tight boundaries there is still a market. Other industries have much looser boundaries, but they still have them (at the extreme, you can't murder the owner of a competitor).
We have laws that say you can't sell porn to kids. I'm sure the people who want to sell porn to kids see this as a grave injustice. But we want to live in an environment where there aren't people selling porn to kids, so we make it illegal. Very rarely do you hear people using the "free market" as an argument when it comes to selling porn to kids.
I wish more of these discussions were like that. What sort of environment do we want to live in? What sort of boundaries do we need to set to live in that world? What are the costs associated with setting those boundaries?
I agree it is tricky but, for starters, pretty much all of your examples are more free market than the government getting directly involved in commerce by taking taxpayer money and giving it to fields they're subsidizing, applying penalties to some companies but not others, over-regulating which harms smaller companies, insurance schemes, providing immunity from prosecution, and the like. Basically, when the government gets so directly involved, you put false incentives into the market, which is very anti-free market.
I also think there's a distinction between laws (don't murder, don't sell X to people under age Y), and regulations. But I agree that also comes down to perception, to some extent.
It's harder to say what is free market, but pretty dang easy in my opinion to say what isn't. And we have way too much harmful stuff that is in no way free market.
To me, a free market is one in which, at least in theory, the customer is the actual customer. It's not the only criteria, but it's a big one. If the government - or government-affiliated/supported groups - are providing more funding or influence than the end user who actually receives the product, you have a massive accountability issue. Free market is the ability to vote with your wallet. A lot of institutional capture has happened by removing or bypassing the power, via something like ESG, or the aforementioned subsidies/regulations/immunities.
I want the customer to be the customer, I don't want the government or government sponsored entities to be the customer.
I guess my point was that the concept of a "free market" as it's used in the Real World and not as defined by Adam Smith is so muddled as to have negative utility in discussions.
I'd rather speak in terms like "I don't want to buy a car that has a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding and killing all passengers" or "I don't want to take a vaccination that makes me feel so sick I have to take a week off work". Then the negotiation can begin as to whether or not those objectives are desirable and realistic, and if so how to best accomplish them.
The left seems to understand this, even if many of their objectives are evil, unrealistic, or both. Huge chunks of the right just get stuck arguing whether or not something is compatible with "free market principles" without regard for whether or not the thing is good. The Evangelocons were probably the only significant group on the right in my lifetime who seemed to understand this. Probably one of the reasons they were so demonized.
I'd rather speak in terms like "I don't want to buy a car that has a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding and killing all passengers" or "I don't want to take a vaccination that makes me feel so sick I have to take a week off work".
Both those things happen under our current less-than-free market system. The current system of government interference actively protects incompetence, especially in the later example. Pharma is completely captured, and can get away with anything, mostly due to government forces, not market forces.
My argument was never 'free market great/perfect,' it was 'free market better than the current shitshow.'
Both those things happen under our current less-than-free market system
I hope the car thing doesn't, but you're right. I'd even go so far as to say it's more likely to occur under our current system. But that's an "implementation detail" problem that only matters once you've established a thing is desirable enough it's worth implementing.
Still, if they did happen under a "free market" I'd like some ability to solve those problems as they occur. Right now we can't, because there are some people on the right (I don't think you) who can't look past the reality they might have to interfere with the "free market".
So the left wins be default, because they're the only side offering to fix these problems; and the only way they know how to fix something is massive government bureaucracies.
I'd rather speak in terms like "I don't want to buy a car that has a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding and killing all passengers"
We have those, because car sales are largely run by a free market. Nobody would buy a car that had a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding, and a competitor would happily move in to build a more reliable car that people were willing to pay for that wouldn't kill them.
On the other hand, in the USSR, you got to "buy" whatever shitbox the government deemed be made.
"I don't want to take a vaccination that makes me feel so sick I have to take a week off work".
And this is an issue because we don't have a free market in drugs or "vaccines". Instead we have a government "regulator" that is captured by the pharmaceutical industry, and mandates that we buy (through our taxes) and take shitty, untested "vaccines."
Thomas Sowell talks about all of this. If you think you can come up with a "regulation" that doesn't have unintended consequences that are almost always antithetical to the problem you're trying to solve, you haven't thought about it hard enough.
I don't even understand what "free market" means in practice anymore.
Are price fixing agreements "free market" because companies should be free to enter into such agreements? Or are they not "free market" because they distort the market?
Are non-compete clauses "free market" because employers and employees should be free to set/accept terms of employment? Or are they not "free market" because they place artificial restrictions on the pool of competitors in the market?
You could go on and on with things like anti-poaching agreements, vaccination requirements, and immigration restrictions. All things you will find people both supporting and opposing using the "free market" as an argument.
The medical industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in existence, but within those very tight boundaries there is still a market. Other industries have much looser boundaries, but they still have them (at the extreme, you can't murder the owner of a competitor).
We have laws that say you can't sell porn to kids. I'm sure the people who want to sell porn to kids see this as a grave injustice. But we want to live in an environment where there aren't people selling porn to kids, so we make it illegal. Very rarely do you hear people using the "free market" as an argument when it comes to selling porn to kids.
I wish more of these discussions were like that. What sort of environment do we want to live in? What sort of boundaries do we need to set to live in that world? What are the costs associated with setting those boundaries?
I agree it is tricky but, for starters, pretty much all of your examples are more free market than the government getting directly involved in commerce by taking taxpayer money and giving it to fields they're subsidizing, applying penalties to some companies but not others, over-regulating which harms smaller companies, insurance schemes, providing immunity from prosecution, and the like. Basically, when the government gets so directly involved, you put false incentives into the market, which is very anti-free market.
I also think there's a distinction between laws (don't murder, don't sell X to people under age Y), and regulations. But I agree that also comes down to perception, to some extent.
It's harder to say what is free market, but pretty dang easy in my opinion to say what isn't. And we have way too much harmful stuff that is in no way free market.
To me, a free market is one in which, at least in theory, the customer is the actual customer. It's not the only criteria, but it's a big one. If the government - or government-affiliated/supported groups - are providing more funding or influence than the end user who actually receives the product, you have a massive accountability issue. Free market is the ability to vote with your wallet. A lot of institutional capture has happened by removing or bypassing the power, via something like ESG, or the aforementioned subsidies/regulations/immunities.
I want the customer to be the customer, I don't want the government or government sponsored entities to be the customer.
I guess my point was that the concept of a "free market" as it's used in the Real World and not as defined by Adam Smith is so muddled as to have negative utility in discussions.
I'd rather speak in terms like "I don't want to buy a car that has a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding and killing all passengers" or "I don't want to take a vaccination that makes me feel so sick I have to take a week off work". Then the negotiation can begin as to whether or not those objectives are desirable and realistic, and if so how to best accomplish them.
The left seems to understand this, even if many of their objectives are evil, unrealistic, or both. Huge chunks of the right just get stuck arguing whether or not something is compatible with "free market principles" without regard for whether or not the thing is good. The Evangelocons were probably the only significant group on the right in my lifetime who seemed to understand this. Probably one of the reasons they were so demonized.
Both those things happen under our current less-than-free market system. The current system of government interference actively protects incompetence, especially in the later example. Pharma is completely captured, and can get away with anything, mostly due to government forces, not market forces.
My argument was never 'free market great/perfect,' it was 'free market better than the current shitshow.'
Pharma is captured because bribery is legal.
I hope the car thing doesn't, but you're right. I'd even go so far as to say it's more likely to occur under our current system. But that's an "implementation detail" problem that only matters once you've established a thing is desirable enough it's worth implementing.
Still, if they did happen under a "free market" I'd like some ability to solve those problems as they occur. Right now we can't, because there are some people on the right (I don't think you) who can't look past the reality they might have to interfere with the "free market".
So the left wins be default, because they're the only side offering to fix these problems; and the only way they know how to fix something is massive government bureaucracies.
We have those, because car sales are largely run by a free market. Nobody would buy a car that had a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding, and a competitor would happily move in to build a more reliable car that people were willing to pay for that wouldn't kill them.
On the other hand, in the USSR, you got to "buy" whatever shitbox the government deemed be made.
And this is an issue because we don't have a free market in drugs or "vaccines". Instead we have a government "regulator" that is captured by the pharmaceutical industry, and mandates that we buy (through our taxes) and take shitty, untested "vaccines."
Thomas Sowell talks about all of this. If you think you can come up with a "regulation" that doesn't have unintended consequences that are almost always antithetical to the problem you're trying to solve, you haven't thought about it hard enough.