https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
>In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.
"Force" indeed
Legal or otherwise...
Supply and demand...
One way to put it, is that there's a massive demand to burn down your shit to the ground... Only question left; where are the supplies?
Since we're on Poal I'll give your post the benefit of the doubt.
In the first case you seem to conflate the 2 disparate meanings of "force". This is a common mistake known as the fallacy of equivocation. We have A) Force as in violence or threat of violence. For instance, If I were a piece of shit governor of Virginia who wanted to ban ARs, I could threaten to use the force of violence, having jack-boot thugs place you in a cage for purchasing one.
In the second case "forces of supply and demand" refer to the force to cause change or motion, like gale force winds, or the force of nature. Supply and demand are said to be driven by . If I was a free-marketeer who wanted to ban ARs I'd have to convince enough people using rhetoric that ARs were bad and you should not buy them. Many people already believe this and refuse to buy ARs. I'm sure you can see, now, how this differs greatly. As a anti-gun person, one can exercise his agency by not demanding any guns, but he can't use violence to stop you from buying one.
The second mistake you make is not understanding that any functioning free market must have property rights. Free market =/= anarchy chaos and violence. There might be a "demand" to burn my "shit" to the ground, but as my "shit" belongs to me, I'm probably unwilling to supply it.
Important to note are that there are very well thought out, valid, reasonable critiques of an unfettered free market, but you didn't seem to provide any of them. With respect, your post evidences your unfamiliarity with these concepts.
Cheers!
That's funny because you're the one thinking I'm the one not understanding force here...
>If I was a free-marketeer who wanted to ban ARs I'd have to convince enough people using rhetoric that ARs were bad and you should...
That or simply forcing "my" way on people just because "I" can, because "I" am the biggest organized crime network on earth
Nobody said I need those people btw. Why would I need to disarm them then?
What if I just need what's under their feet?
...
You people start with the premise you're going to make it because the gov needs you to pay taxes and run shit
"I" am not your gov... "I" am not bound by nice laws... Only by natural laws...
...
The "invisible hand" is bs btw
It's clear that we're talking at cross purposes.
Cheers! Merry Christmas!
(post is archived)