"The Tyranny of the Majority" aka mob rule, correct me if I'm wrong
Funny you bring that topic up
A couple of hours ago I started to ponder the concept of "free market" in parallel to "mob rule"/tyranny f the many
...
I find it shocking how close those two can turn out to be, while at the same time advocates of free market are also against mob rule
They're not really similar at all. It is possible to have a free market whether in the minority or majority. The key is that all interactions must be voluntary on both sides of a deal.
As soon as you have one side or another (or an external party such as government) applying any sort of coercion, force or threat of force then you no longer have a free market system. The fact that there may be entities that wish to cheat, swindle or steal your property is why a free market required the enforcement of property rights (you cannot take another person's property other than by a mutually agreed voluntary exchange).
Oh they are not similar at all until "some people" murder their way to the top lol
...
What place do have assassins in a "free market"? And organized crime to a larger extent?
Because if those businesses are not allowed by law... Then it's not really free market...
Did I mention monopolies already?
until "some people" murder their way to the top lol
Literally not a free market. They are not engaging in the voluntary exchange of goods and services, they are just murdering their way to power.
What place do have assassins in a "free market"?
Maybe you could make an argument for assisted suicide services? Other than that I don't see many targets voluntarily agreeing to be killed.
And organized crime to a larger extent?
Again, organized crime is predicated on the use of force, or the threat of the use of force. E.g. Extortion and protection rackets that are prevalent in organized crime syndicates. Literally not a free market.
Did I mention monopolies already?
Monopolies generally require the co-operation of the government in order to maintain their monopoly status. Again, not a free market as the government is actively preventing competition, usually through things like barriers to entry. This is why large corporations love complex legislation, it provides a barrier to entry for small competitors. Otherwise, the smaller competitors who are often much more nimble in the marketplace, more innovative and have lower overheads would gain market share and eventually topple the monopolies. Then, once they grow to large and clumsy corporations, new smaller competitors who are more nimble and innovative will come in and topple them.
One dramatic lynchpin of a difference. Force. If the mob hates your product, you can still exist if the minority buys it. With tyranny, if the mob doesn't like your product, they can "legally" force you not to sell it.
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!
(post is archived)