This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Is Free-Market Capitalism Impossible?

Tyler Durden's picture


In a genuinely free market, rich corporations people have both the resources and incentive to corrupt the government in order to make the market less free. In other words, Capitalism only works in a world in which people have integrity and are accountable to others and themselves - which is the weakest link. And so you end up with? America. In short: "there ain't no such thing as a free market" - which is not to say that we shouldn't try. The following clip points out that even seemingly pro-business legislation is not beneficial to society or businesses themselves broadly with the analogy that "what's good for GM may not be good for America after all"; which begs the question: do humans doom capitalism by default?



- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:16 | 2688606 Mercury
Mercury's picture

In a genuinely free market, rich corporations people have both the resources and incentive to corrupt the government in order to make the market less free. In other words, Capitalism only works in a world in which people have integrity and are accountable to others and themselves - which is the weakest link.

No, you keep the size and scope of government limited so that there isn't that much to buy...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:19 | 2688620 Biosci
Biosci's picture

Who keeps the size and scope of government limited?  That is the whole point of the instability.  Power always attracts power.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:26 | 2688636 Mercury
Mercury's picture

For the very reason(s) you describe, it’s a what, not a who.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:59 | 2688761 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

I guess free market capitalism is an ideal to aspire to. But what does that mean?


Can I have government healthcare, education and some sort of basic social security? Or does that make me a heretic?


If for nothing else, my suggestions are good for preventing the have-not masses from eventually murdering the haves.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:21 | 2688840 Precious
Precious's picture

You can grow some vegetables maybe.  You can chop some firewood maybe.  But you should pretty much expect jack shit from the financial markets.

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 16:14 | 2692101 AnonymousAnarchist
AnonymousAnarchist's picture

Free markets and government are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other. Not both.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:36 | 2688883 Mercury
Mercury's picture

At one end of the scale is -liberty- on the other -security-

Different people may want to adjust the slider more toward the former, others the later but you pretty much get more of each at the expense of the other.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:46 | 2688941 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

At one end of the scale is -liberty- on the other -security-


But absolutely. What a statement. Will earn all the medals Captain Obvious can hand down.


On one end of the scale, there is liberty, on the other security.

US citizen societies give so many examples of them.

Rich people are either free or secure. They can not enjoy both.

People should not believe false reports that in a US citizen society, freedom and security go hand in hand.

One can even advocate I dunno a homeless to join a prison. When outside, the homeless is freer but much less secure. Once in a US citizen jail, the homeless is much less free but much more secure. And the less free the prison, the more secure.
No, no, US citizen jails are not a battlezone, with rapes, murders, racket, beating etc going on. They are a secure place.

Homeless of the world, remember, on one hand of the slider, liberty, on the other hand, security.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:06 | 2689033 akak
akak's picture


No, no, US citizen jails are not a battlezone, with rapes, murders, racket, beating etc going on. They are a secure place.

In contrast to Chinese prisons, of course, which are veritable vacation destinations of luxury and elegance.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:14 | 2689052 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Non sequitur.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:23 | 2689078 akak
akak's picture

Make me laugh!

Your entire posting history here is literally an endless string of non-sequiturs, interlaced of course with a liberal amount of blind anti-American hatred and more than a dollop of insanitation, sprinkled with a heavy dusting of blobbing-up and topped with a heaping helping of monolizing of the speeching means.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 19:48 | 2689414 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous sniffed his butt picking finger and said:

Non sequitur.

Yes, you're full of them. You've developed quite a reputation as a notorious public non sequiturbator.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:14 | 2689054 Stackers
Stackers's picture

Wasnt this the whole point of having a "small limited government" ? So there is no politician to bribe and collude with in the first place ?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 20:47 | 2689503 Mercury
Mercury's picture


The liberty<--->security trade-off is your deal with the government (or similar authority) and an agreement to submit to its rules in exchange for the benefits it can provide. 

One of the main reasons being wealthy is desireable is that it can provide (up to certain limits) both more liberty AND more security - you can side-step the whole trade-off thing.  If you are wealthy enough you can do things like take vacations whenever you want without sacrificing things like health insurance or a secure retirement.

If you're broke and have to move back home with your parents, you have more security than you would have living on the street BUT you have to adhere to their rules and are not at liberty to do whatever you want.

If you sign a five year employment contract you have a reasonable expectation of job security BUT you are not at liberty to pursue other oportunities without incuring serious penalties.

Liberty<---->Security  Got it?

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 03:41 | 2690225 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Gimme or else? That how it works? In the real world, we call this extortion. It involves jail time unless you are called Government. How is this consistent, and how are people expected to teach their kids that theft is wrong, when it is in fact, institutionalized?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:56 | 2688762 casey13
casey13's picture

It will not work long term because of the basic flaws in democracy and human nature. Everyone will do what is best for themselves personally and democracy is just another form of mob rule. Eventually the system gets corrupted as the politicians sell favors for power to both their electorate and their sponsors. There is no fix once it has gone too far just collapse.

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 03:45 | 2690226 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

/sigh. You're just full of all kinds of good news. I'll take another drink now.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:30 | 2689247 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

"For the very reason(s) you describe, it’s a what, not a who."


With the power to regulate business, government makes itself a juicy target for the purchase of special treatment by those who can afford it.

Without the power to regulate business, you end up with heroin in baby medications and cocaine in soft drinks, great for customer loyalty but not necessarily the customer, non-nutritional fillers in baby formula that kill babies, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

So,  pick your poison.

The only real fix is to regulate in a way that is beneficial to those the government is supposed to serve, the average Jane and Joe, and the only way to accomplish that is to get all money out of the election process and forbid any government regulator or politician from ever working in any sector he or she has regulated in any way.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:49 | 2689287 Fedophile
Fedophile's picture

Without the power to regulate business, you end up with heroin in baby medications and cocaine in soft drinks, great for customer loyalty but not necessarily the customer, non-nutritional fillers in baby formula that kill babies, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Bullshit; if people stoped buying those poor products those companies would go bankrupt if they didn't adapt. That's the whole point of a freemarket. Yeah some shit like you describe would happen, that's life, but once people found out they would sue and switch to a substitute.

Even with all the regulations this sort of shit happens all the time the point is that the freemarket, by nature, is it's own hyper-efficient regulator.

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 03:48 | 2690228 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Without the power to regulate business, you end up with heroin in baby medications and cocaine in soft drinks, great for customer loyalty but not necessarily the customer, non-nutritional fillers in baby formula that kill babies, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Instead of cocaine, we have lead, melamine, e.coli, and lysteria.


Thu, 08/09/2012 - 03:08 | 2690199 Fizzywig
Fizzywig's picture

What happens when the what is cast aside or ignored outright?  Where is the accountability?  The Constitution is a piece of paper, a set of ideas.  True prosperity resides in the hearts and minds of the people.

I am beginning to think that a free-market is an impossibility.  Look at what the United States was and what it has become.  The Constitution could not hold it together.  The free-market broke down.  You can say "Well.......the Federal Reserve was the problem".  Who allowed the Federal Reserve to come into existence?  That is the true issue.  American citizens allowed it to happen (albeit shrouded in secrecy and lies).

A great enlightenment will not happen until the greater of the population begins to show respect and dignity for fellow humans and the environment.  Where basic needs are met for all so that everyone has a shot at doing great things for the good of the species.  We just have not figured out the proper societal architecture as of yet.  It won't be a question of "if" but a question of "when" will we figure out the right way to live sychronously with each other and our environment.

As much as I believe in the power of the free-market, I am starting to believe that even if we restore it to its original form, we will end up back in the same boat in a century or two.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:26 | 2688653 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

We keep the size and scope of government limited.

If we fail, if we expect others (particularly those others whose best interest is to lie and deceive us) to be responsible for our failure to be responsible, well.........this is what we get.

The buck stops here folks, with you and me.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:27 | 2688660 Gene Parmesan
Gene Parmesan's picture

This right here is it folks.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:01 | 2688750 Precious
Precious's picture

There is nothing even resembling a MARKET anymore.

It's a fucking magic show.  That's all.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:33 | 2688683 Biosci
Biosci's picture

I respect this ideal, but history argues (pretty conclusively, I might add) that these ideals have a limited shelf life.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:02 | 2688776 sunaJ
sunaJ's picture

History (and mathematics) argues for collapse.  What comes after is up to the "us,"  Because if the moment is not seized, the "they" will just try to build something more able to control the "us."  This empirical collapse will be bigger than anything experienced in human history, and I imagine a lot of responses will be put into practice around the globe.  A good start in America will be to avoid any action bolstering a "Dear Leader."

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:05 | 2688792 Gene Parmesan
Gene Parmesan's picture

The expiration of their practical applicability doesn't excuse the past or present efforts to try to shift/shun the obligation.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:36 | 2688698 purplefrog
purplefrog's picture

But that means that we would actually have to stay INVOLVED!  But that takes work and time away from my fun.  Besides, what can I do?  You can't fight city hall.

(Makes me want to puke just writing it.)

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 21:33 | 2689647 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

+ infinity

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:19 | 2689221 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

I think the Declaration of Independence answers your question. The real problem is that enough of the general, non-politician, population has to have the integrity and courage to put a stop to the nonsense before it gets out of control. They also must be educated. By now, everyone should know where the road is leading well before we get to the end. History is the full of similar events happening over and over. Things get really bad, the population gets fed up. They solve their own problems. Things get better. Govt starts making promises, and implementing "helpful" policies. things start going downhill, and only get worse, then they get really bad. Rinse, repeat.

If there were little power in the federal government, and that power was severely restrained by law, and by a well educated, free, and fearless citizenry, those who would seek to hold office would most likely be of a different stripe.

It really is all just a failure of character, integrity, and morals of individuals. They in turn corrupt the institutions. Once that takes place, the corruption speads, takes hold, and becomes "law". The corrupt institutions will corrupt most anyone who enters. You have to be either corrupt, or have almost superhuman character to withstand becoming corrupted by it. Most people have lost integrity or were never taught to have it. It is a failure of parents and educators at the bottom, a failure of people to change behavior when they realize they are corrupt or are perpetuating corruption in the middle, and at the top failure of a government by promoting corrupt ideas, policies, legislation, and enforcement as if they are moral. All of these feed off of one another in a positive feedback loop until we get what we have today.

Is it even possible for a system as corrupt as what we have now to act in the country's best interest or that of its citizens, or will it continue down it's own path to protect the interests of the system and those of the people running it? How can we allow this corruption to purport to represent us around the world, and still think we are moral people ourselves? After so many people have allowed it to go on because they are benefitting in however large or small and amount, or believe they are going to benefit in the future, we should look in the mirror and know that collectively we have a system that does represent us as a whole, even if not as individuals. Will we decide that we are doing right, and continue down the same path, or will we decide we have acted wrongly and change?

I have decided to change. I know that the system will not change because of me. I also know that I cannot have integrity and support corruption at the same time, so I stopped. No more feeding this beast. No more allowing corrupt banks, companies, or government to use my labor to further the corruption. No more using corrupt money. No more voting for any candidates that don't have good character. Is this easy? Not at all. Is it right? For me, yes. We are not a collective voice. We are individuals. What makes us a group involuntarily? Imaginary lines. Lines that surround the land we call home. Any other groups we can join or leave as we please, for now. We do not choose where we are born. We can no longer choose our representatives. Maybe you can, but I have no choices. I can only choose from people who seek to be chosen, or choose to not participate. I have chosen non-participation. Am I trying to persuade others to do as I have done? Not exactly. I only want to persuade others to act morally, with integrity and principles. There only true solution is true freedom, and knowing the point where our liberty is infringing on our neighbors'. The people who run government must be people who know where their authority to act ends and the citizens' liberty begins. This means being responsible for ourselves and our posterity while teaching them to become responsible for themselves, and also by being accountable for our actions as well as our inactions, and finally by holding each other accountable when necessary.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 19:07 | 2689336 Rynak
Rynak's picture

This reply from someone who sweared to never login and post to ZH again, but who just was impressed enough by your post to "betray" his decision:

I don't know who you are. But i do know that it feels scary when someone writes like me, and even uses the same favorite terms as i do in private conversations.

Take care, and be careful about whom you trust.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 21:00 | 2689558 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


Take care, and be careful about whom you trust.

...and never apologize for having integrity. For the time being, the world is turned upside down, and like gold, integrity is tremendously undervalued. When the world rights itself, integrity will regain its rightful position.

Also, like gold, It has an inherent value, it takes time and work to acquire, and a careless mistake can see it disappear in a moment, so give it the protection it deserves.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 21:28 | 2689594 Rynak
Rynak's picture

Not biting the hook.

Actually, i pretty much unambigiously declared my opinion on this, on my "goodbye"-postspree.

Aaaand, back to the underground.... though, with a hint:

"Consciousness/awareness. There is no substitute for it. Whenever some con-man tries to sell you a supposed substitute - be it via a supposed perfect idea/machine, or via a material good, he is tricking you."

Consciousness/awareness cannot be replaced by ressources or skill (and both can be compromised culturally).

Ressources cannot be replaced by consciousness or skill (though, the former cannot be compromised without your acceptance)

Skill cannot be replaced by consciousness or ressources (though, the former cannot be compromised without your acceptance).

So in short: consciousness, ressources, skill. None of the three can replace any other - yet, only the first is, which you CAN totally control, if you're willing to invest the effort. And it is also the former, which can reveal corruption of the other two parts.

So even though none of those three aspecs can replace another, the reason why consciousness/awareness/integrity/truthfullness/selfhonesty plays such an important role, is because it is the only thing you can absolutely control, and which can invalidate candidates of the other two aspects.

The popular appeal, from all kinds of sides, to replace YOU, with ideas or things, is there to replace YOU. And when you stop doing the job that is YOU, you're open to be abused arbitrarily. Because YOU are the ultimate safeguard, in your life. Once that is gone, you're a toy.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:20 | 2688628 JacksBalanceSheet
JacksBalanceSheet's picture

or... if there is no government (or state).

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:23 | 2688849 TimmyB
TimmyB's picture

 As Karl Marx said...

"The capitalist system carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction."   

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:51 | 2688964 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

Marx was right on some things, but wrong in manyothers as well.

But you quote him like an authority on something?

Capitalization does lower wages within specific industries, but the creation of new industries and new markets offers new opportunities to get into relatively low capitalized professions.

That people have enshrined Marx into some kind of 19th century economic godling of some kind is probably the worst thing that ever happened to that school of thought as it became calcified and rotted from the inside out.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:48 | 2688950 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

There must be a minimal level of government to have a free and FAIR market.

Who decides what standard units are to be used? The market makers? Oh, yeah, that really works.

Who enforces the laws when fraud and cheating occur? The principle of buer beware? And how many people have to lose their life savings before everyone can agree to stop the fraud in the bud?

As the Founding Fathers said, Government is a necesary evil. They said that for a reason and it wasnt the Koch brothers.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:02 | 2689174 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Of course, that necessary evil also ensures collapse of the system...  practically speaking, management of the government function should yield a longer time between busts...  better than nothing.

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 11:13 | 2691165 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

In an honest democratic system, *cough*, one wouldnt have to wait for things to collapse. One could simply change the government.

Of course it helps if the government isnt owned by the people causing the collapse....

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 21:36 | 2689657 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Most people can only conceive of what they see. Others can think outside the box.


Gateway to an Altered Landscape: Law in a Free Nation

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 11:11 | 2691155 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

You know thinking outside the box is great and all, but all things considered? Thinking INSIDE the box usually yeilds the quickest, surest and most reliable results.

The outside the box stuff should come only when the inside the box stuff is problematic or you have a black swan staring you in the face.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:23 | 2688646 Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

"No, you keep the size and scope of government limited so that there isn't that much to buy..."

Yeah, but you could just corrupt the small government, and turn it into a fucking gigantic government.  See:  America, United States of

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:34 | 2688690 Silver Bug
Silver Bug's picture

A government that doesn't become purely corrupt is almost impossible.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:10 | 2689199 T-roll
T-roll's picture

It is impossible due to the nature of human beings. No system devised by man will ever work in the long term due to the imperfections of man. We will eventually screw ourselves ino extinction.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:43 | 2688717 NewAmericaNow
NewAmericaNow's picture

In a free market there are no corporations because there is only one law applicable to everyone and thus no separate corporate law. In a free society the governmnet does not control your actions. The people do not need permission from anyone to do anything. In a free society people discover the consequences of their actions have meaning and teach lessons and NO ONE is bailed out. In a free society there is charity but only to those that deserve it. Since a free society does not exert behavioral controls on a society, there is no system to unfairly, and for personal gain, control. In a free society, no monopoly can be granted. In a free society money is sound and is free of debt. In a free society competition breeds quality and competative prices. In a free society people are held responsible for their mistakes and praised for their foresight. In a free society hard work is rewarded while lazyness has it's consequences. In a free market, Capitalism is only a myth because capitalism is cronyism and can not function in a free market.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:52 | 2688748 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

You had me until the last sentence.

Cronyism = Corporatism = Fascism

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:59 | 2688769 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

On the Big Rock Candy Market...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:25 | 2688850 shuckster
shuckster's picture

The biggest lie about capitalism is that it is freedom. Capitalism and freedom have nothing to do with eachother. Freedom means the inability of one person(s) to impose upon another. Capitalism requires that the courts, the military, and the public services all allow trade to flow freely. The people still must pay for these services, but the businesses enjoy them, not the people who are paying for them. The military is important for safety, but not required. The courts are needed only when a business infringes on the rights of a person and that business needs protection from that person. The courts then protect the business from that person by ruling in favor of the business and making it illegal for the person to exact his revenge on that business. The public services insure that that business has roads to drive on and water to keep its facilities sanitary, however, these are not necessarily to the benefit of the people. For these reasons, capitalism is not freedom or vice versa, nor is it democracy - it is a style of government that protects a specific class - the business owner - similar to communism which protects the labor force. Both are inherently corrupt since they place one person above another

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:32 | 2688875 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Clap if you love because very fit 'Americans' by now.

'Americanism' or the art of saying one thing and the contrary in the same breath.

In a free society there is charity but only to those that deserve it. Since a free society does not exert behavioral controls on a society,

Powerful, big, tremendous, awesome.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:08 | 2689039 akak
akak's picture

Algebraic coconuts aplenty!

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:48 | 2688738 THX 1178
THX 1178's picture

No, because corporations can buy the small government and use this small govt to expand itself via legislation. The government is the thing that expands the government-- not the private sector. You can't have what you want... I mean, it looks good on paper, but seriously you can't.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:49 | 2688953 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Spot on. Hence "bailouts corrupt. Unlimited QE corrupts absolutely." unless and until the PTB see an actual State fail I don't think "they'll believe it." god help us if we all actually do.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:36 | 2689262 iamme
iamme's picture

"No, you keep the size and scope of government limited so that there isn't that much to buy..."


Well, if you buy up all the gov, then the gov is limited. Win? ..Or maybe you are a short shighted idiot. Too much size and power is the problem. Whether it's in the side of govs, or in the size of corps.


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 22:26 | 2689792 midtowng
midtowng's picture

In a truly free market there wouldn't be limited liability laws.

That would certainly make a difference in the size of corporations.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 23:16 | 2689933 monogratis
monogratis's picture

Capitalism only works in a world where private property rights are upheld by law against any violation.  Private property is you and all your possessions.  If the government starts telling you how to use your body and your stuff, then freedom of choice is infringed and it is freedom that utlimately allows capitalism to work.

That's right folks, the more pervasive government interference in people's lives and the economy, the more that the environment for capitalism is destroyed.  That's what the free market is; private property and contractual obligations.

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 05:26 | 2690265 MrTouchdown
MrTouchdown's picture

You have some odd views on Capitalism and free markets.

In a genuinely free market, corporations would not exist as a free market could mete out its own justice through public denounment, refusal to lend, and extremely tight margins. No amount of some fat bastard crying and saying, "But, but, but my liability is LIMITED!! Waaahhh," would work in the case of wrongful acts (such as pollution, fraud, human rights violations, etc) or failure of the firm. Such protections can only exist in a limited market dominated by some sort of central gov't.

Capitalism is simply the act of desiring and obtaining more capital. Remember - the Marxist dream was that nobody would want for anything because it would just be available through the benevolence of other people all working for the collective; in effect the elimination of the desire for more stuff.

Capitalism in a non-free market (as we have now) where individual capitalists can violently protect their interests from other capitalists via the gov't is prone to problems that arise from immorality; however, capitalism in a truly free market would work the opposite way as an immoral capitalist would quickly find himself ostracized from society and bankrupt.

In the end, if you've ever bought something for yourself just because you wanted it - you're a capitalist in the purest sense of the word and there is no moral connotation to that.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:17 | 2688611 blueRidgeBoy
blueRidgeBoy's picture

humans doom everything by default, including themselves...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:17 | 2688612 vinu02
vinu02's picture

Free market means printing free money for the market.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:17 | 2688614 RSloane
RSloane's picture

Point me to a free market. I haven't seen one in ages.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:32 | 2688672 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

barter markets

garage sales

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:01 | 2688774 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

handjobs, crack,...

you know: staples.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:29 | 2688865 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Incredible. US citizens have legs. They cant fall under the weight of their repeated propaganda, lies, fantasy... What a job.

Another US citizen claiming that barter market or garage sales are free markets.


Post theft economy indeed.

After forcing the whole world to put all their wealth on the market so it could buy through currency manipulation, now US citizens wish for markets where wealth can selectively be put on the market, where one can retain wealth without being forced to put on the market.

The whole thinking of US citizens is driven by the consequences of their huge theft on the world and how to secure their loot.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:44 | 2689276 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

I live within the borders of a state which over 100 years before my birth decided to join with this nation called the United States of America. I was born relatively close, geographically, to where I currently live. I tend to be an honest person. I own up to my mistakes, and try my best to correct them when they become apparent. I have never had the means or the will to leave my native land- I can't afford to go eslewhere, but I love my spot, and the people I associate with, so I wouldn't leave this land if I could. I don't steal, not from you, the world, or anyone in it. I have no loot, except for a few posessions that I most assuredly did earn; with my own labor. I never coerced anyone into giving me anything. I barter things, and services for other things and services. I believe bartering/ trading is a free market. There is always a meeting of minds before we trade and no one is forced.

Three questions AnAnonymous...

What would you consider a free market to be?

What could I have done or should I do as an individual, in your opinion, to make right this supposed injustice or to have prevented it from occurring?

What do you propose "US citizens" as individuals or a group do going forward?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 21:28 | 2689634 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Noktirnal asked:

Three questions AnAnonymous...

What would you consider a free market to be?

What could I have done or should I do as an individual, in your opinion, to make right this supposed injustice or to have prevented it from occurring?

What do you propose "US citizens" as individuals or a group do going forward?

AnAnonymous will not answer your questions. He will evade and dance around them, he will then deny having done so, and in a triumphant flourish he will congratulate himself on his victorious non-accomplishment.

Then he will run away.

He exhibited the same pattern four days ago in a similar situation. Observe:

He will (fail to) respond to your questions in the same manner because he is trapped within a pathologically rigid pattern of thinking.

As I said in the comment thread linked to above, he has the spine of a bureaucrat, the ethics of a divorce lawyer, the courage of a congressman, the integrity of a Wall Street banker, and the grounded-in-the-real-world judgement of an Ivy League economist.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 21:40 | 2689668 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

Maybe he will, maybe not. I like to hear others' opinions. I asked because I was truly intersted in hearing an answer to the questions. He may answer honestly, dishonestly or answer something not asked. either way I can spot the difference, most of the time. All ideas have value in one way or another, even when they are total lies.

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 06:48 | 2690309 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Noktirnal said:

Maybe he will, maybe not. I like to hear others' opinions. I asked because I was truly intersted in hearing an answer to the questions.

Understood. I'd be interested in his answers as well.

He may answer honestly, dishonestly or answer something not asked. either way I can spot the difference, most of the time.

Based on past experience, you may need to ask him several times before it elicits a response from him.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 19:09 | 2689338 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Try e-bay as an example of how a free market functions.  It has nearly perfect price discovery from what I can determine by bidding for many years.  Both buyers and sellers have "skin in the game".  The sellers don't want to be banned for fraud or product misrepresentation or poor service and the buyers don't want to be banned for the same reason such as failure to pay.  Thus, good behavior and satisfaction via feedback.

And let me add, to invoke human frailities as a damaging aspect of capitalism is naive.  That reality applies to all economic systems-hence the well know truism, "capitalism is the worse economic system except for all the rest".   The key thing is to have competition and the profit motive and of course, creative destruction.  The latter was absent in 2008 when GM, Citybank, and AIG among others were bailed out when the bondholders should have taken the hit via the bankrupcy process.    Combine those aspects of a free market with an true adversary based law system, which we have, and you have optimized the situation.  And of course, government functions should be very limited, certainly not involved in personal decisions such as education, medical care, energy production etc.  The welfare state always fails since it lacks competition and uses other people's money thus removing the important profit motive. 

Does anyone doubt that if goldman sachs were still structured as a partnership, with the partners own capital on the line, that they would be using 50:1 leverage or creating junk securities for which they could be legally liable?  Answer, they were a partership and never took the risks they did once they had no "skin in the game".  They used the government to keep them in business.



Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:18 | 2688615 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

Do humans doom capitalism by default?

Do humans rise above the concept of "Original Sin".

They don't, but they THINK they do.....hence why we have the problems we have today.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:59 | 2689317 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

There is no "original sin" so there is nothing to "rise above"

The concept forces us to believe we are naturally defective and need to repent for our very nature. The only cure for "original sin", if this were true, would be for each human to kill himself.

The religious idea of "repentance for sin" encourages bad behavior, by giving ourselves a moral "pass" for our immoral actions.

Too many humans believing they are born immoral and believing they get free passes for their immoral actions. The very concept of "original sin" is one of the reasons we have the problems we have today.

The root is bahaving immorally, and never doing anything to correct it. The solution is to act morally, and be accountable for any unintentional or intentional immoral actions, including correcting any harm the actions cause.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:19 | 2688617 Abraxas
Abraxas's picture

"Is Free-Market Capitalism Impossible?"

Yes, it is.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:03 | 2689002 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Winner.  Thread over.  I know I harp on it, but economics misunderstands (refuses to acknowledge) the degree to which rational actors will go to avoid the normalization of profits...  In a free market, at some point in the timeline, the theory suggests that there will be a normalization of profits among a market's producers/participants.  However, once this realization hits the participants, they'll do ANYTHING to avoid it.  To a very large extent, "anything" entails government intermeddling.  However, there are plenty of private acts, agreements, etc. that can be punitively imposed without the necessity of government creation/involvement. 

The answer?  Who knows...  humans have never successfully implemented it in any material time frame, presuming it has even been conceived (I highly doubt).  I think the lesson here is to simply know and understand the limits on our ingenuity and plan around them...  i.e. build in fail safes, checks and balances, etc.  The problem of course is that unless the system is perfectly self monitoring, humans will fuck it up...  the creator of grand ideas is typically not followed by others of his caliber.

Ultimately, it is the humility of wisdom that forms the basis for true conservatism...  liberalism has at its base the concept that not only do humans have the capacity to know the answer, but that a specific individual or group of individuals knows the answer and can perfectly implement it (for which they receive "adequate" compensation of course).  This inevitably leads to collapse, but who's counting.  Not to get too far off topic.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:19 | 2688621 extendedorder
extendedorder's picture

The question is, if you need a goverment to organize society (an organization that monopolizes violence) or if you can rely on the market to provide things like courts and police. In fact you only need one law

1. Don't interfere with other people's property (and maybe some homestead law).

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:35 | 2688681 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

There actually is a free market that operates in this fashion -- it's call the mob.   They have their own rules and their own enforcers of the law they create by fiat and their own courts (what says the mob boss), etc.   It's a nice real world example of what happens when the strongest rule by force which is what always happens when there is no collective action of the law abiding members of society to combat it (e.g., government or whatever else you want to call it).  Theory is great.  Practice is a bitch.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:51 | 2688745 Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

Still trolling, eh?

It's amazing that after your 58 weeks on this site you still haven't grasped the concept that violence is violence. 

Equally amazing is your use of the word always in the context of what happens in the absence of collective action.

Tell me, how is that collective action doing these days to reign in those mobsters?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 22:30 | 2689806 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Government = mob.

Same modus operandi, same results, bigger size.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:08 | 2688806 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Maybe you haven't been paying attention; violence is the most evenly distributed tool we've got.

Of course, that would change quickly under your "system" of cognate-no-evil.

All the justice you can afford, unless someone can afford more.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:20 | 2688626 q99x2
q99x2's picture

If the monetary system was treated more as a utility run by the open source community and a closed system free markets would stand a chance. The way it is, with such a small percentage of the population having control over the monetary system, it is likely that free markets are not possible.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:24 | 2688649 pragmatic hobo
pragmatic hobo's picture

freedom will degenerate into anarchy when greed is the motive. That's why it is necessary for governments to become the watchdog and regulate industry to promote fair competition. Of course when government becomes the lap-dog of the industry then all bets are off.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:44 | 2688719 pods
pods's picture

But that dooms it from the get go.

When there is a monopoly on force, the best use of capital is to control that force to your advantage.


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 19:35 | 2689388 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

Exactly. In some places there is a real monopoly on force, in some places we are led to believe that there is a real monopoly on force. I do not buy into the idea that all violence is wrong in all cases though. In the US, there is a percieved monopoly that doesn't exist to the extent most believe it does. Sure, the govt does have some very powerful weapons. To counter, there is a large number of well armed citizens.

Is it inappropriate to meet violence, against your person, property, or liberty, or that of another human being's, with violence in order to protect the same?


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:27 | 2688650 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I don't think there is any "ism" besides fascism that is possible.. Human nature being what it is will always fuck it up. TPTB do a good job af making people think we have free markets  so the socialists can blame them for our problems, and they throw just enough socialism into the mix so that the free market people blame that for the problem.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:25 | 2688652 SWCroaker
SWCroaker's picture

Silly.  If your going in proposition is that Big Government is a given, then all the ills that BG brings are of course going to exist.

If Gov had almost *nothing* to do with our markets, then you'd get to see FMC in action.  Fraud, graft and favoritism thrive in regulated markets; they die very ugly deaths where all participants know they have to do their own regulation.

BAC, JPM, GS, COMEX, et. al.  "Oh please, please don' throw us into that their regulatory briar patch!  Oh no!"

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:26 | 2688658 ptoemmes
ptoemmes's picture

Seem to be operating at just about the absolute extreme opposite of free market capitalism and we (I mean they) keep calling if a free market.  Not.

I do not envision free market capitalism, but a swing of the ole pendulum back in that direction would probably not hurt.  

I do not see that happening through a normal non catastrophic sequence of events, and then we might get free market capitalism - bartering life sustaining stuff among the survivors.


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:27 | 2688661 mirac
mirac's picture

do humans doom capitalism by default?



Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:20 | 2688835 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

I more or less agree but on the other hand socialism/communism is explicitly evil and doomed for an epic train wreck.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:28 | 2688663 theprofromdover
theprofromdover's picture

It only works if you can have capital controls, or something to keep merchants from heading off round the world to enslave some unsuspecting peasants (that includes us) Free market capitalism is really slavery by other means.

Benevolent dictatorship is the only solution, and if you don't like your dictator, you can always rise up and remove him if it gets bad enough.

The current system is obviously not bad enough yet.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:59 | 2688770 Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

Uh, what?

Corrupt, immoral institutions attract corrupt, immoral individuals who in turn commit corrupt, immoral acts.  No 'dictator' - benevolent or otherwise - can change that.

Government is violence.  Period.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 19:45 | 2689411 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

Does all violence = immorality?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:31 | 2688668 Lost Wages
Lost Wages's picture

It is human fraud and corruption that keep any system from working. Capitalism, Socialism and Communism would all work in a world where everyone was good. But none of them will work due to human nature, the need to control others and get one over on your neighbor. It may be time to admit everyone is naturally "evil," abandon all laws and let us go at it. Last one standing wins.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:36 | 2688699 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Capitalism doesn't require goodness, only preservation of self & at the scale of person and small groups. Competition can be enforced fairly using equalizing force (guns, etc) and a decision to kill less and trade more.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:24 | 2688855 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Since when guns are equalizing forces? It takes a US citizen to claim that in the current state of the world.

Guns is the race for the bigger gun. No equalizing here.

Ah, rhetorical question though: it has been thus since US citizens proclaimed the scam that guns were an equalizing force.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:41 | 2688925 forexskin
forexskin's picture

ah, my shining little ray of shitshine. i see you're having another shitty day!

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:48 | 2688949 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

That is a US citizen world. Hard to escape US citizenism...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:51 | 2688968 akak
akak's picture

Roadside nightsoil is a Chinese Citizenism world.

Hard to escape Chinese Citizenism New World Odor ....

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 21:33 | 2689649 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous squawked:

Hard to escape US citizenism...

...especially when the entirety of it is contained within the confines of your otherwise vacant skull.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:31 | 2688671 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

free market capitalism is a lie foisted upon the gullible.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:33 | 2688684 debtor of last ...
debtor of last resort's picture

It has BECOME a lie. Like all other lies.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:42 | 2688715 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

it has always been a lie

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:14 | 2688824 debtor of last ...
debtor of last resort's picture

It didn't feel like a lie 20 years ago. Lies are improving, just like hft.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:23 | 2688846 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

For US citizens, everything is situational.

Right side of the fence, wrong side of the fence.

Change in perspective.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:43 | 2688930 forexskin
forexskin's picture

for ananonymous, everything is muddled and senseless. lets all just take his advice. what no advice? just a bunch of pointless bullshit? at least you're consistent, idiot.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:49 | 2688957 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

just a bunch of pointless bullshit?

The point is usually 'Americanism' but feel free to qualify 'Americanism' the way you are pleased.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:58 | 2688997 forexskin
forexskin's picture

oh so sorry, my mistake.

thought the point was uscitizinism.

so uscitizinism = bullshit

now we're clear

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:03 | 2689021 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

US citizenism is just another word for 'Americanism'

'Americanism' is the point, and this with us being clear or not.

But hey, 'Americans' are 'Americans' and for 'Americans', congregation of agreements (consensus) makes facts.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:08 | 2689040 forexskin
forexskin's picture

oh boy, now we got a label.

what gives this label meaning, idiot?

ok now, got it, its a pretend idea of actually knowing something.


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:47 | 2688944 akak
akak's picture

For Chinese Citizenism citizens, every act of public defecation is situational.

Right side of the road, left side of the road.

Change in squatting perspective.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:47 | 2688948 debtor of last ...
debtor of last resort's picture

And when they tell you to jump over the fence for a 300k student loan it's called 'subprime' huh? I get it. Well, we got rid of the indians for you. Marshal return? OK. But the euro as greenback in exchange. No, just joking. Where narcism and money come together, things go wrong.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 19:50 | 2689418 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

Everything is situtational. All things in known existance act, react, or do not act according to situations.

Change in perspective... there is no fence.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:55 | 2688758 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

We have never had freem market capitalism. As long as the government props up one entity, or pays out one subsidy, the system isn't free.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:02 | 2688775 Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

'Pockets' of free market capitalism exist, in places like eBay and Craigslist for example.

Of course forcing everyone to use some version of counterfeit currency kinda defeats the idea, I won't dispute that.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:06 | 2688794 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Garage sales, yard sales, and flea markets are the closest things to free markets we have,

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:21 | 2688843 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Woooo. Big.

I sometimes suspect that 'Americans' bemoan what they destroyed.

A garage sales close to free market?

Woooo, it takes a US citizen to outdo a US citizen.

Wooo, if something, garage sales are closer to subsistence markets, when people sell the surplus of their own consumption.

Subsistence markets were condemned by 'Americans' and somehow depicted as an antithesis to free markets.

Wooo, big.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:44 | 2688935 forexskin
forexskin's picture

what? what? you saying something, idiot?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 20:01 | 2689432 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

In some cases, yes. In other cases what is traded is the surplus of their own production. So what? It it wrong to trade unwanted items for wanted items? Is it wrong to trade the excess products of your labor or creativity for others you want or need? Is it wrong to trade service(s) for service(s) or goods?

In my opinion, no. Mutually beneficial transactions between informed participants are not wrong.

What would you consider a free market, if you could create it as you like?

Would you want to create such a market?

If not, what sort of market would you create?

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 07:01 | 2690322 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous said:

Woooo. Big.

Woooo, it takes a US citizen

Wooo, if something

Give a woot,
take a poot,
on the road and walk away.

rambles on.
Not much difference there, I'd say.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:18 | 2688833 debtor of last ...
debtor of last resort's picture

The system is more then just economics. It's about economics, survival, love & war. Evolutions cocktail.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:32 | 2688675 reader2010
reader2010's picture

There are only two classes throughout human civilization. They are the rich and the poor. That's it. Free for whom?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:32 | 2688676 debtor of last ...
debtor of last resort's picture

Competition is battle. And battle is for apes.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 20:15 | 2689447 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

So... competition = battle, battle is for apes.

Humans = apes, battle = competition, therefore competition is for humans.

Did I follow that correctly? Or is something missing from my equation?

All organisms compete for resources. Obviously, all organisms are not apes, nor are they all humans.

I don't get anything from what you said except for the obvious, which I agree is true.

Do you think organisms should not compete for resources? Do you think they should?


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:34 | 2688685 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Genuinely free markets do not evolve into monster governments which can be corrupted. We're looking at market-evolution from nation-states which weren't free and from royal families / oligarchs that didn't allow freedom. This is going to be difficult. Nascent free markets exist but are small because they're called black markets, flea markets, bartering.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:58 | 2688765 Precious
Precious's picture

Fake MDB - You left out the part where all this goodness happened because you attended SXSW.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:41 | 2688712 michael.suede
michael.suede's picture

This article assumes that capitalism can't work because it will corrupt the state.  Obviously that is ass-backwards.  The state cannot work because it is inherently corrupt.  How can anyone expect an organization that is predicated on theft and the initiation of force to somehow maintain law and order?   Do people honestly expect an institution that steals for a living to protect property rights and ensure fair justice is done?  Only an idiot would believe the state is capable of achieving such goals.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:03 | 2688786 Major_Freedom
Major_Freedom's picture

You have it correct.  Those downvoting you are almost certainly mistaken in their views, if downvoting means disagreement.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:45 | 2688723 liszt
liszt's picture

He is ugly. They should have take a nice girl instead of this cretin.

The issue with capitalism is NOT what you believe, a lack of real free market or less Keynesian manipulation, less corruption, in other words, a lack of perfection, and a weakness of mankind. This IS DEFINITIVELY NOT THE POINT !

Keynesians are right when they address the problem by pointing the lack of demand, that is the issue and you won't solve it, and no one will !

So Galbraith, and Krugman, and Obama, are right with their monetary policy about demand, but in the long term we are not dead as said Keynes, the long term with the debt issue is now.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:51 | 2688742 Marley
Marley's picture

Corporations are not people and as such don't have integrity.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:02 | 2688781 Major_Freedom
Major_Freedom's picture

It's not capitalism that is doomed to fail, it's states that are doomed to turn totalitarian, no matter how small they start out to be.


States are coercive monopolies in security and protection.  As with all monopolies, quality tends to decline and costs tend to increase.


It is the presence of states that corrupts capitalism and eventually overthrows it.  It just took so long in the US because the state started out so relatively small.


Since capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production, the only true form of capitalism is a world where ALL means of production are privately owned, which leaves no room for states at all.  Even security and protection would be privately offered.


In this "anarcho"-capitalism, there is no state to bribe, infiltrate, or grow at the expense of liberty.  Every security provider would be limited by every other security provider (as well as every provider of every good and service at all whose offerers compete for revenues).

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:13 | 2688822 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Made me laugh.

World started at 1776, July, 4th.

Quite funny when you think of the number of times US citizens like to repeat their mantra: " a republic if you can keep it"

Because in the done depiction, it means that there is no room for a republic.

Because the state can be privately owned, as shown by history prior the US of A.

But hey, the new US citizen scam is anarcho capitalism when by definition anarchy and capitalism are not compatible.

Once a liar... US citizens have been lying their way up since inception, why change now?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:47 | 2688947 forexskin
forexskin's picture

you so much bettah! what make you so much bettah?


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:52 | 2688975 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Ah, no. The innate sense of superiority, that is 'American' stuff.

'Americans' are human beings. The others are sub human beings or non human beings.

Keep on the page.

'Americans', 'Americanism', the best things ever to happen to the world.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:55 | 2688986 akak
akak's picture


'Americans', 'Americanism', the best things ever to happen to the world.

We all know that you are the father, the wellspring, the very inspiration for your self-styled "US Citizenism", but really, being so openly proud of your creation, and such bragging, is simply unseemly.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:05 | 2689026 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

'Americans' and their impotency to separate fantasy, propaganda and reality.

Dont worry though: they are all in to address the TRUE, REAL problems...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:18 | 2689058 forexskin
forexskin's picture

and you so good at seeing the truth. so you know the real problem!

got it, uscitizinism! now what that mean, and what give it meaning?

why it because ananonymous is top all seeing genius!

come on, share you version of truth!

what, no truth, just bullshit?


ananonymous know bullshit truth = uscitizinism

there, proof!

you good judge, must be so much bettah!


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:52 | 2688976 akak
akak's picture


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 20:38 | 2689492 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

I agree, as well as disagree. Who provides justice when a crime has occurred? Who settles disputes? What rules are followed in doing so? No individual can protect himself from every threat. What happens when "private security" groups want to force you to use their services? You can't, on your own, meet the threat and win. If they kill you, hurt you, or infringe on your human rights how is justice served to the guilty? It works as long as everyone respects evryone else, but that isn't reality. There has to be some deterrent. But that deterrent needs to be chained and only loosed when necessary. The states that exist today want to imprison or kill you for believing in the same freedom they purport to protect.

The solution seems to be freedom for all humans. One human's freedom has to end where another's begins. How do the weak enjoy freedom with bad actors afoot, that wish to take it? I can protect myself against 1 person or a small group under the right circumstances, but in any conflict there is a chance for anyone to lose life, property, or liberty. One person has no chance against large groups. The rights of all have to be protected on some level or we end up right back where we are.

Surely there has to be a way for individuals or groups of individuals to live in freedom AND in peace, but I can't think of one. It is a good topic for debate. Maybe someone can find a way.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:03 | 2688784 Scalaris
Scalaris's picture

Free-Market Capitalism in its intended form is an unfeasible concept, due to the shared goal of wealth acquisition by the acting participants, subjected to the dissimilarity of means used, is directly influenced by the actors' human nature.

In a crude description, if free-market capitalism is the closest comparison to a Darwinian socioeconomic system, unequal physical, mental and ethical capabilities are chasing the same objective, resulting in a respective distribution of socioeconomic layers and compensational hierarchy.

The amount of individual interacting egos within this system in need of verificational remuneration is usually achieved via financial and material gratification, which supersedes the theoretical balance of the intended system.

As a result, the unevenness of the competitive pool results in the proliferation of cronyism or nepotistic practises, used in order to achieve the desired "evenness" of the plain.


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:09 | 2688808 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

But, but, but where is the government?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:20 | 2688839 Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

I agree with your conclusion, but only insofar as a government exists to facilitate/reward such behavior.

Interacting egos is a good thing; I'd argue it is at the heart of progress.  Competing interests do not necessarily result in zero sum outcomes.  Actually, the opposite is true in a free market...where all transactions are mutually beneficial.

I know you said it was a crude description, but IMO a free market is not closely related to darwinism.  Chaos theory better models free market behavior (again IMO)

(Completely possible I misread your post & I apologize if that's the case)

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:40 | 2688920 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Competing interests do not necessarily result in zero sum outcomes. Actually, the opposite is true in a free market...where all transactions are mutually beneficial.

Very fit 'Americans'. Best.

Competiting interests do not necessarily result in zero sum outcomes, as in a free market, all transactions are mutually beneficial.

Woooo. And that is the US citizen middle class, the backbone of a US citizen nation.

What a triumph, what an achievement.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:48 | 2688952 forexskin
forexskin's picture

yea, you fit to judge. what your standard, idiot?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:53 | 2688979 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Logics of lowest level. Even understood by negroes, so to tell how lowest level it is...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:24 | 2689067 forexskin
forexskin's picture

oh i see, now you make proof from lowest idiot logic.

no wonder you bettah!


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 22:06 | 2689734 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Hypocritizenism, thy name is AnAnonymous.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 20:54 | 2689530 Noktirnal
Noktirnal's picture

There is no US, no US citizenism or whatever you call it. There is only resources, and organisms that utilize them. Everything else is a fiction. No middle class, no lower class, no upper class. These are artificial constructs. We are all humans. The patches of land that we live on do not make us any more or less human.

You write as if every human being that lives within the imaginary border called the USA has wronged you, for merely existing.

If this is true, how have I wronged you? How has my very existance taken away from yours? Did you get to choose your place of birth, and the government that existed at that time? Did you have any say in the laws inacted before you were born into that place? How about after your birth? During your life, did you get to write the laws you live by? Is there a real or fictional authority that can take your rights away, justly or not?

Again, what do you propose we who live within this border do?

We are all born naked, and we all will pass away eventually. Something else will eventually take our place.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 17:19 | 2689070 Scalaris
Scalaris's picture

The comparison to Darwinian survivalism was done by equating the goal of surviving the predatory sequence, to the capitalistic endgame that is capital acquirement of the largest volume pre-decease, if one assumes that all things are equal.

The reason of this being an overly crude comparison, is the lack of historical context, which if taken into consideration will show that prior to the inception of capitalism on a chronological line, the act of capital acquirement had already been taking place within a period spanning throughout hundreds of centuries, by the practice of primitive tribal warlodism dominance, evolved into the various dynastic nobility and monarchic houses deriving their wealth through serfdom.

To cut it short, large amounts of wealth has always been concentrated into small social groups, and its deployment has been adapted accordingly, in tandem with the evolution of socio-political systems (e.g. dukes, barons, lords etc. have had their serfs turned into middle management and cheap labour accordingly, for the respective enterprises funded by the accumulation of their capital, which in turn created the industries that function within a democratic system). 

As a result, former subjects have been promoted to legitimate workers within an evolved, humane and philosophically dexterous system, which gives them not only human rights and a wage, but also security of physical integrity.

Again, and to return from the derailment of my central point, large pools of capital controlled by small group of people, has been commanding influence way before the origins of modern monetary and trade systems. Along with the evolution of the systems, there was the necessary adjustment to the evolution of capital investment, which through history has been providing capital for navies, charter companies, nation building, war financing, heavy industrial development and of course, unlimited political influence.

So, the main source of disequilibration and prevention of a free market capitalism, is the disproportional accumulation of capital, prior to the decision of econo-political carte-blanche, which lays foundational preconditions, and dictating selective advantage for certain social groups, despite their comparative Darwinian skill to the wide social pool.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:03 | 2688788 proLiberty
proLiberty's picture

"In a genuinely free market, rich corporations people have both the resources and incentive to corrupt the government in order to make the market less free."

This is only one THIRD of the story. For every willing corporate crony, there must not only be a willing government crony, but also willing third party cronies like the press or even self-appointed crony watchdog NGOs like environmentalist groups.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:09 | 2688813 Colonial Intent
Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:10 | 2688815 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Our systems are perfect. Damned human nature!

Signed: an American.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:42 | 2688894 akak
akak's picture

Our systems of authoritarian one-party dictatorial rule and economic central planning are perfect.

Damned freedom and human rights!

Damned pro-democracy protestors and Tibetans!

Damned Taiwanese, daring to be independent!

Signed: A Chinese Citizenism citizen.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 16:57 | 2688996 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

This fictional proponent of the fantasy called chinese citizenism sounds like an 'American'

Loathes freedom and human rights? Checked.

Has selective perception on dictature as long as it serves best interests? Checked.

Has taste for colonization, protectorate, nation building? Checked.

'Americanism' is even spreading in the fantasical land of Chinese citizenism.

Oh, wait, that is because it is all written by a US citizen and US citizens can not but repeat the schemes brought by US citizenism...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!