Not an absolutely free market, no.

Instead of having unions or the like have organizations tasked with a particular activity that could be created or dissolved by local government, other producers or anyone else who can DIRECTLY benefit from the workings of the organizations.

To have a free market, you require the ability to engage in commerce, within a particular markets, absent the intervention of a third party.

Then the one who creates the organizations can also create the conditions where 2 or more groups will be competing against each other to devise the best structure and rules for it possible.

You realize how much legal innovation you'd have to do to reach sustainable free markets? We never got to that point before we gave up and started regulating everyone because it was the easy solution.

We don't get rid of competition, just build it in!

by that standard a free market can't exist within a sovereign polity

He gets it.

A true free market needs to be stateless.

Just as unobtainable as "communism".

@Jeremy Why do you think a market is the only, and therefore the best solution?

Just what, exactly, do you believe a market is?

No a true free market requires a state to extract force from the realm of trade

it seems like a weird concept

An INSTITUTION, not a place or a building, where people can trade one kind of goods or services for another.

That's quite the opposite of what a free market is, Jaco.

Does the definition satisfy you @Jeremy ?

And the funny thing is

No, because an institution isn't required to conduct trade.

you can't have institutions without a governemnt

So you think a free market is where the government uses force to dictate how everyone trades? Because THAT is the opposite of a free market

Well, an institution **is** required

Some form of one

wouldn't a true free market by this definition require that everyone be an independent producer

cause without a government you don't have laws and without laws nothing can guarantee the continuous existence of institutions.

No, that's what you seem to be illustrating here, when it is quite the opposite, given a market is only *absolutely* free when there is unrestricted competition among businesses, which inherently requires a lack of entry-barriers.

Without a government you have no one who can prevent theft and if you have theft you can't have a free market.

Freedom within a market lives on a scale.

Are you an anarchist @Jeremy ?

Without a government there are no laws.

Without laws there is no guarantee the guy next door won't just steal stuff.

I wouldn't consider myself an anarchist, but I'd consider myself a Minarchist.

If he steals stuff, you have no market at all.

yeah this guy understands

Anarchists believe in the utopia of stateless societies.

Correct, Yord.

Then, why do you think markets alone can redistribute?

there is only one thing that richard spencer has ever said that i agree with and it is that the state is an existential entity

I believe you've a Leninist view of what a market is; whereas, I view it as a byproduct of spontaneous order.

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too