And therefore to say that it makes no sense to advocate for free markets is nonsensical. It makes perfect sense to advocate for them, as it is an advocacy of the removal of all tyrants - the people who prevent the free market at every turn for personal gain.
So it is not the free market itself that doesn't work, it's the outside forces that bring it to a stop.

Ironically, things like IP laws are actually anti-free market. It would be interesting to have a large scale experiment where ideas alone can't be property to see if this would result in a better or worse overall economy.

Although not all IP laws are anti-free market, so it would require some really smart fine-tuning beforehand.

@ETBrooD I don't really care about ideal non-pragmatic stuff, therefore, I won't argue hypothetical scenario that has no place in the world. Point stands, you make free market, you will end up with mono-oligopoly, which will end up hurting consumer. Would it not happen in your ideal world? Maybe, but that's not important, we don't live in ideal world. As for the second fallacy, you legit straw manned the fuck out of me, I said nothing about economy LUL

I'm not idealist, I'm pragmatist

You are just as much an idealist, you just think you're not because you don't understand how much of the world economy has made improvements due to more markets being increasingly free.

You also don't quite understand that monopolies are not inherently a bad thing, they come and fade in cycles of years or decades, and that's a good thing because it increases market stability, otherwise investing would decrease.

Basically the less chance of a monopoly, the more likely market stagnation

The big players also give small entrepreneurs something to look up to for inspiration and orientation, so people can keep pushing the envelope and further maximize efficiency and thus prosperity

Lastly, if you want to live life with little to no impact from the big monopolies, you can. So if your values are offended by their existence, at least you're not forced to have them impact your existence.

That's one of the great things about the free market, it offers so much variety specifically *because* it's free.

In fact there's one more argument in favor of monopolies, they can actually offer small entrepreneurs an out (for whichever personal reasons, like if they want to start something new, or retire, or whatever).

There's no perfect economy that any market can offer. But the most free market have resulted in the best economies so far, and if someone argues that free markets are more prone to monopoly control, that's simply false. With more regulation comes more monopolistic control.

With the end scenario being that the government itself becomes the sole monopoly.

That would be in extreme cases.

I could say sorry that some of your favorite products occasionally get replaced by what you consider inferior products, and that's a legit issue. But that won't be solved with more regulations, but in fact the opposite.

How do you feel about government subsidization of small enterprise to encourage competition @ETBrooD

I disagree with all government interference, I only accept it because I'm forced to.

And by that I'm not saying that all politicians are evil all the time and we should lynch them all, I'm only arguing that I think there are far superior ways to run a country.

To clarify my position; A diversity of ways to manage and structure human conduct is the end I think we should be striving for. I think countries are far too large, and that people should organize themselves on a far more local level.

I think a market economy is good because it allows people to organize their own businesses in a way that suits them.

I think the will of the people should be more important than the flow of capital, however.

That's not to say I want any sort of redistribution, because I am uncertain on that point. I don't think it's outside of the right of government to redistribute if it does so with the mandate of the governed. I don't think saying "there is a system it works" is necessarily always enough and you need to play with the tools that are there.

The will of the people and the flow of capital is the same thing in a free market

No, because in a republic each citizen holds one stock. That stock cannot be bought, and cannot be traded.

So the free market undermines the will to steal

And that's why it undermines the will of the people?

What do you mean by the will to steal?

Property is voluntarily traded in a free market, so whether some people hold more than others, it is a direct reflection of the people's will

whether or not*

I think there is a limit to what should be bought and sold. I think you shouldn't sell the land the statue of liberty stands on and elect a shopping mart simply because it isn't profitable.

Profit is not the only consideration in a free market

I know, but it is a considerable one.

People shape the flow of cash, property, etc.

People aren't always reasonable, we aren't the homo economicus the rational actors in a free market.

We do stupid shit like get face tattoos.

You argued that localization of communities is preferable, so the ownership of the statue of liberty would no longer be a US-wide issue

Right, but I'm talking about more local governments.

Not privately owned land.

I think there is a case to be made for a centralized monopoly of force.

Yes, but here's the thing, you argued that one shouldn't sell the land of the statue of liberty, but why not? If the people of NY want to keep it around, they can buy it up.