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.

If they do that it belongs to them and they can keep it standing.

Because someone might buy it up just to tear it down and elect a shopping mart.

We should take care of our history.

So you're saying the buying power should contain a level of force

I'm saying the monopoly of force should be in the hands of a democratically elected local authority, to enforce the rules of commerce so that they stay reasonable and in tune with the local zeitgeist.

Basically people who are capable and willing to sit and negotiate will end up destroying "good things", therefore people who are incapable to sit and negotiate should have a monopoly on force over the negotiative table

It's not about competence, necessarily. You can have a competent dictator, but he won't necessarily serve the interests of the weakest in society. It's about building a culture where as many people as possible can thrive and that requires that a representative of the local population be present to hash out those concerns with the buying and selling part.

I understand it's not about competence, I'm just trying to understand how you're justifying your position to see if it's morally superior

And if those parts refuse to co-operate with the local population, they should be the ones submitting.

It's a matter of community above all.

An outside economic actor should not be able to tear down a community with the force of his wallet. If the local community does not want a shopping mart in the city centrum i see no reason why anyone should be able to erect one.

What I see is that you're willing to give some people (in this case a perceived majority of people) a monopoly on force in order to undermine the economic pursuits of others (in this case a perceived minority of people), and I believe you justify that by saying that said economic pursuit is more destructive overall.