Avarice567 Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 How do free markets lead to feudalism? And if so, how can the free market correct this? Here's an interesting article from Dan Sullivan: http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
David L Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 The term "free market" is a total oxymoron, and a wildly successful example of Orwellian doublespeak. The ruling class created the term so that, in the mind of its subjects, markets would always be associated with "free", and thus people would unconsciously see markets as something very desirable and attractive. But a market has nothing but price tags, so by definition it's the total opposite of "free"---it's a trap, beguling the unwary into the "divide" part of the total strategy of "divide and conquer"---- that is, first you create the market to divide human beings from each other, then you create the state to conquer them. There are of course many creature comforts and material benefits that arise out of markets, but without a foundation in true freedom, they always lead to subjugation and tyranny. The idea that a society can be fundamentally based upon the "free market" without becoming a statist tyranny is as silly as believing that a small government won't become a big one. In order to have freedom, you first have to have freedom. Period. Only people can be free, not markets.
Alan C. Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 ...a market has nothing but price tags... If that's true, is it bad? ...first you create the market to divide human beings from each other, then you create the state to conquer them. There are of course many creature comforts and material benefits that arise out of markets, but without a foundation in true freedom, they always lead to subjugation and tyranny. How does one "create" a market and how does a market divide people? I seem to recall you insinuating that people should not be free to associate with whom they wish.
Andrew79 Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 But a market has nothing but price tags, so by definition it's the total opposite of "free"---it's a trap, beguling the unwary into the "divide" part of the total strategy of "divide and conquer"---- that is, first you create the market to divide human beings from each other, then you create the state to conquer them. In the case of markets, free is an adjective, giving it a definition of "Not under the control or in the power of another." A free market is freedom, to think otherwise is just silly. If markets aren't free, people can't be. By definition.
David L Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 ...a market has nothing but price tags... If that's true, is it bad? ...first you create the market to divide human beings from each other, then you create the state to conquer them. There are of course many creature comforts and material benefits that arise out of markets, but without a foundation in true freedom, they always lead to subjugation and tyranny. How does one "create" a market and how does a market divide people? I seem to recall you insinuating that people should not be free to associate with whom they wish. I don't say the price tags are bad. I say they do not indicate freedom. What would be the net effect of everyone in your family putting price tags on everything in your home, including their own contributive actions and speech? Markets divide people by prohibiting them from spontaneous, free sharing. A boundary is created which locks everyone into conditional giving and receiving. It's a restrictive inhibition, based upon self-concern, among other things. How are markets created? Wow, that's a vast question worth exploring. I don't see how you see me insinuating that people should not be free to associate with whom they wish. Freedom of association is one expression of freedom. If you are afraid to associate with poor people, it simply tells you something about your own level of freedom, that's all. When you are scared, you aren't free, obviously.
David L Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 But a market has nothing but price tags, so by definition it's the total opposite of "free"---it's a trap, beguling the unwary into the "divide" part of the total strategy of "divide and conquer"---- that is, first you create the market to divide human beings from each other, then you create the state to conquer them. In the case of markets, free is an adjective, giving it a definition of "Not under the control or in the power of another." A free market is freedom, to think otherwise is just silly. If markets aren't free, people can't be. By definition. People ultimately don't depend upon markets, markets depend upon people. You can live in a commune, for example, where people share everything without price tags put on them. It's like a large extended family, that's all.
Avarice567 Posted January 23, 2013 Author Posted January 23, 2013 Thank you for hijacking my thread . . . .
Andrew79 Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 People ultimately don't depend upon markets, markets depend upon people. You can live in a commune, for example, where people share everything without price tags put on them. It's like a large extended family, that's all. Absolutely. But even then, looking at the bigger picture, there needs to be a free market for ways to live - not everyone would want to live in a commune. And keep in mind prices are the most efficient way to allocate resources, getting rid of them doesn't suddenly mean anyone can have everything, resources are still scarce, they'll still need to be rationed.
Diabolus Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 Thank you for hijacking my thread . . . . He does that. It's been increasingly annoying lately. I'll attempt to rescue your thread. First of all, I have found that without exception, every single person who claims that a free market will turn into feudalism has a poor understanding of the definitions and nature of both. They tend to know very little of pre-Enlightenment history, economics, and philosophy of property. Especially a poor understanding of law. I have found, generally, that talking about those topics and reaching common ground there tends to eliminate this faulty notion in their heads that capitalism = feudalism. If you can get people to understand what the distinction between wage labor versus serfdom is all about, explaining a stateless society is much easier.
David L Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 Thank you for hijacking my thread . . . . Hmmm. Thanks for pointing this out, I just got so energized by the terminology used that I felt compelled to address it, not wanting people to be led down a path of initial misunderstanding (from my point of view.) I'll watch this tendency of mine in the future, and be more tactful. My apologies and thanks again for bringing it to my attention.
Recommended Posts