Free trade advocates open trade, travel, communication and diplomacy with other nations. There are no trade agreement organizations like the north american free trade agreement or the world trade organization. Anyone could sell or buy products from any other nation without embargos against countries like Iran, China, Iraq, Cuba, or any other country. There is pretty much zero government influence on trade, including any taxes or tariffs on imported or exported goods. The market regulates itself.

The huge misconception is that this means that corporations can go willy nilly and do whatever the hell they want. For a large portion of American history corporations as we have them today would be illegal, and disbanded. Here are some of the imposed conditions that corporations used to have:



Corporations were not then, and have never really been considered people(whch tends to protect the people involved from being thrown in jail). That whole misconception started as a mistake in the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case.



In a Free Market, the majority of business would be sole-proprietors, partnerships, or without any real business structure. So what happens when someone starts polluting a stream and just doing whatever they want? It's the responsibility of the land-owners around that business to report him for contaminating their land, air, family, or anything of theirs or the public's really. That business will be investigated, sued, and someone will also most likely go to jail. Other businesses in the area see that and won't repeat the same mistake. Fraud or theft will likewise get someone fined and arrested.

So what would happen if this was implemented tomorrow? Pure friggin chaos, as millions became unemployed. I am not saying that this would be easy, or that we should turn the switch on and all of a sudden we are a free-market. The forming of such monstrous corporations who own nearly 40% of the wealth in the world is our fault. They own our politicians, our elections, our media, our food, and our money.

How could we start slowly working towards a free-market economy? Frankly I think it is too late for that. The banks and corporations are so powerful it would be very difficult to even get someone like Ron Paul into office to begin these changes. 90% of the presidents who won their election spent the most money. It used to be illegal for corporations to contribute to a presidents campaign. It would most likely start with a cut in spending for the military and a discreet investigation into the Federal Reserve and some of the monster corporations. They are breaking laws, I'm sure of that. They just get away with it because the system we currently have is so needlessly complicated, corrupt, and expensive.

This isn't even getting into socialist programs like medicare, welfare, or social security. People are so reliant on the government right now that it would take a long time to wean people off those things.

Eventually what would people do when they get old and can no longer work in this system? Well they saved so much money by not paying into social security and medicare that they saved themselves a nice nest egg, and they could even invest in a growing business, while owning their own home if they acted responsibly.

What if people get hurt and can no longer pay their medical bills without social security or unemployment? Well medical costs will be a lot lower because insurance companies can't inflate medicine prices because then another private medical center will undercut their prices. Or maybe they can't even afford that? Well I'm sure there would be a volunteer medical center run by a church or a community that would be happy to help you. What if there isn't though? Maybe your friends and family should do the unthinkable and just help you?

Medicare the same thing. Medicines would be waaaay cheaper in a free market, because no one would have a monopoly on a certain drug.

The patent system would be changed, the taxes would be almost non-existent, and we would not try to police the world. I could go on and on about other things that are less about free-market but I think I've explained as well as I can about how it would work eventually. I am not an expert on it through any means, but if any of this makes sense then research it a bit for yourself.

If you want to refute my opinion that's fine, but please try and provide your own solution that would actually be better than a free-market system.

This is the largest fallacy in the entire system... the market DOES NOT regulate itself. This is a fun thought, but it's completely ridiculous. That's why we still have companies polluting rivers, unsafe working conditions, terrible benefits and wages that are nose-diving.



What kind of ridiculous clause is "engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose". This doesn't sound like free-market, it sounds like 'bullshit'. I don't have a problem with corporations making political/charitable contributions (surprise). I have a problem with politicians being purchased.



I don't think you'll find many people that disagree that corporations aren't people. That's the whole point of a corporation.




In our current market the majority of businesses are sole-props (70%+). I'm pretty sure that everything that you stated here happens now.



The only thing you're changing in a 'free market' is that you give the people (in the form of the government) no control. Instead of "THE STATE OF WASHINGTON vs YOU" it's "ME vs YOU". There wouldn't be chaos, there would be millions [more] unemployed and corporations would own 90% of the wealth.



It's too late for that? Your solution is a solution that isn't even plausible? Thanks!



Yes. People are very reliant on the government. If they weren't reliant on the government they simply would be poor. Do you think these people would be wealthy if it weren't for our "SOCIALIST" programs? Every country has poor people. We try to take care of ours.



As opposed to now? At least now there's social security and medicare (you know, those things that pay for those REALLY expensive things that happen when you get old).



No thank you.



Why would it be cheaper? Because companies wouldn't have rights to their drugs for a few years? You don't think doctors wouldn't push those expensive drugs anymore? Do you even understand why things are expensive?



It all makes sense, it's just you have a utopian view of the free-market.

My solution is to continue to evolve the situation we have.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

The CURRENT market isn't regulating itself, but a free market could regulate itself, in that the people will be able to regulate it themselves. They wouldn't have government interference saying that certain companies can pollute, get away with unsafe working conditions, and everything else you said. The people are the system, and the people regulate it. If they are ok with all that crap going on, then it will, but if they refuse to do business with that company,(or accuse them of a crime) they will feel the hurt and change, or go under.

I agree that corporations are "bullshit" just that the ones of today are. The chartered purpose of a corporation are to make a video game. They make the game, and then everyone goes their separate ways with the profits split between them and they are free to do go back to their own independent business. I gotta agree that politicians shouldn't be able to be bought... but they are being bought, and always have been throughout every countries history. Some are great leaders who can't be bought... but they are much more rare.

Sole props do happen now, except a huge amount of them fail because the current system favors huge corporations. The government helps them, and buys from them while ignoring the smaller businesses most of the time.

We try and take care of our people? except for the millions of homeless right? or the many people who aren't covered by certain social programs? Teach a man to fish rather than giving him a fish (you know the actual saying). Our smaller communities should be able to help the people rather than trusting in the government to manage these things.

Medicines would be cheaper because there would be more competition without the FDA pushing the big company's drugs. Patents laws would need to change. The big drug company's have a monopoly on the market because of the myriad hoops people have to jump through with the FDA, and rising insurance costs.

I don't have a utopian view of the free-market. It isn't a perfect system at all, or even close to it. I just believe that it is better than the system that put this nation over 16,000,000,000,000 in debt. That's a lot of zeroes. The reason the free market system couldn't be made to work is because people really don't think the current system needs to change so much. The current system isn't only not working, its friggin disastrous.

People can refuse to do business with companies now. Companies aren't allowed to pollute/have unsafe working conditions... they do because that's the minimum they are allowed to do. Companies will ALWAYS do the LEAST it can. If you set the bar as "whatever you want to do except some little individual might try to sue you" then that's not going to stop them, that will make them do more. I don't understand how this is not easy for you to understand?



I never said corporations are bullshit. If the chartered purpose is to make a video game and they make an accounting application why in the world would you shut them down? Why would you disband the company after one product if the original product was successful? Corporations aren't inherently evil (I happen to own a majority of one). Don't know why you're attacking them.



Sole props will fail at a higher frequency in an unregulated market. Fewer restrictions = more power to larger company. Most sole props fail because of the inability to run/manage a business by the owner. This doesn't change under any system.




Smaller communities? Are you thinking that we're going to separate into 100 person communities? I agree, we should do more. We should spend more money making sure that every person has the basic necessities. We do teach men to fish. It's called our educational system. I don't know what world you think you're apart of but we're not tribes anymore.



The FDA exists for a reason and I do not disagree with the FDA. Why would you change patent laws? You're just throwing any control the patent laws had out the window anyways.



The reason the free market system doesn't work is it's unfair. If you put a bag of m&ms in a jar and set it on top of the refrigerator and send 100 children at it and one adult who do you think is going to get the candy?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Let me get this straight now. Your answer for the problem of excessive corporate power is to destroy the one entity-the government-with the power to oppose the corporate interests?

Yeah, I'll pass, thanks.

If you want true free markets, move to Somalia. It's working great there.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

SilnWest, you are spot on about the free markets. People often make the mistake of saying that the US is a true free market. It's not. You won't have much luck convincing the people here, though.

I agree that having non-individual entities own things (corporations, trusts, etc) was a terrible mistake.

Sutz - do you not have the power to regulate corporations by choosing not to do business with them?

Uhh, I never said we should destroy the government, just limit the need for it to interfere in people's lives.

Do you really see the government opposing corporate interests right now? They are helping corporate interests! Who did the bailout's really help? Where does all of the wealth in this country go? If the government was really opposing the corporations, I wouldn't feel the need to advocate such a radical change.

You think our society should only be reactionary?

Business A pollutes river. After a few years (I mean the pollution wasn't obvious to the eye), the residents (after suffering severe medical issues) decide to not purchase from this company... except... these individuals are not the companies customers! Effect = 0.

Somehow, the local clan marches into the factory (you know, the one that employs everyone in town) and burns it to the ground. But it's ok, they won't be unemployed long because Company B is here to save the day!

Luckily, since were humans and we learn from our mistakes of course have no new regulations for business B. Business B does the same as Business A! This time it only takes 2 years to discover they are and it's harmful. STORM THE CASTLE!

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

we have our current system that attempts to create and enforce regulations and laws that prevent Business A & B from every harming it's citizens.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

If business A pollutes a river, then we make whoever is directly responsible for allowing it to happen responsible for all the losses and damages. If I was a business owner, that would make me want to damn well be sure that I did NOT pollute or caused those problems, or I would be facing severe prison time and millions of dollars in personal losses. Essentially my life would be ruined.

This is kind of the point the OP is making. Corporations have no accountability. People don't go to jail for allowing a corporation to conduct business in a manner that violates other people's property so long as they are meeting your precious federal regulations are being met...they simply pay damages...and those damages come from the corporations themselves, not the actual people who are responsible

Now, in today's current system we have federal regulations that must be met. I hope you're aware that these regulations are generally never revoked if they are ineffective (causes huge losses) and rarely reviewed/updated until something bad happens anyway (going back to your reactionary situation). Regulations themselves are reactionary because the federal government and those with the power to enact new regulations do not have the time and resources to constantly be reviewing every possible scenario. So ultimately, regulations themselves are reactionary. Dodd-Frank was passed BECAUSE of the financial crisis (and now i'm reading articles that suggest Dodd-Frank will cause another recession).

I'd rather be over-regulated then under-regulated (as a consumer). As a business owner I wish there were none! But it wouldn't benefit anyone but me. And no, regulations aren't ONLY reactionary. Many regulations exist to prevent a hypothetical situation.

Corporations have an incredible amount of accountability. Individuals in corporations can also suffer sever consequences for negligence/improper business. Your view of corporations is obviously skewed from your Ron Paul Revolution.

If the regulations aren't stringent enough then maybe we should improve them, not remove them (hmm... bright idea!).

I don't know where you get the idea that if a Corporation causes direct damage (and in a good case, indirect) it isn't responsible for it. Corporations get sued all the time for safety failures, negligence and more.

Free market doesn't solve any of the problems you are having, it heightens them.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

As a business owner you should love the fact that there are regulations. Those barriers help cut down on competition, and since your already existing competitors have to put up with the same regulations, you guys can all just impose those costs onto the consumers without worrying about anyone having a pricing advantage.

I do realize that corporations have accountability, but not on the same level as individuals. If I go and pollute somebody's river and cause medical problems, I would be looking at possible murder charges, but you can sure as shit bet that wouldn't happen to a corporation.

I also see your point for improving regulations, but my point was that our government lacks the capacity to oversee and protect us from everything. It's better to just hold people more accountable for their actions so that they make better choices now that they can focus on, instead of bureaucrats from Washington DC.

That is the worst argument ever. 'the government can't protect us from everything so it shouldn't protect us from anything!' Nothing is stopping a group of local individuals from filing a lawsuit against a corporation.

If you polluted a river with the motive of killing or harming someone, yes you will be criminally liable (just as a corporation and it's employees would). If an individual gives a cigarette to someone they aren't liable for murder if they get cancer, a corporation that produces that cigarette and sell it is.

If a corporation pollutes a river illegally and it results in death you're god damn right that they are going to be criminal charges against employees of that corporation. If there isn't specific and malicious intent then yes, you can just hold the corporation liable and the corporation would pay a fine/ be shut down.

Regulations have nothing to do with my business' competition. I don't think there are any regulations on who can become an software developer.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

That is not quite the argument I'm making. I'm saying the government does a really shitty job of regulating when you consider all the costs and that it creates a false sense of security and makes it harder to prove negligence if a corporation is meeting the standards.

BTW I'm not against all regulations...but IMO we are WAY over-regulated and have gotten into a pretty sloppy habit of immediately turning to the government for solutions to problems that we are fully capable of handling without the use of force and coercion.

If a corporation is meeting regulation standards and is still harming people than that would mean additional regulation would be necessary. You can't think that de-regulating a company that only does the minimum now is somehow going to improve?

It's not a false sense of security. It's called actual security. Our citizens should not have to go throughout their day worrying about every step they take because it's a "free market" and businesses can "do what they want".

We turn to the government to handle problems because that's the whole fucking point of the government. It's our collective power and interests in one. Instead of me vs. you. It's all of us vs. you. You take the government's power away, you take the people's power away.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

You're right, Sonic. We would all just bend over and take it up the ass and do nothing about it if the government didn't look out for collective interests. That's always been the American way.

You're obviously a fucking moron. In what way does the current system prevent you from doing something if something goes wrong? You can sue the shit out of anything for any reason. For as much power the corporations have for creating and altering legislation we can still fuck them up the ass if we wanted to.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Our current system has run its course. Continue on our current path and the system collapses. Bring the government in and it turns into socialism (and eventually collapses).

So, yeah.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

So, no.

Glad you have so much input. Another solid argument basis "what we are doing doesn't work perfectly, so let's throw it completely out and use something that has never worked anywhere."

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

It's even worse than that. I don't even know what that better idea is!

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power