Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
How so? Under state governance businesses are forced to pay a certain entity for security (policing) and other services through taxes on pain of loss of property. This is a monopoly on essential services enforced by violence, basically the most anti-free market thing ever.
Okay devil's advocate over, serious argument here: The monopoly on violence, by definition, comes with the ability to make and enforce various rules for the operation of the market. This is tax codes, zoning laws, labor laws, tariffs, environment protection laws, IP law, etc. The ideal of the perfect free market requires that these rules to be minimalist and "fair," but that's impossible to achieve because nobody can objectively decide which rules are necessary and fair and which are not. Therefore it's always going to be possible to argue that such and such isn't a true free market because this or that rule stifles competition, ultimately tying back into the point that a true free market can't be subject to arbitrary rules and therefore is incompatible with the monopoly on violence. The two senses of "free" are identical here.
I still think that you are being overly literal for an argument ("There is no such thing as a free market") that doesn't actually get you anywhere. If free markets don't exist, then personal freedom doesn't exist for the exact same reasons. But to get there, you have to rely on the idea that "you can argue" without examining whether those arguments have any merit. Nobody takes "free" to mean "absolute freedom". It's always relative. This is a silly semantic argu... oh. This is silly. Damn it. Why didn't anyone stop me.
It does. Whenever you criticize capitalism or the free market, you invariably get a bunch of "free market enthusiasts" arguing that the problem is too much regulation and too little free market. Any time the "free market" produces brutally exploitative living conditions and colluding oligopolies, the claim is always the same: "This is corporatism, not capitalism. Government interference in the market did this. We should make the market freer." This is the idea behind the comment I was originally replying to, and my argument is a response to it. Since a free market is the capitalism equivalent of a unicorn, "this isn't a true free market" type arguments are basically all No True Scotsman fallacies. I'm shutting down a common counterargument to criticism of capitalism.
Yeah true; both "true" free markets and "complete" (only constrained by the Harm Rule) personal freedom are models with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the situation. Thinking of a situation as described by a free market is like ignoring air resistance; it's not a useless abstraction, but ultimately it's still an abstraction and should be treated as such.