Anonymous #2 7w

Its not tho

9

Anonymous #1 7w

It is.

-6

Anonymous #2 7w

Okay so do you realize that a free market would mean abuse of labor? Children (like as in 5 year olds) put into factories, women sold into sex trafficking, etc. That’s not FREEING the people

13

Anonymous #1 7w

You do realize most boomers outperformed Gen X, millennials, and us because they had real work experience before college, paper routes, farm work, trades. By 18, they had resumes and skills. Blanket bans on “child labor” didn’t protect kids. They just stripped them of competence. Not every job is a sweatshop.

-6

Anonymous #2 7w

Most boomers have extreme trauma. Most kids died when the market had a lack of regulations. But sure lets let kindergarteners get chopped up by farm machines because for some reason you prioritize profit over people

7

Anonymous #2 7w

And by all means! Lets sell women and children #freeMarket

6

Anonymous #2 7w

This might honestly be one of the dumbest takes I've ever seen

9

Resorting to insults indicates that you have nothing left

5

Anonymous OP 7w

Okay, well, given you've never read any historical economic texts, I can see why you would think that. Stick your dick in an electrical outlet.

-5

If you want a free market so bad go send your children to the coal mines or whatever. Actually please google the amount of deaths and injuries when we used to send kids to the mines

7

Anonymous #2 7w

Can you explain why you value profit over people even if people dying means less profit?

9

Anonymous #1 7w

I spoke plainly and you called me a child killer. So I threw it right back at you and you reported me. I value people. That’s why I reject systems that pretend central planning can substitute for adaptation. Social systems aren’t built to withstand dynamic environments. Markets are.

-5

Anonymous #2 7w

Reported you??

6

Anonymous #2 7w

You “spoke plainly” by denying the deaths of children and don’t even address sex trafficking?

5

Anonymous #2 7w

If you value people and value freedom, you would understand that a free market would kill both

6

Anonymous #2 7w

Social systems historically adapt and withstand dynamic environments???

6

Anonymous #2 7w

Wait yes or no should a 3 year old be allowed to be a prostitute?

5

Anonymous #1 7w

A free market means voluntary participation, not coercion. Is this seriously your understanding of free markets?

-4

Anonymous #2 7w

A free market means that products can be sold without regulation. If a parent decides to traffic their 3 year old, would this be justifiable to you?

8

Anonymous #1 7w

The false dichotomies of your arguments are genuinely baffeling.

-4

Anonymous #2 7w

You clearly don’t understand what a free market would mean. OP’s post emphasizes the decision as to whether or not an increase in freedom within the market would increase freedom of the people simultaneously. With this logic, in a truly FREE market without government regulation a 3 year old could be trafficked by their parent(s) to meet supply and demand.

6

Anonymous #1 7w

So just to clarify—are you seriously suggesting that the only thing preventing a parent from trafficking their child is federal commerce regulation?

-1

Anonymous #2 7w

Also if you want to call it a false dichotomy you’re indicating that another option exists. Would this other option be government regulation?

4

Anonymous #1 7w

Your think thinks the only two options are (1) child trafficking or (2) government regulation. This is a false dichotomy.

-1

Anonymous #2 7w

Absolutely there are parents who would traffic their children. And a market without regulation would legally permit that making it a LOT easier for parents to do. Federal commerce regulation in the market is what helps to at least manage the legality side of it

5

Anonymous #2 7w

1.) Child trafficking is an example of the consequences of a free market and demonstrates that a 100% free market would mean unethical practices could and will occur 2.) What would the other option be then?

4

Anonymous #1 7w

You’re now claiming that without federal commerce regulation, selling a child would be legally permissible. That’s factually false and morally bankrupt. Free markets don’t legalize crime. They assume law, consent, and individual rights. Trafficking violates all three.

0

Anonymous #2 7w

Free markets don’t legalize crimes BECAUSE of regulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You’re quite literally agreeing that a freer market doesn’t=freer people BECAUSE of regulations

5

Anonymous #1 7w

You just confused criminal law with market regulation. Again. Prohibiting child trafficking isn’t a “market regulation.” It’s a function of criminal law, civilizational norms, and moral constraint. A free market doesn’t mean “no laws.” It means voluntary exchange under lawful constraint. If you think freedom requires regulation to prevent rape and slavery, then you don’t believe in freedom.

-2

Anonymous #1 7w

And because I fear you're too dumb to understand that. CRIMINAL LAW ≠ MARKET REGULATION.

0

Anonymous #2 7w

A truly free market wouldn’t even consider criminal laws anyways thats my point!!!!! Freedom DOES require regulation to prevent rape and slavery otherwise we’d still be in a time period with rape and slavery (which we do still have so technically we don’t have ENOUGH regulation)

5

Anonymous #1 7w

Dude, criminal law doesn’t regulate rape and slavery—it outlaws them outright. Not because a bureaucrat drafted a rule, but because civilization has moral boundaries that markets don’t touch. A free market exists within a lawful moral order, not in the absence of one. The fact that you can’t tell the difference between commerce and criminality explains why your arguments are collapsing under their own confusion.

-2

Anonymous #2 7w

D-Do you know what regulation means in the context of law???

5

Anonymous #2 7w

A 100% free market existing within a lawful order would include regulation therefore not making it a 100% free market wouldn't even

5

Anonymous #1 7w

Yes. And that’s exactly why I’m drawing the line. Criminal law prohibits violations of personhood, rape, murder, slavery, because those are moral absolutes. Regulation, by contrast, governs the conditions of permissible activity, pricing, licensing, disclosures. You don’t “regulate” child trafficking. You outlaw it because it’s evil.

-2

Anonymous #2 7w

regulation: “a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law” which can be applied in the context of all forms of the law…

5

Anonymous #2 7w

So criminal law does in fact regulate rape and slavery

5

Anonymous #2 7w

Again, in a 100% FREE MARKET criminal law would not matter, just the products demand and supply. Criminal law is a free market regulation

4

Anonymous #1 7w

By your definition, banning murder and mandating food labels are the same category both “regulation.” Rape and slavery aren’t regulated. They’re prohibited. Outlawed. Non-negotiable. No conditions. No rates. No compliance checklists.

0

Anonymous #2 7w

What??? Regulation is a broad term lol. To regulate something is to create a law and to enforce it which is done with rape and slavery as well as mandating food labels. The actual importance of each of those things isnt exactly relevant to the definition of regulation

5

Anonymous #1 7w

You’ve flattened all law into the same bucket and declared the contents interchangeable. By your logic, banning human trafficking and setting the font size on nutrition labels are equally just “regulations.” Now you’re engaging in definitional cowardice by refusing to distinguish between what must never happen and what must be disclosed.

0

Anonymous #2 7w

Every law ever is a governmental regulation?? That’s not even a debate its a full on fact

5

Anonymous #2 7w

Criminal law IS a free market regulation

5

Anonymous #1 7w

If every law is just a “regulation,” then you’ve stripped the word of meaning entirely. You’ve erased the distinction between moral prohibition and policy preference. Between outlawing slavery and limiting cigarette ads. Between justice and administration. If you genuinely believe the Nuremberg Trials and the FDA Nutrition Label Act are just different shades of “regulation,” you’re just flattening civilization into paperwork.

0

Anonymous #2 7w

This is genuinely the dumbest argument ever. That’s like saying I can’t call a law a law. Doing crack and slavery are both against the law. Saying that as a broad statement doesnt mean one of them isnt objectively worse than the other…

5

Anonymous #1 7w

Well property rights are a fundamental part of a “free market”. That’s the difference between “free market” and lawlessness. And people are assumed to have ownership over their bodies and their labor so stuff like murder,rape and slavery are kinda off the table by default. I’m not a hardline free market guy but that’s kindof the ideology at play here.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

Government REGULATION is how laws are REGULATED its in the name of

2

Anonymous #1 7w

Which makes sense because it creates a bureaucratic function for yourself to fill.

-1

Anonymous canesfan 7w

A free market means freedom of meeting supply and demand regardless of product. A 100% free market would involve unethical practices objectively

3

Anonymous #2 7w

Do you disagree that criminal law is a functioning free market regulation

4

Anonymous #1 7w

Calm down with the Socratics, Eichmann. You don’t understand this; like, at all.

-3

Anonymous #2 7w

Do you disagree that criminal law is a functioning free market regulation yes or no

3

Anonymous #1 7w

No, because criminal law is not a “free market regulation. Criminal law is a precondition for any legitimate market. It defines the moral and legal boundaries that make voluntary exchange possible. Regulations govern behavior within a system. Criminal law draws the line between system and violation. You’re confusing the guardrails with the cliff.

-1

Anonymous #1 7w

Well if peoples property rights are being violated that’s not really a free market. And someone’s body,labor etc etc are their property. I mean what if a group of unions decided to seize all the property, that doesn’t exactly seem like a free market because it’s theft. Murdering someone is not a free market for the same reason you’re stealing someone’s life.

-1

Anonymous #2 7w

Oh so now regulations govern behavior and laws? Weren’t you just arguing that governmental regulation is too broad of a term. Criminal law draws the line between the system and violation BECAUSE of the conditions it creates for a market but the market can never be a 100% free market BECAUSE of set limitation through criminal law.

3

Anonymous canesfan 7w

I'll let you pick this up. I've been arguing with a tree for thirty minutes.

-1

Anonymous canesfan 7w

That’s my point!! A true 100% free market isnt even possible anyways BECAUSE of these laws

4

Anonymous #2 7w

Because you refuse to admit that regulations are set in place in order to create a market which can never be 100% free DUE TO THE REGULATIONS

4

Anonymous #1 7w

You just proved my point. Thanks. I'm going to bed.

-3

Anonymous #2 7w

I think it’s mostly semantics For you the free market means being able to do any buissnes transaction even if you violate others rights. Free market people would say violating property rights isn’t part of a free market Or Mabye you just disagree that things like a right to once’s labor or one’s body are “property rights” (you might say they are just human rights) sense calling them that is a weird way to conceptualize it even though it’s logically sound.

1