Never in recorded human history has there been a free market, so naturally you've never seen one. Kingdoms, governments, etc. emerged out of the old kinship economies long before the idea of free markets was conceived of and they never went away.
> Never in recorded human history has there been a free market
There's a continuum between free markets and socialism. It is not a binary thing. Nothing human is perfect. You might as well claim there is no such thing as water because 100% water is not achievable (there are always contaminents).
Also, a free market requires a government. The role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.
> There's a continuum between free markets and socialism.
Uh, what? That's like saying there is a continuum between cold and far. Your comparison points are not in the same realm. Consider a free market where all actors decide to form cooperatives. That, however unlikely in practice, would result in both free markets and socialism at the same time. A free market does not care about how the people decide to divvy up capital. The people deciding to share ownership in the capital is perfectly valid within a free market. If "free market" was prescriptive about how people must trade then it would be completely contradictory.
> Also, a free market requires a government. The role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.
Absolutely not. In a free market, one negotiates with private vendors to offer these services. A government is the antithesis of a free market, being a monopolistic vendor that you don't get to opt out of. A voluntary organization could emerge in a free market to provide those services to those who wish to join without having to individually negotiate, which would closely resemble the governments we know, but key is that it membership is optional. What makes a government more than an association is that you don't get to choose. The market cannot be free if you cannot choose who to buy from.
You could more reasonably say that there is a continuum between free markets and planned economies. It is still flawed as none of this is one-dimensional, but for the sake of simplification we can run with it. The space between is referred to as mixed economy, not free market.
You are mixing up different ideas again. It is true that anarchy is necessary for a free market. The way we understand how to take us away from anarchy is to place restrictions on possible markets! But anarchy can also exist without a free market. Anarchy isn't another point on the so-called continuum. Like socialism, it is looking at something else entirely.
A "free market" where the market isn't free doesn't make sense linguistically or within what "free market" is defined as. Of course a situation where some submarkets are unconstrained and others restricted can exist — not only can, that's how we already live — but when that occurs we call it a mixed economy. Our current world exists under a mixed economy.
I suspect your confusion stems from trying to apply the ideas of free market, which refers to a broad market economy, onto only the submarkets that are unconstrained. If you could magically ignore all the restricted markets then your logic would be reasonable, but in the real world we cannot ignore the rest of the world around us. It exists whether you like it or not. Unfortunately there is no generally accepted term for this, which is no doubt why you've wanted to use "free market" to fill the void, despite it already having a different meaning, but "unregulated market" is the one I have seen used most often in that context. You might consider using that going forward. I expect most will understand what you are trying to say without confusing them into thinking you are talking about free market in the proper sense and will allow you to converse with those who already made it clear that they were talking about free market in the proper sense.
> It is true that anarchy is necessary for a free market
No, it isn't.
Again, look up the definition of it rather than make up your own. Here's one from wikipedia:
"In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers."
It still requires a government to keep people from stealing, defrauding, and murdering each other.
> It still requires a government to keep people from stealing, defrauding, and murdering each other.
Under a free market one voluntarily buys protection, negotiates with relevant parties how arbitration is to be conducted, and so on. These are all part of the market just the same. A "free market" that isn't free continues, despite your insistence, to be nonsensical.
When was the last time you made an offer to your police force? Under your free market definition it is necessary for you to express your demand position, else supply and demand cannot be determined. Yet, I suspect your answer is never. There isn't a free market for you to express that in. It is not something you have to think about as the single desk has already sorted it for you.
What you are thinking of, again, is a mixed economy, where the government has taken control and regulates some submarkets. That is how our world functions. A market having unconstrained submarkets that see prices determined by supply and demand isn't the same as a free market. What to call the submarkets within a mixed economy that are based on supply and demand isn't generally accepted as there isn't usually much reason to need to talk about it, but I posit "unregulated market" remains the leading contender for what shows up most often when one is trying to single it out. "free market" is a non-starter as it already means something else in the same context, as seen in the very definition you gave us.
You are, of course, revealing one of the reasons why we've never seen a free market. The concept is full of unresolved problems that make the whole thing untenable in practice. I think we can agree it is almost certain that people wouldn't be able to handle themselves if there wasn't a government automatically providing those things for them. But that's the nature of a thought experiment—It doesn't have to be realistic.
[–] win311fwg 2 days ago
[–] WalterBright 2 days ago
There's a continuum between free markets and socialism. It is not a binary thing. Nothing human is perfect. You might as well claim there is no such thing as water because 100% water is not achievable (there are always contaminents).
Also, a free market requires a government. The role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.
[–] win311fwg 2 days ago
Uh, what? That's like saying there is a continuum between cold and far. Your comparison points are not in the same realm. Consider a free market where all actors decide to form cooperatives. That, however unlikely in practice, would result in both free markets and socialism at the same time. A free market does not care about how the people decide to divvy up capital. The people deciding to share ownership in the capital is perfectly valid within a free market. If "free market" was prescriptive about how people must trade then it would be completely contradictory.
> Also, a free market requires a government. The role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.
Absolutely not. In a free market, one negotiates with private vendors to offer these services. A government is the antithesis of a free market, being a monopolistic vendor that you don't get to opt out of. A voluntary organization could emerge in a free market to provide those services to those who wish to join without having to individually negotiate, which would closely resemble the governments we know, but key is that it membership is optional. What makes a government more than an association is that you don't get to choose. The market cannot be free if you cannot choose who to buy from.
You could more reasonably say that there is a continuum between free markets and planned economies. It is still flawed as none of this is one-dimensional, but for the sake of simplification we can run with it. The space between is referred to as mixed economy, not free market.
[–] WalterBright 1 day ago
[–] win311fwg 1 day ago
A "free market" where the market isn't free doesn't make sense linguistically or within what "free market" is defined as. Of course a situation where some submarkets are unconstrained and others restricted can exist — not only can, that's how we already live — but when that occurs we call it a mixed economy. Our current world exists under a mixed economy.
I suspect your confusion stems from trying to apply the ideas of free market, which refers to a broad market economy, onto only the submarkets that are unconstrained. If you could magically ignore all the restricted markets then your logic would be reasonable, but in the real world we cannot ignore the rest of the world around us. It exists whether you like it or not. Unfortunately there is no generally accepted term for this, which is no doubt why you've wanted to use "free market" to fill the void, despite it already having a different meaning, but "unregulated market" is the one I have seen used most often in that context. You might consider using that going forward. I expect most will understand what you are trying to say without confusing them into thinking you are talking about free market in the proper sense and will allow you to converse with those who already made it clear that they were talking about free market in the proper sense.
[–] WalterBright 1 day ago
No, it isn't.
Again, look up the definition of it rather than make up your own. Here's one from wikipedia:
"In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers."
It still requires a government to keep people from stealing, defrauding, and murdering each other.
[–] win311fwg 1 day ago
Under a free market one voluntarily buys protection, negotiates with relevant parties how arbitration is to be conducted, and so on. These are all part of the market just the same. A "free market" that isn't free continues, despite your insistence, to be nonsensical.
When was the last time you made an offer to your police force? Under your free market definition it is necessary for you to express your demand position, else supply and demand cannot be determined. Yet, I suspect your answer is never. There isn't a free market for you to express that in. It is not something you have to think about as the single desk has already sorted it for you.
What you are thinking of, again, is a mixed economy, where the government has taken control and regulates some submarkets. That is how our world functions. A market having unconstrained submarkets that see prices determined by supply and demand isn't the same as a free market. What to call the submarkets within a mixed economy that are based on supply and demand isn't generally accepted as there isn't usually much reason to need to talk about it, but I posit "unregulated market" remains the leading contender for what shows up most often when one is trying to single it out. "free market" is a non-starter as it already means something else in the same context, as seen in the very definition you gave us.
You are, of course, revealing one of the reasons why we've never seen a free market. The concept is full of unresolved problems that make the whole thing untenable in practice. I think we can agree it is almost certain that people wouldn't be able to handle themselves if there wasn't a government automatically providing those things for them. But that's the nature of a thought experiment—It doesn't have to be realistic.