Free marked is about having a competition between companies where the user decides who wins by buying the best products.
The concept of a free marked was invented before there had been massive marked limiting factors like "lock down" of digital devices and similar.
Somehow a lot of people still take all the original arguments why a free marked is good but then use them to argue for a marked which is neither free nor has the marked dynamics anymore which make a free marked a potential "good" marked strategy.
In the end a free marked needs to have proper competition. Weather that is limited by the government or by companies abusing a change in technological landscape which gives them powers which originally at best governments had doesn't matter, it's no longer a free marked at all and no of the reasons why it's supposedly good do uphold then.
Actually not! I think capitalism always trends towards centralization of power. I went fishing for "actually, this isn't a free market because..." and caught me a big one.
Pure capitalism (anarchy) is just people exchanging things via barter. Government is generally to blame when things get too centralised (either by fiddling the market or by not enforcing antitrust).
> Pure capitalism (anarchy) is just people exchanging things via barter.
Anarchy and capitalism are two extremely different things, and also there are methods of free association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_(Marxism_and_...) that allow for distributed production without any centralization OR private ownership of production/profit-driven exchange.
Granted, we're far off from these things probably, but capitalism is turning out to be a steaming pile of shit so it's good to think about what comes after without turning into a centrally-planned hell hole.
Ah, I mean the purest form of capitalism is one without any government or monetary system controlling the currency or tax on transactions. I think this is a reasonable statement.
Capitalism, much like democracy it's the least-worst system out there.
I believe most of the problems we're facing with it are challenges of scale. Especially in the US, it's just too big. Maybe breaking everything up back to the state level would be a good idea?
