Daniel, I will agree that there is a lot of religious mysticism regarding the concept that is a free market, both for and against. I have met a lot of irrationality on both sides, and most of it comes from a lack of actual research and logical thinking. Does laissez-faire have problems, of course it does, as does every system, but I hold that it is the fairest system that we have at this time. I have ran into a lot of pro-free market mystics that are attached to the tea party movement, and do not actually do any research or otherwise rational thinking about the subject and it consequences. These are usually the people who blindly follow the talking heads, do no fact checking or conduct any further research, and forward anti-Obama emails like it is actual breaking news. These people cannot accurately defend the concept of a free-market because they do not understand it. On the other side, there are the anti-free market mystics who live the motto, "in current government we trust". As long as they are happy with who is in office, they believe that the current administration can fix all the problems and that the regulations could not possibly have a downside. (I am of course using the terms generally, because you can apply these to any administration, from Regan to Clinton to Bush and Obama.) I would say I haven't actually seen evidence of either side on this board, so don't worry, I am not trying to flame anyone here. As you pointed out, an actual free market has never actually existed that I am aware of (possibly during early human evolution when everything was done by bartering). There is of course plenty of evidence of both centralized economies failing miserably, and regulated economies failing (current economy anyone?). With this history, a lot of people seem to believe that more regulations, leading closer to a centralized system, is the answer. I ask, why not move away from the government controlled systems? Why believe that a small group of men in D.C. can fix the problems of a system with >303 million moving parts? People also neglect the cost this takes away from the ideal that is freedom, with various restrictions on how to conduct business. I will be the first to proclaim that there will be some bad eggs in the batch under a laissez-faire system. There will be people who are going to try and take advantage of the weaker. The leading difference is that without government regulations, favors, or mandates, those "weaker" have all the opportunity to find a different vendor, seek retribution through the legal system, or start a new business to address the needs that are being neglected. With the government regulations, everyone's hands are tied, without considerable legal battles against the government (which will use tax payer money to fight) trying to change a bad law. This was illustrated by the railroad monopolies in California around the turn of the 20th century. Competitors could not enter San Fransciso (Southern Pacific Railroad and a handful or others) because of government mandates. This unnatural monopoly, which existed only due to gov't favors and not on the quality of their service, destroyed the communities that relied on freight traffic. You mention that a regulated gov't is a better at asset allocation then a centralized government, and I would agree. But, why is it better? Is it because it is more free? Because those that actually need the resources will pay the higher market price to do something productive with that resource instead of just hording it under an unnaturally lower price due to government intervention or distribution. I will admit that there will be some cases of hoarders in a laissez-faire system, but their other resources (mainly money) will quickly dwindle as a result. Hording does not give anyone a return on investment. So the question to ponder, which system allows the greatest freedom? Robert, You mention how a free-market leads to tyranny and oppression. Could you expound on that? I am confused as to your statement since tyranny and oppression can only exist by the application of force, which only the government can apply and codify within a society ( a company applying force, would be illegal by all the democratic societies that I know of). The only way that tyranny and oppression can exist in such a "free-market" scenario would be because of government regulation committing the actions to law, which would not be a free market at that point. Do you have a specific example? Regards, Simmons PS As an extra point outside of the long email above, have you ever considered what is money? It is not the value gold like most people consider (even in a gold standard economy). Even on a gold standard, the value of a dollar still fluctuated. Money is a meter of trade. It replaced the long drawn out process of bartering, to allow more freedom in the goods and services exchanged. Look at the history and current valuation of money. The US values its money by determining how much staples (eggs, bread, etc) it can purchase. Money by itself is worthless, it is only in the context of productive trade that it retains any value. If the US dollar was to become useless, I easily foresee a system of bartering to spring up almost overnight, until a stable substitute can be found. Take the following story as an idea instead of as actual historical truth. http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=1826 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20100822/9fa0ea41/attachment.htm