I am a "Free Marketeer"

I believe in a free market economy. I have seen some people here on NCBlue that put out posts that show they are against that. Here is a link that explains what this means at least from the links perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

Be the judge yourself.

Comments

Interesting

As a lifelong entrepreneur, I have some leanings in the free-market direction as well. But still, I have to ask. Which of the following public services would you gladly leave in the hands of profit-making enterprises?

  • Police protection
  • Fire protection
  • Public water systems
  • Sewage treatment
  • Public schools
  • Municipal zoning
  • Road construction and maintenance
  • Air traffic control

Just to name a few.

I'm confused at your question, James

I said nothing that meant that any of the things you listed shouldn't be part of our government. I know you love saying how you are and have been an entrepeneur and how you know from your experience in your ventures that you know best. But, James, you take my postings wrong here. You have really taken this one you are responding to wrong. I am not against government. I know government is a very needed element in America. I do, however, believe in the free market. I wonder why you have listed these things when I have mentioned none of them as being non-essential for government involvement.

Please try harder to understand my position.

Thanks.

Sorry

I responded unkindly.

From all your many comments, it's clear to me that you're not a "free marketeer" anymore than I am. You seem to have a balanced and practical view of things, for which I am appreciative.

Declaring yourself to be a free marketeer in your headline, however, is sort of like a shot across the bow of this lifelong progressive. As Steve Harrison commented below, we have a long history of tolerating hardcore Libertarians who do, in fact, want to see all of those services I listed put into the hands of private profiteers. They are property rights extremists, specifically working to undermine public education and eliminate the authority of governments to engage in zoning and planning. So when you claim that mantle as a matter of declaration, as you did in the title of your post, you shouldn't be surprised to find some push back.

The way I see it, true free marketeers want government shrunk all the way to nothing. On a scale of 0 (no government) to 10 (all government), they would opt for
O or 1 as a matter of ideology. Progressives, on the other hand, don't start with ideology, they start with a search for what works. My best guess is that "what works" is likely to be somewhere in the 3 or 4 range.

I point out my experience in business frequently because it is entirely relevant to the discussion. For example, the loudest advocates of free market thinking in North Carolina are a collection of self-proclaimed experts who wouldn't know a business if it bit them in the butt. The only one of the crowd with even a hint of business experience is Art Pope himself, who got handed his fortune on a silver platter. The rest are his employees, all paid by daddy's money to work in non-profit "think tanks."

I see

And thank you for the response. I am not against government and you are right on that. I just do not see any alternative to the free market or capitalism as being better. I see you see what I am saying. Sharrison is right that what really should be done is have more oversight and regulation on it. I also am sorry if I came across wrong.

Thanks you.

"Property Rights Extremists"

They are property rights extremists

Whew! Thanks for the laugh of the day!

Hell, that one is so good, I should make it in to a bumper sticker.

The way I see it, true free marketeers want government shrunk all the way to nothing. On a scale of 0 (no government) to 10 (all government), they would opt for
O or 1 as a matter of ideology. Progressives, on the other hand, don't start with ideology, they start with a search for what works. My best guess is that "what works" is likely to be somewhere in the 3 or 4 range.

You're referring to anarcho-capitalists who are so minimal in terms of supporters that they're hardly worth noting. You're building that up as your "other" side, when it's not even a side at all.

...and just out of curiosity, where would you say that number is today?

SCOTUS Taking Us to Zero

with a Supreme Court hell bent on taking us to zero.

Do you literally think that the SCOTUS is hell bent on making the US an anarchist society?

Does that mean you're a born again advocate for zoning and transportation planning ... or are you still one of those anarcho-capitalists that don't exist except at Art Pope's Puppetshow?

I find it quite funny how you purport to know all of my positions, and how I am a supposed anarcho-capitalist. And why is it that I get Art Pope-laced rants thrown in to conversations with democrats?

Moreover, why is it that I always get aligned with people who I have no business being aligned with? If I give my positions on a conservative message board, from the reactions I get from the members, you'd think that I campaigned for Obama. Here, one would think that I fly an NCGOP flag over my front door. I agree with Art Pope on the issues about as much as I do with Obama.

All I know about you is what I've read here

You've commented about a dozen times, mostly neutral on matters of free-market mania, with a heavy dose of "we" in your representations of the Libertarian party. You've criticized both mainstream parties (rightly so, in my view), and offered a consistent "states' rights" position whenever you've had the chance.

My highlighted comment above was a question, not a comment. I was specifically asking you where you stand on zoning and transportation planning. You've said you are not aligned with the Art Pope crowd, which seems unlikely based on what you've written, but I will accept it at face value.

And yes, I do think the current SCOTUS is driving us off a free-market cliff. Their majority view on corporate speech is the single biggest threat to freedom we will likely see in our lifetimes.

Defining yourself by wiki

you're probably more suited to claim this term than your post indicates..

Often their simple rhetorical nature leaves little room for detail, and as such they serve perhaps more as a social expression of unified purpose, rather than a projection for an intended audience.

 

It was a link

that was put here to explain the meaning of "free market".

Why would you try to make it something that "defines" me?

We have to be able to discuss things and offer up links here. If people do not agree with a site or opinion, then that should be a point of disagreement, not something to degrade someone personally or someone's personal point of view.

You obviously do not agree with what I believe and I probably disagree with some of the things you believe. I will try not to be degrading toward you when I disagree. I hope you keep that in mind when I post things your are against.

Thanks you.

A little context, James

Over the years, we here (at BlueNC) have had numerous and sometimes long-term "visits" by Free Market proponents, and they have explained/argued their various positions enough to make your eyes bleed. You can do a site search and feel some of our pain if you want, but it's not recommended.

One of the things that nearly all these folks have in common is an extreme anti-government sentiment, which partially explains James' comment above that you were confused about. If you believe that government is more positive than negative, that it performs more of a service than it does a hindrance, and that it should regulate but regulate carefully, then you're probably much more like us than you are a "Free Marketeer".

I hope that helps.

My two cents worth on "Free Market."

I would believe in free trade if it also embodied concepts of fairness. It may be there are examples of free and fair trade but history...and our nation's history...is littered with examples of how greed and corruption made "free" anything but "fair." Years ago Japan essentially wiped out our TV manufacturing industry by dumping under-priced products on our markets. (I believe that was with financial support from their government... and we had no tariff on those products.) In my mind, regardless of definition, free trade has come to mean that whoever is the most dishonest and freely uses their deep pockets to feed politicians will rule the market. We the people are far down the list of priorities. NAFTA has screwed the Mexican farmer.

None of this bodes well for all the services James mentioned above. Although I'm no expert, what I've read leads me to believe that privatization of our prisons has led to terrible abuses affecting not only the prisoners but their families as well.

And, Government regulation doesn't always help either. Our ABC system in NC punishes the consumer and the tax payer. It should be privatized...but it won't be because too many people are getting fat at our expense...and getting hefty pensions even after found to be unethical.

So...we need balance. Free and Fair. My thoughts.

Stan Bozarth

yes

That is a pretty good post. A lot of things can be better if regulated better. NAFTA was a idea that was good for some American companies and those that ran them but I think ended up bad for Americans over all.

I like Stan's discussion of Free and Fair.

Free markets (albeit not perfect markets) seem to drift toward a Law of the Jungle mentality. like when one of the parties in a contract is small and, um, of modest means, and the other very rich and powerful.

For years now China has had its own little experiment running on Hainan Island.

Brazilian orange juice anyone?

The good, the bad and ugly of the marketplace.

-b
--

There cannot fail to be more kinds of things, as nature grows further disclosed. - Sir Francis Bacon

I believe in the tooth fairy n/t

n/t

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Here's another link

...that is even more "rhetorical in nature" as declarations you continue to cling to are. I will not yield to your attempt to further move the Overton window.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5i1aPaxwh8

As Dolly Parton says,

It's a rich man's game
no matter what they call it,
and you spend your life
puttin' money in his wallet.

Happy Monday to all!

Especially to the 9 to 5ers supporting our lemon socialism economy,

 

At some point...

...we must back away from the notion that a legal fiction that exists on paper as a charter from the state enjoys more rights and has a bigger voice than any single individual.

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR