Q&A: “CURT: IS THE TERM ‘FREE MARKET’ A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS?”” (interesting)

Q&A: “CURT: IS THE TERM ‘FREE MARKET’ A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS?””

(interesting)

—“Hey Curt: Is the term “free market” not a contradiction in terms? Is a market as a norm facilitating fully-informed voluntary (etc.) interactions not in and of itself a restriction imposed on those who want to conduct unfair, unbalanced, involuntary interactions? Can such a thing even be called free?”—

Well you know, I love this question because you’re right of course.

It depends upon what we consider the cost of entry into that market. If the cost is non imposition of costs, then yes, it’s been imposed upon us and that seems to be a good arrangement. But how are the people who impose the prohibition on costs compensated? Usually through taxes (commissions).

So when we say ‘free trade’ independent of fees, that’s hard to defend as anything other than free riding. If we’re saying free trade with only those required fees, then that’s easy to defend as both an imputable cost, and one that’s free of imposition. And if we’re saying unfree trade is that which imposes costs for other purposes (external use) then that’s probably incorrect if we agree with the external use. And if we’re saying unfree trade is that which imposes costs for other purposes (external use) that we disagree with, then that’s probably a bad thing.

In most of our history you had to pay two costs: 1 – forgo the opportunity to benefit from the imposition of costs upon others, and 2- pay a commission on the proceeds of profiting from the market in order to pay for the imposition of the non-imposition of costs.

Curt Doolittle