[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, that is not correct. This is why I said you don't understand what I propose.

In order to have intelligent, fruitful, discussions, key words have to be defined, or, at least, correctly understood by all parties in the discussion. I have defined what I mean by free market and by freedom in various past posts. Perhaps you missed those posts. Perhaps you disagreed with them--but never rebutted them.

I'll try again. My concept of being "free" in relation to other people is that a free person does not coerce, or is not coerced by, other people. Many would consider that coercing others would be a mark of "freedom." But coercion of another results from needing something from whom you coerce. Ergo you are not free. Your coercion bonds you to those you coerce. Is Kim Jung Un free because he has near total power over his populace? No, he is trapped into depending on those who submit to his coercion.

What do I mean by a free market? A market in which neither party to a transaction coerces the other. If your objection to the viability of such a proposition is that there are always people who want power over others, therefor their will always be those who make the market unfree unless there is something to control them from doing so, I have on more than one occasion said that, concerning a free market, government control is not of the market, but of those who impose on market freedom. The role of government in a society based on freedom, is the protection of freedom. It is not the role of government to regulate "free" people, but to regulate (punish, etc.) those who coerce. It is not the role of government to regulate free behavior (that would be a contradiction), but to protect free behavior.

It sounds so rational, even commonsensical, but I think perhaps innocent and could so easily be sidetracked by darker, more sinister motives or basic stupidity.