Why does Sup Forums suck the free markets dick so much...

Why does Sup Forums suck the free markets dick so much? Do you not realise that people will partake in unethical business practices? How do you justify this? How is a regulated market not better?

You're right but what is the free market alternative that will produce a more ethical outcome

>people will partake in unethical business practices
don't they do that now?

Because Sup Forums consists of some of the most manipulable people you've ever laid eyes on.
Nobody easier to manipulate than those that fall for the types of "But you're not as stupid as the rest of the sheeple." reasoning you frequently see here.

Hitler.

People partake in unethical activities every day. People are imperfect. No system should impose perfection of a human and expect them to act like robots because it won't work (communism). The fake you've stated is a flaw in humans, not in the free market. The free market merely facilitates natural transactions with as little interference as possible. The more interference you have with a human's nature, the more likely your system is to fail.

...

Do you think people should be able to trade with one another assuming it is voluntary?

Should I be able to just sell you my pencil? Or should the government write a few thousand rules and how sell it and increase th cost of the pencil by 500% for the pleasure? Would you still want the pencil with the increased cost and hassle of filling out tons of paper work and hiring lawyers to make sure you stay in compliance?

But the consumers are also free to choose which businesses they want to support. If they don't like the business practices of said companies, they are free to withdraw financial support from them. If the 'unethical practice' is morally questionable or only disliked by a certain demographic, they can target their products accordingly and let the consumers make their own informed decision. I think the only interventions needed from government is very rare and should only be used for increasing competition and stopping monopolies from unfairly rigging the market in their favour while providing shitty products/services

>People will only be unethical in the market system I don't like

Very nice false dichotomy. Well thought out.

>implying regulation has any effect on big business
>implying it doesn't just cripple SME

Unethical business practices cannot survive in a truly free market.

Who is this cock wrangler?

Why do statists suck the government dick so much? Do you not realise that politicians and civil servants will partake in unethical practices? How do you justify this? How is a small, restricted state not better?

>Do you not realise that people will partake in unethical business practices?
>How is a regulated market not better?
explain these.

oh w8, nevermind m8

'unethical business practices'
what are u the fucking union representative.
get fucked cunt

You can't trade pencils with Jews, and you can't employ niggers to make the pencils

TOP KEK. Tell me why people WOULDNT pay for a 20 cent iPhone even with the knowledge that it was produced by slave labour with highly questionable work practices.

Sup Forums sucks the mutilated jewdick that enslaved them.

They love Hitler, but eat up the jew lies about socialism.

Hitler would gas Sup Forums, and it would be the first time he actually gassed anyone.

corrupt person in the free market = loses mad shekels if anyone finds out

corrupt person in a regulated market = just get into bed with the regulators and no one can do fucking shit about it

It's utopian fantasy to think any group of humans in all their inherently ignorant glory can regulate an economy efficiently. People have a hard enough time deciding what's right for themselves, even though they've been around themselves their whole lives. To see what happens when they start making decisions for each other, well, just look around you.

Also, it sets an immoral precedent to allow a person authority over another persons to the extent that death threats are acceptable and standard practice. Think about the kind of world you want to live in; the kind where no one bats an eye at being a literal slave or the kind where people agree that everyone owns themselves?

They can if consumers choose that the unethical practice isn't sufficient reason to dissuade them from supporting the business. But that's the advantage of the free market. The inherent freedom to choose what's important to your own set of values.

For example, I'm not really that bothered if the eggs I get are from caged hens who shit them out by the hour or taken out the back and shot compared to free range, grain fed chickens that get read bed time stories by hippies. Conversely, I don't want my clothes made by jiggaboos on pence per hour who don't know how to stitch properly and the clothes fall to pieces after a couple of washes.

Some guy will start another phone company that pays worker $10/hour. All the "slaves" from the other phone company leaves and work for the other company. Unethical phone company goes bankrupt.

Because the consumers decided they don't give a fuck.

Who are you to say otherwise?

>slaves
>having a choice

>For example, I'm not really that bothered if the eggs I get are from caged hens who shit them out by the hour or taken out the back and shot compared to free range, grain fed chickens that get read bed time stories by hippies
how is this unethical? maybe if you are a vegan

> Conversely, I don't want my clothes made by jiggaboos on pence per hour who don't know how to stitch properly and the clothes fall to pieces after a couple of washes.

The economy is already rigged, you fucking autist.

Regulation means the people actually have some say in how badly a corporate giant can fuck everything and everyone before their non existent right to make a profit infringes on my actual rights.

You fucking libtard. Kys.

>mistaking free market regulations for human right laws
cmon lad, you can do better

>how is this unethical? maybe if you are a vegan

It's very painful and stressful for the chickens. Not that you would give a shit.

>free market
>slavery
What part of "free" is hard for you to understand?

How are the regulators less prone to corruption?

I don't disagree with the premise but you have to be able to answer these questions to be able to argue for a regulated market.

Human rights do not exist everywhere in the world. That's why companies like Nike and gap got away with child labour in China.

>no no no, the regulations we have today are all fucked up
>but these other theoretical regulations that work, and corporations wont take advantage of, they'll be way better, see?

Because it's an animal that can feel pain and discomfort being used as a food battery and then slaughtered. It's a practice that is enough to make the consumers bothered about it to buy free range, and those who aren't bothered by it to carry on getting cheaper eggs.

that's not really relevant to the point though as the examples you cited aren't truly in a free market. Furthermore, just because the market is unregulated, it doesn't mean other civil laws (like slavery is illegal) aren't in place.

>The economy is already rigged, you fucking autist.
No shit, hence "look around you". Read before you type, kiddo.

>Regulation means the people actually have some say in how badly a corporate giant can fuck everything
Corporations have little power without government (the mafia they pay to enforce success). You couldn't be more wrong.

>libtard
That's classical libtard, thank you very much.

>Because people have never used government for unethical practices.

In a free market, would cigarette companies be able to tell their consumers that their product is good for them?

>government has ever been ethical
Good one.

I guess this is rather off topic, but why would you consider suffering of animals (non humans) to be unethical. We've domesticated and enslaved animals since the beginning of civilization. Why is it only recently do we even bother giving animals "right"?

because it's the best sort of tyrant you can wish for

Yes, and they'd be quickly found out and face the consequences. People would still smoke though.

I don't support the free market. Only people i see defending the status quo are Jews and their enablers

People in first world nations have so little problems to overcome (the driving force if humanity) that they just create easy "problems" to sate their instinctual need to overcome them.

If that is posting on social media about how treating animals is bad then so be it

This. The tyrant that can't hire what people see as a legitimate authority to enforce their success through death threats is pretty ineffective.

>I don't support self ownership
Fuck you, then.

I'm positive that any sane person does not wish to inflict pain onto another living being, you included.

Humans empathize with suffering. Animals suffer.

Personally, I wouldn't. My original first post indicated that it's not a practice that bothers me. But it is known to be considered unethical by many, which has given a place for free range in the market. Otherwise, this product wouldn't exist as people are paying more for the same product entirely on 'ethical' reasons.

On your point about why it's only now happening, I'd say it's because the left are running out of causes to fight for and new victim labels to use so instead of going to fight for rights in the 3rd world where it's actually needed, but nobody would give them hipster attention for out there, they're inventing new causes to get menstrual about here to have a more comfortable life.

No because that is libel and anyone who makes decisions based on cigs being "healthy" and gets Ill from then will sue the piss out of the company that thought it'd be a good idea to lie

this

Free market enable social liberalism, globalism, and degeneracy.

Only Neocon cuckservatives can believe in unregulated markets bullshit.

I'm not sure if your statement is correct although it is intuitive. Otherwise, we'd be all vegans. If you meant to say, suffering to the least degree, then I suppose you are equating other animals with humans. Is that the position you are willing to defend?

Empathy might be how we know something is right or wrong, but not how why we know something is right or wrong.

>But it is known to be considered unethical by many
do you believe this to be irrational?

Money is power, and corporation have the monopoly on capital, you mong.

>Empathy might be how we know something is right or wrong, but not how why something is right or wrong.
meant to say this

Corporation strip regulations, you kike shill.

Seriously, gas yourself, Ravi.

Regulations serve as a major barrier to entry that prevents new firms from entering markets which distorts the marketplace leading to higher prices and less competition.

This is because before someone can enter the market of a given industry they must first hire an army of lawyers and accountants to ensure that all of their practices conform to all of the regulations in place.

A free market is largely self-regulating anyway, so regulations just serve to empower entrenched market participants (read: large corporations) and harm the little guy in the form of higher prices, fewer job opportunities, fewer prospects for engaging in entrepreneurship, etc.

The German refugee is right.

>do you believe this to be irrational?

Not necessarily. They have their own world view based on their experiences. As much as I fundamentally disagree with the left and would probably casually use political/personal epithets at them, I'm happy for them to hold and express their own views so long as that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I'm a strong believer that opinions disagreeing with your own should be heard and examined on their merits and that the best thing you can do when encountered with a shitty argument is to give it a platform and amplify it so that everyone can see how shitty it is. By suppressing or disregarding other views, you make them almost like 'forbidden fruit' for the undecided and can increase their attraction to those who want to feel like they have one over on everyone else.

>Corporation strip regulations, you kike shill.

Almost all of the political lobbying done by major corporations is to put new regulations in place to make it harder for new companies to enter the market and compete away their profits.

What you stated is one of the most severe political misconceptions there is.

Regulated and unregulated markets are capable of producing unethical business practices. In unregulated markets, all market actors are equal (in theory). If one actor engages in "unethical" business practices (they are perceived as "unethical" by their consumer base), they will be penalised by their consumers, or lack thereof. "Unhealthy" business practices will either be too risky for the average consumer, or yield poor returns for investors, making them less desirable in general.

In a regulated market, few market actors are on an equal footing. Businesses are no longer separated by their economic "value", but are instead subject to tenable legal disparities that contend, simply, that the size of your business entitles to you different treatment. We now have a tiered system. This is a system, not only in which economic disparity plays a role, but entities you to a different legal status. In this system, powerful market actors are not just "wealthy" but legally privileged. It is easier for legislators to legally coerce small businesses, but not nearly as easy to legislate multi-national corporations. Aside from the pragmatic difficulty of international law, MNCs are simply more powerful.

There are subtle psychological disparities too, that are only further enabled by the disparate legal statuses: no one cares about a local fish & chip shop owner's response to some policy or another. Large corporates however are not only often BEHIND such regulation but policy input is more valued. When large multi-nationals in the financial sector say that policy X will result in their doing Y, legislators tend to listen. Generally, legislators are at the mercy of MNCs, not the other way around.

Also, in an unregulated market, customers can respond by taking their custom elsewhere. In a regulated one, customers MUST respond by appeals to legislators and hope for policy reform.

tl;dr: regulated leads to legal privilege and monopolisation. unregulated makes these more difficult.

I suppose your right. My main gripe about the whole animal suffering thing is that this implies that humans and animals have, at least to a degree, equal worth. Yet, we do not hold animals to the same standard of morality than we do to humans.

>free market
>status quo
toppest kek

It's not a false dichotomy at all.

Should people be able to freely trade with on another? That's literally it. It's not complicated even if you are a retarded kangaroo nigger

Let me clarify the last point: in an unregulated market, in response to "unethical" practices, customers taking their custom elsewhere is SUFFICIENT to change poor business practices. In a regulated market, it is NECESSARY for customers to appeal to legislators and hope for adequate policy reform.

Yeah, I'd agree with you on that. Animals are categorically not the same as humans and should not be afforded the same protections and rights as humans. That's not to say mistreatment and sadistic cruelty should be tolerated, just that they're not the same. But it can be entirely congruent for someone to form an opinion that completely opposes this and to think I'm uncaring for suggesting my opinion. That's one of the freedoms we can all enjoy.

Back to the original point of the thread, I see the free market as being an extension of this freedom. Allowing us to use our own beliefs and opinion forming to influence our purchases and the businesses we choose to support. By placing restrictions and regulations based on morality or ethics, we're either denying people the right to make those choices themselves or claiming something as subjective as opinion and ethics as being downright wrong. Okay, I might get accused of a false dichotomy for that argument, but I'd be interested in hearing a valid counterpoint to challenge it.

>Status quo is free Market
Why is it that retards say they don't like one thing and their ibky grievances agaisnt it are entirely detached from what they say they dislike?

I think a possible downside of a free market is that that the workers and consumers may not realize they are being exploited. But I still think that the free market is the best system when compared to the other ones.

Found out by who? And what consequences? If people wish to smoke after being well aware of the dangers of smoking, that's their choice, but cigarette companies would (and have) prioritise their profits over the health and wellbeing of the population. I don't see why anyone would be against the government regulating an aspect like this.

>'m a strong believer that opinions disagreeing with your own should be heard and examined on their merits and that the best thing you can do when encountered with a shitty argument is to give it a platform and amplify it so that everyone can see how shitty it is.
Shame that the left doesn't do this and suppresses any and all dissent with either social ostracism or r removing free speech entirely.

This being dueto the fact that leftist ideas don't survive merit based scrutiny.

scientists could probably find the health risks of smoking and publicize their findings. People will find out and stop buying smokes though as the user mentioned, some people still would.

>prioritise their profits over the health and wellbeing of the population
after the health risks of smoking are well known to the public, I doubt that people who buy from them as the company would have a bad reputation of being liars.

Nobody who supports Trump supports a free market

>but cigarette companies would (and have) prioritise their profits over the health and wellbeing of the population.
See
And then read

Nice dubs.

Still wrong though.

>implying consumers have enough time and enough shits to give to learn about every last unethical business on earth and avoid them

regulation can happen in a free market. it's actually a business opportunity.

>be world renowned doctor in libertarian paradise
>public hold you in the highest regard
>start business where medical professionals pay to receive your tick of approval if they meet your rigorous standards

read the rest of the thread

... but iPhones are produced by foreign slave labor now and the same liberals and faggots wait in line to pay hundreds of dollars markup just to buy them.

Are liberals and faggots admitting that they do not have the self-control to make good choices, thus they need Daddy Government to hold their hand?

That's most likely to happen in industries that are natural monopolies. In other industries, the increase in competition would drive up working standards as companies competed for the best talent and to retain their workers. Without the ability to lobby government to legislate in their favour, big companies would be forced to compete with the standards and enthusiasm offered by the smaller, newer companies.
For those in the natural monopolies, I dare say it would be an unpopular opinion on Sup Forums but I think trade unions would be their best bet to protect their rights and promote good practice.

Exactly why their views should be given a platform, as it where they can receive mass ridicule and drive away support when it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Of course, there will be those who don't care for facts, reason and logic and they can often have a very loud voice. But many people on the left can actually be quite sane, reasonable and rational people. They're just used to the circle jerk on the left and not getting their opinions challenged. If you do so rationally, calmly and without giving cause to being called racist or bigot etc, it's quite an easy process to subtly redpill them or at least give them the tools to challenge their own beliefs.

OK, according to you how should food be regulated? Are you OK with large amounts of lead in food?

>this is what ancapfags actually believe

Bullshit. Fag companies could easily form an alliance with some sort of association of bogus doctors who'd shill cigs. When said fag consumer gets lung cancer, the doctors could lie out of their arse.

People in state food regulation can be hired by independent inspection agencies and I'll only eat mass produced food that is verified

It's not libel at all. look up health benefits of smoking, although they are far outweighed by the negatives, it would not be libel to phrase this in a way which could portray this as a healthy activity.

>How is a regulated market not better?

Because a regulated market is regulated unethically. Like a free market will be practiced unethically.

You can have whatever fucking market model you want, if humans are involved it will be manipulated to some extent somewhere.

And nobody will go to those doctors, except for idiots, and then we can bring back natural selection

>muh morality
>"having a gripe" with people trying to stop cruelty toward animals

Fuck off

>but animals are people too!

Abby Champion

true, though trade unions could be abused too

that depends on the moral framework you subscribe too. Morality typically only extends to humans and not animals. Much in the same way most of Sup Forums sees nonwhites as subhumans and thus undeserving of equal treatment

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Good argument cuck. You've had your daily allowance of Sup Forums for the day now though. I think I hear your wife calling you to get Ahmed ready for her then change her son's nappy.

is it me Japan alwais sound wise and intiligent

>caring about the suffering of an animal means your a lefty cuck

If anyone needs a break from r/pol it's you.

you still yet to explain why an animal has inherent worth that allows it to have some inalienable rights to not be mistreated

Mind the abbo doesn't kidnap your daughter and fuck her on your way out.

Define 'worth' because as far as I'm aware a lot of humans have little to no worth.

It's an innate quality that a human does not want to see another living being undergo suffering, human or animal.

I meant inherent worth. For example, a retarded baby might be worthless in its utility, but we still wouldn't kill it because of its inherent worth. I would think that's where the concept of human rights originate from.

>It's an innate quality that a human does not want to see another living being undergo suffering, human or animal.
I don't know if this is true. We've been using animals as farm slaves and other labor instruments for a long time.

I agree that the worth of a human is greater than that of an animal however I don't see how this had anything to do with suffering (note: not death, killing an animal is fine but willfuly putting it through uneccasary pain is different)

We live in a free market, neoliberal economy you absolute retard