The Invisible Hand of the Market....Again

[Tiberius]

Is it prohibited by the free market to use your resources and your willing allies to force others to play by your rules?

Quoting from Wikipedia again:

"A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority."

So no, it's not prohibited to use your resources and willing allies to force others to play by your rules, but if you try to do it, and your "willing ally" is the government, then it's categorically not a free market anymore, and due to the use of government intervention, the "invisible hand" metaphor is not applicable.

---

Divi Tiberio, I simply do not think you are as naive as you come across.

...and I don't think you are as confused over definitions as you come across. Unfortunately I rather think you like to do it on purpose.

When you speak of the invisible hand of the market you sound like Drippy whining about his fucking god and with good reason. Neither exist.

It's a metaphor...of course it doesn't "exist". However, if you think that a marketplace cannot regulate itself, you and I are at a disagreement. Markets have existed to some degree before governments started trying to control them, and there are still parts of the market that are not regulated by the government. To deny market self regulation is to deny reality.

In the case at hand these corporate cocksuckers are buying influence and access to government to pass laws (which they are writing for their wholly owned legislative subsidiaries) to introduce and which do exactly the opposite of what you claim capitalism is all about. They are corrupting markets by stealing everything that isn't nailed down.

Here's the fucking stupid thing: we agree on this part. I've told you as much before. I hate, hate, hate corporatism. I despise the fact that businesses can purchase laws that give them an advantage in the market.

However, instead of blaming the "free market" or the "invisible hand", I understand that those terms both explicitly require that government intervention in the market doesn't happen.

If the government intervenes in a "free market", then it is no longer a "free market".
If the government attempts to be the "invisible hand", then the "invisible hand" metaphor no longer applies.

You shift the blame when making posts like these, from those that are responsible (the company behind the legislation and the government itself) to the free market, or to the "invisible hand".

To give an analogy, it's like having a country declare itself a democracy, then having a candidate rig the voting machines so he wins in a landslide victory and can make up any new laws he pleases, and them blaming democracy for what has happened. Democracy isn't to blame, because a democracy is defined as a form of government in which "all eligible citizens participate equally". If the candidate has rigged the voting machines so that eligible citizens cannot participate (or their participation is nulled), then the government is no longer a democracy.

Kindly wake up. You are smarter than this. Which makes me suspicious of your motives.

Kindly read a dictionary, or at least look up terms on Wikipedia before you try to use them in conversation. You are smarter than this!

We do not have a free market system; free market analogies and metaphors do not apply!