Again, which free market are you arguing against?
We live in countries controlled by those who make the most money ad we're traded like the cattle we are. There are free market, capitalist and socialist countries out there and some do OK for themselves but we're not living in them.

Well again, clearly this country touts itself as the ideal place for the free market, because I do not know of any other place where this is technically legal. I wonder how the UK government would react if this company was in the UK? Would the government just waive a finger, and say 'naughty naughty' and thats it? Or would they take some kind of ACTUAL action? Again, since this is legal here this IS how the free market is supposed to work - the US government has NO legal recourse to do anything. SO then, I am asking how the free market plans to fix this. It is legal, the US government can only waive their finger. Now lets see how this free market capitalist system will resolve this.

At this point, I am AGAINST ANY government action. That will be government meddling, and we cannot have that now can we? The market must and will be left to it's own devices. So, lets see what happens shall we? Yes, lets.

I think the UK government would do what they were paid for by the company in question as the US one is. Sadly our governments are every bit as corrupt and self-serving as those they demonise during the cold war. If Russia is anything to go by that will never change.

Ah, so free market has clearly taken hold there too huh? Seems to me that only those nostalgic for the old Soviet days in Russia the true anti free-marketers. Though do not get me wrong, I wouldn't want to live in that type of government either. There are parts of capitalism I like, but actually there are also parts of socialism that I also like and parts of capitalism that I hate and of course parts of socialism that I hate.

If I truly hated any kind of socialism, I would be 100% behind the privatisation of social security here - but I do not think I have to worry about that, since by the time I reach retirement age I most likely will not have any kind of pension anyways. So, at this point I am only sorry that my kid will pretty much also be outright screwed.

-edit

Also, I came from Eastern Europe (mid 80s) so at the death-throws of communism, but after over 30+ years here it is ironic that the very things we railed against, corruption, blatent propaganda and fear-mongering and lies, are a page out of communist dictatorships, only the wrapper is capitalism this time.

Bresnev and co would have been in awe.

Practically jumped out of one fire and into another one.

I believe 273's point is that your country/politicians are lying when they claim that.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/inve...ive/index.html

It is only a matter of time before the US begins to reverse many of the mistakes that it started to make in the late 1980's and beyond ... to return to things that worked for many decades ...

• "Access to health care is a fundamental human right." Health care is not "for profit." There will be a US National Heath Service. The constitution declares that humans have an inalienable right to "life" and to "the pursuit of happiness," which cannot be when you're sick and can't afford to get well.
• The Glass-Steagall Act will be reinstated. The "title pawn" loan-shark industry will be outlawed. Credit scoring will be regulated and "open-sourced," and you will be notified, with right of dispute and appeal, before any adverse entry may be added to it.
• Corporations are not People, and they are not mentioned at all in the US Constitution. They do not have "constitutional rights." They are chartered and subject to regulation.
• Corporations are forbidden to participate in politics nor to provide money, direct or indirect assistance, nor any other consideration to political activities or candidates.

What? You think, cynically, that such things can never be done? Think again. A country's government can be anything that the public compels it to be.

At the end of the tale, the Prodigal Son did wise up, and did realize what he had done to himself. He wised up, went home, and took a long hot shower, while those around him wondered silently, "what took you so long?"

There are certain things that "free markets" simply cannot do, not only because they have limited(!) resources, but also because they by definition pursue a profit motive. Government largely exists to do things which cannot be done "profitably."

And how will people compel the government? It can't be done with votes because there are only two choices given and they're heads of the same animal anyhow. Look as what happened to Dominique Strauss-Kahn and David Kelly when they exposed government corruption also -- things can't even be changed form the inside.

The government is already compelled by bri- I mean lobbying from corporations, and some CEOs have gone into politics as well, no conflict of interest there. How can the regular people even begin to compel the government, when you also have out of control campaign contributions, and is fought tooth-and-nail NOT to have to disclose contributing parties and the amounts contributed?

Maybe you don't have enough faith to believe in the invisible hand of the market
(Sorry, bad joke).

I do not, which is the entire point of this thread. I wonder if we applied this same logic to other situations, like say crime. I am sure we can just do without law enforcement and expect everyone to do the right thing. Any sort of law enforcement means a police state. Oversimplification perhaps, but again I do not and cannot take this 'free market' laissez faire stance, that no government interference of any kind when an entity clearly has done something wrong should be left to their own devices, and expect that self-regulation is the only option. Sorry I am not naive. May as well also let wolves guard all the live stock, and a fox guard a chicken house. I am sure nothing will go wrong...

Well, the text of the Constitution of the United States lists two "High Crimes" by name: Treason, and Bribery.

The only thing that the Citizens United decision ... and several subsequent decisions by the Roberts court ... confirms, is that the Supreme Court is just as susceptible to bribery as is everybody else.

The word, "Corporation," never appears in the Constitution. Furthermore, Corporations have never been chartered by the Federal Government: they are always chartered by the Several States. Even if a Corporation does business internationally (as almost every one of them do), and even if they are a subsidiary of an international conglomerate, they still fall under the jurisdiction of some US State in which they have been chartered. Until very recently, they were prohibited from engaging in politics.

And so, actually, there is nothing which says that the present status-quo is inevitable ... or even that it is actually legal, no matter what the Supreme Court may decide. A court may say what a law is not, but it can't create law. (Even though that's lately precisely what the Supreme Court has decided that it has the sovereign authority to do.)

The only question is: "are enough people 'mad enough' to compel the system to change? ... yet?"

Because: when hundreds of millions of citizens demand that "six hundred, give-or-take" people (Senators, Congressmen, Justices, Presidents, and bureaucrats) must do something ... you can be most assured that they will.

FDR said it best: "I agree with you. Now, make me do it."

I agree (at least on the free market part). I was referring to the intangible notion of an invisible hand that, according to the advocates of free market, would fix the problems of the economy. Which is absurd in a field that's supposed to be scientific like economics (you need to have faith to believe that something like an ethereal "invisible hand" will fix our economic problems).

Kinda like how money is only valuable if enough people put value in it, otherwise it is just paper and metal to a certain extent; i.e. 'fiat currency'.

I don't presume just how much the government needs to get involved, but again at the same time I just cannot take the whole notion of a completely unregulated economy is a good thing. Too many examples of how an unregulated economy lead to many disasters, most recent last decade's crash due to banking, derivatives, and mortgage crisis. If that is what the free market is supposed to be, then fine label me a dirty commie / socialist for wanting some kind of regulation to prevent entities from gambling with our money, then taking our money by 'legal' means to bail out their mistakes.

I feel - ought to point out, at this juncture, that "even" in an anarchy a person has a right to be, a right to work, a right to benefit from that work and other rights.
There is a difference between "regulation" as happens now and cracking down on taking advantage of, and legalising the taking advantage of, those not lucy enough to be within. A certain circle.