Free Market vs. Freed Market

Most if not all on this board know the difference between the mainstream view of the "free market" and a genuine free market.  On another board, there was some debate over whether it would be apt to use another term to describe a genuine free market.  One term that came up was "freed market".  Curious to hear your thoughts on adopting this term. 

 

Open market?

Perhaps we could rename the mainstream view of the free market, the "Licensed Market"  and use the term "Freed Market" as proposed.

I like the terms voluntary and involuntary, so it would look something like this:

The voluntary and involuntary markets instead of the free and freed markets

and also,

The voluntary and involuntary sectors instead of the private and public sectors. I think this would also help more people understand that just because the business is privately owned doesn't make it "Capitalism" i.e the Federal Reserve Bank, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac etc. would be part of the involuntary sector.

I think it's definitely worth using "freed market." The change of tense creates an element of distance that makes it clear you're not talking about actually existing markets. Too often libertarians defend the status quo, thinking it's a free market, when in reality there are statist elements they should be attacking. And surely we want to avoid being apologists for statism!

I like the terms voluntary and involuntary markets as well.  The only caveat is it not as catchy as Open Market, Free Market, or Freed Market.

If we replace the term "free market," we should replace it with "open market." I've used the term "free and open market(s)" before in debates.

I never thought of it that way, that the current market is a "licensed market". 

From one point of view, the term "license" may provide legitimacy to a company as opposed to describing restrictions of the that particular market.

The term "open market" may have merit, in that their is traction with the term "open" in the "open source" community.

I have no objections, and I think the term would translate well into many languages.

I've used "free and open market(s)" before in order to emphasize the part that entrepreneurs are free to enter and exit business without any government regulations or mandates.

I would suggest "Hampered Market" as an alternative to "Licensed Market"

How about just "the market"?

 

Free market is a matter of degree though.  So while ours may not be entirely free, it is mostly free.  Some markets are freer than others.

Economic Freedom Index by Heritage Foundation

I like the term market, because it is simple.  However, the term "market" also has a negative connotation similar to "free market", although technically, it is an accurate term.

bloomj31:

Free market is a matter of degree though.  So while ours may not be entirely free, it is mostly free.  Some markets are freer than others.

Economic Freedom Index by Heritage Foundation

No, it's not. Try opening a business.

Daniel Muffinburg:

 

No, it's not. Try opening a business.

I guess "mostly free" is like being "mostly pregnant".

I could agree with the notion that some markets are freer than others, but that doesn't make them "free" markets, unless the market is completely free.  Until then, it's a mixed market economy.

bloomj31:

Free market is a matter of degree though.  So while ours may not be entirely free, it is mostly free.

Code of Federal Regulations

(Thanks to whoever linked that before. I love pulling it out on people who assert that XYZ is unregulated.)

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

I could agree with the notion that some markets are freer than others, but that doesn't make them "free" markets, unless the market is completely free.  Until then, it's a mixed market economy.

While we're discussing terminology, I think "mixed economy" is one of the worst phrases an Austrian could ever use, because it implies that some mixture is actually possible.

Justin Spahr-Summers:

While we're discussing terminology, I think "mixed economy" is one of the worst phrases an Austrian could ever use, because it implies that some mixture is actually possible.

How does it make that implication?  Is calling socialism socialism an implication that socialism can work?  Or, is calling economic interventionism as such implication that interventionism can work?  To me it seems that "mixed economy" simply implies that the economy is "mixed", or there is a mixture of market and interventionism.  In any case, literally, said mixture is possible; whether or not it will lead to more efficiency, on the other hand, is a different topic, altogether.

I'm sick of retreating from words. I just tell people that what is demonized as capitalism is actually mercantilism and corporatism.

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Justin Spahr-Summers:

While we're discussing terminology, I think "mixed economy" is one of the worst phrases an Austrian could ever use, because it implies that some mixture is actually possible.

How does it make that implication?  Is calling socialism socialism an implication that socialism can work?  Or, is calling economic interventionism as such implication that interventionism can work?  To me it seems that "mixed economy" simply implies that the economy is "mixed", or there is a mixture of market and interventionism.  In any case, literally, said mixture is possible; whether or not it will lead to more efficiency, on the other hand, is a different topic, altogether.

The so-called mixture would be the free market and interventionism. But as soon as any intervention is present, it is no longer a free market in any sense. Even completely unrelated industries are affected by the interference into the natural workings of the market. So any "mixed economy" is immediately definable as corporatism, and then it's a slippery slope to socialism or communism from there.

I think the "free market" actually obscures the meaning. If the market is not free then it is not a market, it is superflous and makes it easier to rile up against it as it makes it more of a goose-speak. Harder to rile up against "the market". Where else are you going to sell the vegetables?!

Justin Spahr-Summers:

The so-called mixture would be the free market and interventionism. But as soon as any intervention is present, it is no longer a free market in any sense. Even completely unrelated industries are affected by the interference into the natural workings of the market. So any "mixed economy" is immediately definable as corporatism, and then it's a slippery slope to socialism or communism from there.

I agree and have virtually said the same thing in above posts, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to whether or not the term "mixed market" implies that such a market is "OK".

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

I could agree with the notion that some markets are freer than others, but that doesn't make them "free" markets, unless the market is completely free.  Until then, it's a mixed market economy.

This.

Justin Spahr-Summers:

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Justin Spahr-Summers:

While we're discussing terminology, I think "mixed economy" is one of the worst phrases an Austrian could ever use, because it implies that some mixture is actually possible.

How does it make that implication?  Is calling socialism socialism an implication that socialism can work?  Or, is calling economic interventionism as such implication that interventionism can work?  To me it seems that "mixed economy" simply implies that the economy is "mixed", or there is a mixture of market and interventionism.  In any case, literally, said mixture is possible; whether or not it will lead to more efficiency, on the other hand, is a different topic, altogether.

.... So any "mixed economy" is immediately definable as corporatism, ...

Yes, so what is the problem?

ViennaSausage:

One term that came up was "freed market".

The Alliance of the Lame Left likes to use that.  It's horrible and they are terrible at marketing and entrepreneurship in nearly everything they do.

Open market is infinitely better and easier to explain.

I do like the term open market because it's short and catchy, but what is the opposite of an open market? a closed market? Because of the difficulties of discribing what isn't an open market I think that voluntary and involuntary are better terms.

The market of voluntary cooperation and exchange

The market of involuntary "cooperation" and exchange

So it's not so much a "mixed market" as it is two seperate markets.

Joseph S:

I do like the term open market because it's short and catchy, but what is the opposite of an open market? a closed market?

Many people don't make a second order logical analysis, which is why catchy names are so effective.

It's about making a fast and simple emotional impression.  Branding.

liberty student:

ViennaSausage:

One term that came up was "freed market".

The Alliance of the Lame Left likes to use that.  It's horrible and they are terrible at marketing and entrepreneurship in nearly everything they do.

Open market is infinitely better and easier to explain.

Would be nice to see them (Agorists) eventually break-away & get more concerned with results that don't wallow around in the (mostly) theoretical playground of ideology on the internet. 

I'm beginning to distaste the Market Anarchism term as it seems to be far too vague, & most anarchists with whom the ALL is supposed to cater to regarding theory, argumentation, advertising, etc. have mostly made up their mind that market anarchism is just another term for anarcho-capitalism, which of course all supposed "real" anarchists despise almost as much as the State.    

On topic; I've discussed ideas of Agorism with some of my peers before (whom are Statist), and being careful to not name drop certain labels or ideology (& merely focusing on the results & ideas of Agorism), & generally most of them like what they hear, especially when I tie it in to the growing awareness that things need  to get scaled back & decentralized massively to deal with the overbearing debt that is accumulating due to the bloated state & federal government(s) (among other things). 

Admittance of the possible limitations of Agorism (I doubt we'll see explicit Agorists making TV's or cars, lol) reduce the perception that it is an arrogant ideological stance, while the clarification of a cultural change via the market processes of spreading Agorism would eventually water down to more & more individuals who focus on what works better than what doesn't, until a good majority are Agorists & probably don't even know it (i.e. participating in the black market but not really knowing it, or overcoming previous personal objections because the situation requires it for their survival). 

Comparisons to the Revolution help, because not every citizen who fought or lived  in the beginning of the United States had the same knowledge or place in time as the Founding Fathers did, who could be looked as early adopters for the initiation of the United States, average citizens being late adopters to something that works with which to live & operate a society under a newly established republic.    


Also, a big hit was to clarify what "black market" actually means (i.e. cutting through disinfo & misinterpretations), and how it is already growing to meet the demands of consumers & citizens during the recession (& how a black market was necessary for survival under the Soviet Union). 

It goes without saying here, but it's surprising to see how ignorant people are that everyday personal exchanges can & do in fact form the basis of black-market activity among usually pink & white-market citizens.     

I think the differentiation of those involved in the ALL would be better off & making more progress by operating in different areas of activism than coming together under a misnomer label. 

The entire anchoring to political labels is growing tiring & inefficient for propagating ideas to people who come to arguments with their minds already made up before the verbal exchanges even begin, but I guess trying to ignore or avoid political label semantic arguments or cat fights, & focusing on what works versus what doesn't work, seems to be too utilitarian / nihilistic / lame / another strawmen descriptor somehow, to some, I suppose.   

Merley pointing that is itself tiring (not the firs time its been said), as the libertarian movement, while growing in popularity, seems to getting watered down with the old game of labels & using old & tried political axis & definitions.  I don't even know why the argument of "is libertarian conservative liberal rainbow polka dotted etc." is even treated as a serious intellectual inquiry anymore, beyond the newbie level of course.   

Nice post Nitro.  Excellent in fact.

I agree with you about labels, which is why I just call myself whatever, whenever.  Anyone serious about inquiry will be interested in my ideas anyway.

Re: agorism, I think that brand has taken a big hit by being associated with people on the margins, or the intellectual class which pays into pensions, pays their taxes, utilizes tenure, and then claims, "I am an agorist blogger!".

There is a coming gap in this movement (how i dislike that word as well), and it is between the people who say,

"I am an ancap/label/label/label" and the people who actually practice anarcho-capitalism, or objectivism, or libertarianism or agorism.

Scenesters and prime movers.

Right now people are barely comfortable identifying with unpopular or obscure ideas.  The real sea change won't come until they start being comfortable with living those ideas.

Slightly off topic: Any suggestions of Agorist reading material?

liberty student:

There is a coming gap in this movement (how i dislike that word as well), and it is between the people who say,

"I am an ancap/label/label/label" and the people who actually practice anarcho-capitalism, or objectivism, or libertarianism or agorism.

How does one "practice" anarcho-capitalism?

"The 'private sector' of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the 'public sector' is, in fact, the coercive sector." - Henry Hazlitt

Marko:

liberty student:

There is a coming gap in this movement (how i dislike that word as well), and it is between the people who say,

"I am an ancap/label/label/label" and the people who actually practice anarcho-capitalism, or objectivism, or libertarianism or agorism.

How does one "practice" anarcho-capitalism?

How does one "practice" an economic exchange in the market not based on coercion?

liberty student:

Right now people are barely comfortable identifying with unpopular or obscure ideas.  The real sea change won't come until they start being comfortable with living those ideas.

And it's very easy to get comfortable with it, once you know it. I'll be happier living in a community where people don't turn to coercive action or the government to fulfill their desires. It's also given me inner peace, where I can have consistent ethics, morals and political philosophy. (at least way more consistent than anything else I've learned of)

Conza88:

"The 'private sector' of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the 'public sector' is, in fact, the coercive sector." - Henry Hazlitt

I refer to them as 'civilized' and 'uncivilized' but I think 'coercive' would be a better adjective than 'uncivilized'

Marko:

How does one "practice" anarcho-capitalism?

With a lot of discretion.