Comment: What?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thanks for making my point (see in situ)

What?

why are you blaming unprosecuted fraud on the free market? We don't have a free market, yet you are somehow trying to say that fraud on wall street is an evil of the free market? I don't get it. And yes, we have "rules", but a law against fraud is not the same as a law against being "too big to fail". A free market doesn't support such a thing as too big to fail, yet you keep trying to say it does, because we have that ideology in the US. Again, we aren't a free market, so stop trying to blame our problems on the free market. We are state sponsored capitalism, or corporatism like I said. So the idea that some companies are too big to fail is an idea that comes from that state sponsored aspect of our economy. The fact that some fraud went unprosecuted isn't the fault of the free market that we don't have. It is the fault of the statist economy/government mix we have. However, to the most important point you keep mixing up, free market doesn't mean anarchy. A law against fraud isn't inconsistent with the idea of a free market, it is essential to the idea of a free market. Free market capitalism doesn't not mean anarchy, it means 100% ownership of your property. That requires a law which protects you from theft. It doesn't however require laws which "regulate" how big a company can be, or what prices they can charge. Laws protecting rights are not to be confused with regulations which states make to "guide" business. Free markets are not anarchistic. I don't know how many more ways I can explain it without you constantly missing that point. I am not "free" if I have no right to protect my property from theft. With that concept in place, a company is not "free" to steal from me, only to offer me a contract to exchange my property, labor, land, etc. for theirs. Fraud, theft, murder, are all ways in which individuals property is stolen from them, thus, they are robbed of a percentage of their means of production. When you lose even 1% of the ownership of your means of production, you are no longer a free market capitalist. Laws should exist only in so far as they protect your 100% stake in your ownership of your means of production. That is free market capitalism. Any thing I need to clear up about that?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).