How so? Under state governance businesses are forced to pay a certain entity for security (policing) and other services through taxes on pain of loss of property. This is a monopoly on essential services enforced by violence, basically the most anti-free market thing ever.
Okay devil’s advocate over, serious argument here: The monopoly on violence, by definition, comes with the ability to make and enforce various rules for the operation of the market. This is tax codes, zoning laws, labor laws, tariffs, environment protection laws, IP law, etc. The ideal of the perfect free market requires that these rules to be minimalist and “fair,” but that’s impossible to achieve because nobody can objectively decide which rules are necessary and fair and which are not. Therefore it’s always going to be possible to argue that such and such isn’t a true free market because this or that rule stifles competition, ultimately tying back into the point that a true free market can’t be subject to arbitrary rules and therefore is incompatible with the monopoly on violence. The two senses of “free” are identical here.
I still think that you are being overly literal for an argument (“There is no such thing as a free market”) that doesn’t actually get you anywhere. If free markets don’t exist, then personal freedom doesn’t exist for the exact same reasons. But to get there, you have to rely on the idea that “you can argue” without examining whether those arguments have any merit. Nobody takes “free” to mean “absolute freedom”. It’s always relative. This is a silly semantic argu… oh. This is silly. Damn it. Why didn’t anyone stop me.
First point doesn’t hold together. You’re relying on the reader conflating senses of “free”.
How so? Under state governance businesses are forced to pay a certain entity for security (policing) and other services through taxes on pain of loss of property. This is a monopoly on essential services enforced by violence, basically the most anti-free market thing ever.
Okay devil’s advocate over, serious argument here: The monopoly on violence, by definition, comes with the ability to make and enforce various rules for the operation of the market. This is tax codes, zoning laws, labor laws, tariffs, environment protection laws, IP law, etc. The ideal of the perfect free market requires that these rules to be minimalist and “fair,” but that’s impossible to achieve because nobody can objectively decide which rules are necessary and fair and which are not. Therefore it’s always going to be possible to argue that such and such isn’t a true free market because this or that rule stifles competition, ultimately tying back into the point that a true free market can’t be subject to arbitrary rules and therefore is incompatible with the monopoly on violence. The two senses of “free” are identical here.
I still think that you are being overly literal for an argument (“There is no such thing as a free market”) that doesn’t actually get you anywhere. If free markets don’t exist, then personal freedom doesn’t exist for the exact same reasons. But to get there, you have to rely on the idea that “you can argue” without examining whether those arguments have any merit. Nobody takes “free” to mean “absolute freedom”. It’s always relative. This is a silly semantic argu… oh. This is silly. Damn it. Why didn’t anyone stop me.