Alright, I have watched the video you told me about. I actually would have prefered reading your opinion in your own words and phrasing, but anyway - I now have got the impression that I actually do have a better understanding of your position, albeit I still have to disagree with it. But let us start with the beginning:



The main premise seems to be derived from the empirical observation that "people will seek profits, no matter what" (instead of simply being "profits are good") and in accordance that "greedier people will got through greater lengths to obtain profits".

At this point I could already argue against this viewpoint because this initial premise is set in an axiomatic fashion and is not further examined, although there would be some important questions to be asked here. For example:

1) Are economic profits the only profits that motivate people within social interaction? What other motivations have to be taken into account?

2) What are the social circumstances that create greed? (since there seem to be differences in this quality between different individuals)



But I won't go there right now - it was just something I wanted to point out. So let's continue:

The video goes on to explain that a "free market" prohibits inside and outside force and fraud (which especially includes any attempt to keep away competition except by having the better or cheaper product). The video gives two examples for fraud and force here: violence connected to black-market-alcohol during prohibition and (more interestingly) corporations seeking favorable legislation from the state. A free market that stops this kind of force and fraud actually does sound pretty good, but how is the free market going to achieve this?

This question is answered by the video via the reference of two mechanisms: the invisible hand (1) & the rule of law (2).

I will articulate my criticism against these concepts later on, but right now it suffices to note that these two mechanisms are supposed to protect the individual against force and fraud on the basis of "property rights". "Property" in this case includes the ownership of one's own body, time and physical work force (as I wrote in my initial post as well). The protection of this "property" is secured by said "property rights". At this point the video fails to elaborate who has these rights exactly - only natural persons (people) or legal persons (companies, businesses) as well? This is a highly important question for everything that follows! What is your opinion, ~BlameThe1st?

We have to note that the theory has a blank spot right here that could potentially lead to problems...



The video then goes on to criticize the "war on drugs" and "licensing practices", which is not really interesting, since I agree on those points.



So now we have the basis for an educated debate on the "free market"-concept and I can go back to my original assertion and point of criticism that I articulated in my initial post.

Assertion: The "free market" creates hierachy and oppression because of the unequal distribution of property.



I still believe this to be true, but it seems I have to do some further explaining and reasoning.

John Locke who is metioned in the video published his "Second Treatise of Civil Government" in 1690 (before the industrial revolution even started) and utilizes a concept of an initial "state of nature" to deduce his philosophie - that is a state prior to property. Today we already have an unequal distribution of property. Much of the means of producion is owned by the very few and much actually not by people but legal persons (corporations, businesses, etc.), while most of the natural people own nothing more than their own body (as explained before). In difference to land or machinery though human bodys require constant subsistence - you need food, water, sleep, shelter and so on... Are these basic needs covered through "property rights" in the "free market"-concept? I don't think they are, although their fullfilment is necessary to protect the property of the individuals who owns nothing but their own body.



Within a system of unequal distribution of property (as we live in today) this causes problems. I'll give an example for purposes of demonstration:

One person owns the agricultural land and the harvested food, while the other people just own their own bodies and work force. The owner of the land is dependend on the work force of the other people but he has time to spare while the other people need the food (payment) right now for their subsistence - just to stay alive. Therefor the owner of the land is in a position of power and can make demands and set the rules for the others. We now have a solidified state of hierachy (which is the opposite of anarchy).



Of course you will object here that I did describe a monopoly in this case, but in fact we find similar (but more complex) situations in reality: Monsanto might be an example here. Their aggressive use of copyright laws has destroyed almost all competition. Small farmers have no way of protecting themselves. I have never heard a free-market-libertarian calling for the expropriation of Monsanto - so how do we stop this hierachical situation that we actually have to face?



The concept of the invisible hand also has a flaw in today's situation: We live in a world of economic globalization and the social systems in which a product is produced is not the same in which it is sold. Another example: We don't notice the ecological consequences of oil-palm monoculture in our everyday lifes - we just see cheap and tasty food and the friendly cashier. Therefor the effect of the invisible hand (that is indeed not magic) is cancelled out or at least highly reduced...



I'm going to stop at this point for now and I am looking forward to your reply.

Best regards and respect

~constantly-confused