I think part of the issue is most of the Trumpers are quite dim, all you need to do is Google their NIC to find out a lot more about them (if bothered). They reuse the NIC on other sites. That will be vastly less common on the left. Some don't care about the world knowing who they are but the guys who seem shocked are always low IQ.
A truly free market would not bode well for fair play. A truly free market would guarantee a widening wealth gap.
Over my head? You lefties are pissing into the wind. I was pointing out that of course a lefty from Canada like freddie would not want to hear contrary opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas The marketplace of ideas is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse, and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population. The concept is often applied to discussions of patent law as well as freedom of the press and the responsibilities of the media in a liberal democracy. The marketplace of ideas metaphor is founded in the philosophy of John Milton in his work "Areopagitica" in 1644 and also John Stuart Mill in his book, On Liberty in 1859 (although neither use the term "marketplace").[citation needed] It was later used in opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States. The first reference to the "free trade in ideas" within "the competition of the market" appears in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s dissent in Abrams v. United States.[1] The phrase "marketplace of ideas" first appears in a concurring opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in the Supreme Court decision United States v. Rumely in 1953: "Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas."[2] The Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined the marketplace of ideas as the dominant public policy in American free speech law (that is, against which narrow exceptions to freedom of speech must be justified by specific countervailing public policies). While the previous cases dealt with natural persons,[citation needed] the 1976 decision Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council expanded it to corporations by creating a curtailed corporate commercial speech right, striking down a government regulation of advertising in the process.[3] It has not been seriously questioned since in United States jurisprudence,[citation needed] but the legacy of those decisions have lead to subsequent decisions like Citizens United v. FEC that curtailed the government's ability to regulate corporate speech[3] and much more expansive advertising campaigns, commercial and political, than Americans had experienced previously.[4] The general idea that free speech should be tolerated because it will lead toward the truth has a long history.[5] The English poet John Milton suggested that restricting speech was not necessary because "in a free and open encounter", truth would prevail.[6] U.S. President Thomas Jefferson argued that it is safe to tolerate "error of opinion ... where reason is left free to combat it".[7] Fredrick Siebert echoed the idea that free expression is self-correcting in Four Theories of the Press: "Let all with something to say be free to express themselves. The true and sound will survive. The false and unsound will be vanquished. Government should keep out of the battle and not weigh the odds in favor of one side or the other."[8] These writers did not rely on the economic analogy to a market. If beliefs such as religions are considered as ideas, the marketplace of ideas concept favors a marketplace of religions rather than forcing a state religion or forbidding incompatible beliefs. In this sense, it provides a rationale for freedom of religion.[9] In recent years questions have arisen regarding the existence of markets in ideas. Several scholars have noted differences between the way ideas are produced and consumed and the way more traditional goods are produced and consumed.[10] It has also been argued that the idea of the marketplace of ideas as applied to religion "incorrectly assumes a level playing field" among religions.[11] In addition, the idea of a marketplace of ideas has been applied to the study of scientific research as a social institution.[12]
The more lefty you move the more the income gap. You have the party and you have the poor. (at the extreme) In socialist Europe you had the cronies and the workers. Taxes, regulations and inflation cause a vast amount of the wealth gap. In many ways taxes are designed to separate the people from the cronies.
Try to think a move in advance. Either extreme results in a wealth gap due to human nature if not the supposed intent. The best of life happens somewhere in between. A truly free market means no regulation. Take a moment to consider the potential consequences of a free-for-all economic environment.
I think you are going to have to define a "truly free market". my thought was similar to this... an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. But within the context of government being there to ensure saftey. You may be talking about a nihilistic no government scenario? .
This should be tried more often. It slows people who don't have wealth faking it via credit cards etc. Half the Mercedes about where I live are on crazy high financing for example, they are all trying fake it till you make it and how many succeed? This Country Publishes Everyone’s Income on ‘National Jealousy Day’ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...lary-transparency_us_5bdc520fe4b01ffb1d0170ec
What about monopolies created by the largest in the industry, to the detriment of potential competitors and customers? What about blatant oligopolistic price collusion to the detriment of consumers? (More so than usual.) What about the safety you referred to? Product safety? Environmental safety? Employee working conditions safety? What about false claims? No oversight? Let the consumer take it to the courts and be bled dry by deep-pocketed corporate interests? And so on. And so widens the wealth gap.
In my view a free market is free of most Monopolies and oligopolistic collusion and govt controlled pricing. However, I would agree my govt ensuring safety definition was a reach. I wanted to see your definition. But in terms of the wealth gap. Follow the cronies, follow the polticians, follow the taxes. That is where you will find wealth gaps. With free competition you have creative destruction. Our banking sector would have change dramatically after the mortgage crisis. You would also not have private central banks creating sovereign currencies with a key stroke and distributing it as they see fit.
Thomas Piketty has written an entire book on the wealth gap in developed nations. It turns out that a wealth gap is the normal state off affairs and a large and growing wealth gap is also normal The prosperous period 1950-1970 in the U.S. was accompanied by an abnormally low wealth gap. However, it turns out that a very large wealth gap is socially destabilizing. It's is a case were normal can be bad. So when the wealth gap is extremely large and growing still larger , as it is today in the U.S., there is reason for concern. Ironically, an extreme wealth gap is not only bad for the minions of poor, it is also very bad for the small number of super wealthy -- think guillotine!..