[Overground]

How valid is this statement?

[pretz]

This is all very political compass.

[Overground]

(Original post by pretz)
This is all very political compass.

Guilty as charged. I just thought it was an interesting idea. If an invalid one, which rather hinges on the definition of the word 'freedom'.

[largebrandon]

(Original post by Overground)
Guilty as charged. I just thought it was an interesting idea. If an invalid one, which rather hinges on the definition of the word 'freedom'.

I think the question we need to be asking is "do we even want freedom?"

[Rubix]

If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life, then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods. Thus reducing society to a very victorian and oppressive society which rewards the rich and takes away from the poor.

A think a healthy balance is most appropriate, which coincidently is what we have now.

[Veni_vidi]

(Original post by Rubix)
If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life, then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods. Thus reducing society to a very victorian and oppressive society which rewards the rich and takes away from the poor.

A think a healthy balance is most appropriate, which coincidently is what we have now.

I agree with you there.

[Apagg]

(Original post by Rubix)
If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life, then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods. Thus reducing society to a very victorian and oppressive society which rewards the rich and takes away from the poor.

A think a healthy balance is most appropriate, which coincidently is what we have now.

What kind of dictionary are you using?

[Veni_vidi]

(Original post by Apagg)
What kind of dictionary are you using?

he is saying if a market is more free people would benefit from it by having a better quality life or living standards e.g. quality products at low prices, easily accessible for everyone etc.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by Overground)
How valid is this statement?

I note you're an Aston Villa supporter so you know which example you can use to argue against the title. Extortionate price tickets of football matches.

[SevenDeuceOff]

(Original post by Apagg)
What kind of dictionary are you using?

I'd also like to know.

Regarding the topic, I think China's economic transition and State Capitalism form a clear counter-example to the statement, obviously assuming you mean "freer" in terms of civil liberties.

[The Highlander]

(Original post by Rubix)
If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life, then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods. Thus reducing society to a very victorian and oppressive society which rewards the rich and takes away from the poor.

A think a healthy balance is most appropriate, which coincidently is what we have now.

I agree that the free market doesn't provide all that is necessary for society but people can have wonderful living conditions and not be the least bit free.

[Apagg]

But who ever means material quality of life when they say freedom?

[Apagg]

(Original post by DeuceSevenOff)
I'd also like to know.

Regarding the topic, I think China's economic transition and State Capitalism form a clear counter-example to the statement, obviously assuming you mean "freer" in terms of civil liberties.

Untrue. In introducing economic freedoms the Party has had to grant increased property rights, of a sort, and has also introduced some local representative democracy.

[SevenDeuceOff]

(Original post by Veni_vidi)
he is saying if a market is more free people would benefit from it by having a better quality life or living standards e.g. quality products at low prices, easily accessible for everyone etc.

Quality of life is equivalent neither to economic freedom or civil freedom.

[SevenDeuceOff]

(Original post by Apagg)
Untrue. In introducing economic freedoms the Party has had to grant increased property rights, of a sort, and has also introduced some local representative democracy.

I forgot the title was "freer"; I was saying a capitalist country could be authoritarian at the same time. Yes, what you said is true.

[Prudy]

I suppose another aspect is how you define freedom. As in positive or negative.

[2026]

'The Freer The Market, The Freer The People'

Boll-cks! [Or as the American say, bullsh-t!].

[L i b]

(Original post by Rubix)
If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life

Er, no, of course he doesn't. The two are very distinct things.

then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods.

*******s.

[CorpusNinja]

(Original post by L i b)
*******s.

Er, aside from his dubious choice of the word 'cover', he is stating a fact.

[The Solitary Reaper]

(Original post by Bismarck)
It's true by definition. Economic freedom is one aspect of freedom, so it follows that having a maximum amount of economic freedom makes the people more free than the alternative. A free market doesn't mean that the people will be free, but it does not mean that the government cannot exert as much power over the people as it would if it controlled the economy.

That's an incredibly simplistic take on it - I trust you understand the concept of negative liberty?

I can't see how a big business oligarchy would be any freer than a mixed economy at all. In fact, a huge portion, if not all, of the economy would be completely sectioned off by multinationals and big business.

I suppose one would be free to get a job in a variety of ASDAs however. Sounds great!