[phpisthebest]

This is very simplistic, and somewhat wrong

First and foremost, states do not, and cannot "create free markets" the existence of a state to regulation a market makes is de-facto non-free

This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union. At the end of the day, power corrupts, and the more power a person or group has over another person or group the more corrupting that power is.

Thus in a very large union you will likely see just as much employee abuse, as in a very large company.

The sweet spot has always as well always been in Medium sized organizations, or unions, above 300 employees, under 3000 employees. Anything larger or smaller and the risk of abuse and poor conditions go up considerably even if you are represented by a large union

[mjburgess]

err.. no, free markets are state constructions.

By default, an unregulated market becomes non-free essentially immediately, as cartels form (indeed, as cartels of cartels form, hence states).

As Hobbes observed, in the state of nature there is no motivation to remain as an individual, so you form groups in order for self-protection. In an "anarchical market" you end up with incredible levels of monopolisation (etc.).

A free market is a state construction whereby cartels, scams, fraud, (murder, theft, etc.) is prohibited so that limited liability collectives (another state construction) called "businesses" can freely compete for labour and profit.

[vundercind]

FWIW, to bystanders without context for this area of study, the parent is basically the orthodox take on the role of the state in modern economies and “free markets”: in short, you can’t have one (certainly not a highly-productive one that makes life not-suck) that lasts for any length of time without a state, and the “shape” it takes and whom it serves and to what degree is meaningfully determined by same state.

[samatman]

Cartels are a feature of free markets.

I would argue that it's good for the state to take some sort of interest in regulating them, one of several ways that I'm not a free-market fundamentalist.

But arguing that the formation of cartels makes a market non-free is backward. Cartels emerge through free association in trade. Regulating them might make for a more functional market, a more efficient market (or it might not) but it makes for a less free market, always.

I will add that I consider the very idea of "absence of the state" to be badly-formed, states vary considerably in their constitution but there's always something serving that role, even if it's a few elders in a village.

[phpisthebest]

well now we will get in a Hobbes vs Locke, I am more Lockean

I disagree, and history has shown that free markets absent government control doe not instantly become monopolized, and infact through out most of history monopolize form when the government regulates the most

Look at todays market as an example, the most competition is present in markets where the government has the least influence, where markets like energy, healthcare, etc which are the most regulated are also the most monopolized

[lostlogin]

> This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union.

Have you got any examples of this?

When I look at large unions where I am, it goes one of two ways. They get large and hopeless (teachers union and nurses union) or they get powerful enough that they can dictate such that they can make a meaningful change for their members.

I’ve seen some impressive conditioned earned by doctors unions, police unions and one I belonged to for allied health professionals.

None of them seem to be exoloiting their members, but I’m not sure how I’d find out about that.