No one plans a free market, it just is.

I disagree. I mean, I sorta agree, but I disagree because it can't "just happen," rather, it must be fought for. Capital (money, goods, whatever) is a force. If someone's capital assets are large enough and they apply them directly to control the market, they can and will do so unless others actively work to ensure that doesn't happen (voting with their dollar e.g.). Please read my report on this to understand how this has happened. Indeed, Capitalism by design intends to become a world wide monopoly (which is exactly what we have).

The problem as I see it is, a Free Market can't be "fought for" by any "official" system (State or other formal control structure), rather it must be maintained by a conscientious society. it is awareness that brings about a Free Market. Ignorance and State input ensures it becomes not free.

It is when you have government control and regulations that you get these other systems like socialism.

That's not really true on the most basic level. That's more of an intention of implementation rather than by design, which is what I was trying to say.

Socialism, in its most basic form (as applied to a company), which is the form that is the crux of many arguments for it, is the idea that the people who work at a company determine all functions of the company through a democracy. Applying it to an entire society (a State) isn't necessary. It is, by design, an economic design model. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the State itself, unless one deigns to extend it to that scale.

It is this confusion of "State" v. "company" application that I was trying to elucidate.

But Capitalism is also just an economic design model. It says "excess capital will be reinvested into the company to produce increased levels of capital". It has nothing to do with a Free Market.

Because growth can't possible be indefinite, especially within a single company, any Capitalist economy must be regulated by the State or some other control structure to be maintained. Capitalism can't be a Free Market on the broadest scale (the same scale generally attempted by Socialist or Communist States).

This is a different confusion than the Socialism confusion (scope of application), because the proponents of this never ending growth design (Capitalism) have conflated "Capitalism" with "Free Market." This is a categorical error. A Free Market is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic design model (not an entire system in and of itself). A Free Market is one without rules. Any other system, be it Capitalism, Socialism, or whatever, if insisted on by a society (or its governance), must be regulated to ensure no "bad -isms" make it into the system, and are thus the opposite of a Free Market.

It's either "Free" or it's not. Any compromise is an exploitable loophole, and someone will take advantage of it.

No one plans a free market, it just is.

I disagree. I mean, I sorta agree, but I disagree because it can't "just happen," rather, it must be fought for. Capital (money, goods, whatever) is a force. If someone's capital assets are large enough and they apply then directly to control the market, they can and will do so unless others actively work to ensure that doesn't happen (voting with their dollar e.g.). Please read my report on this to understand how this has happened. Indeed, Capitalism by design intends to become a world wide monopoly (which is exactly what we have).

The problem as I see it is, a Free Market can't be "fought for" by any "official" system (State or other formal control structure), rather it must be maintained by a conscientious society. it is awareness that brings about a Free Market. Ignorance and State input ensures it becomes not free.

It is when you have government control and regulations that you get these other systems like socialism.

That's not really true on the most basic level. That's more of an intention of implementation rather than by design, which is what I was trying to say.

Socialism, in its most basic form (as applied to a company), which is the form that is the crux of many arguments for it, is the idea that the people who work at a company determine all functions of the company through a democracy. Applying it to an entire society (a State) isn't necessary. It is, by design, an economic design model. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the State itself, unless one deigns to extend it to that scale.

It is this confusion of "State" v. "company" application that I was trying to elucidate.

But Capitalism is also just an economic design model. It says "excess capital will be reinvested into the company to produce increased levels of capital". It has nothing to do with a Free Market.

Because growth can't possible be indefinite, especially within a single company, any Capitalist economy must be regulated by the State or some other control structure to be maintained. Capitalism can't be a Free Market on the broadest scale (the same scale generally attempted by Socialist or Communist States).

This is a different confusion than the Socialism confusion (scope of application), because the proponents of this never ending growth design (Capitalism) have conflated "Capitalism" with "Free Market." This is a categorical error. A Free Market is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic design model (not an entire system in and of itself). A Free Market is one without rules. Any other system, be it Capitalism, Socialism, or whatever, if insisted on by a society (or its governance), must be regulated to ensure no "bad -isms" make it into the system, and are thus the opposite of a Free Market.

It's either "Free" or it's not. Any compromise is an exploitable loophole, and someone will take advantage of it.

No one plans a free market, it just is.

I disagree. I mean, I sorta agree, but I disagree because it can't "just happen," rather, it must be fought for. Capital (money, goods, whatever) is a force. If someone's capital assets are large enough and they apply then directly to control the market, they can and will do so unless others actively work to ensure that doesn't happen (voting with their dollar e.g.). Please read my report on this to understand how this has happened. Indeed, Capitalism by design intends to become a world wide monopoly (which is exactly what we have).

The problem as I see it is, a Free Market can't be "fought for" by any "official" system (State or other formal control structure), rather it must be maintained by a conscientious society. it is awareness that brings about a Free Market. Ignorance and State input ensures it becomes not free.

It is when you have government control and regulations that you get these other systems like socialism.

That's not really true on the most basic level. That's more of an intention of implementation rather than by design, which is what I was trying to say.

Socialism, in its most basic form (as applied to a company), which is the form that is the crux of many arguments for it, is the idea that the people who work at a company determine all functions of the company through a democracy. Applying it to an entire society (a State) isn't necessary. It is, by design, an economic design model. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the State itself, unless one deigns to extend it to that scale.

It is this confusion of "State" v. "company" application that I was trying to elucidate.

But Capitalism is also just an economic design model. It says "excess capital will be reinvested into the company to produce increased levels of capital". It has nothing to do with a Free Market.

Because growth can't possible be indefinite, especially within a single company, any Capitalist economy must be regulated by the State or some other control structure to be maintained. Capitalism can't be a Free Market on the broadest scale (the same scale generally attempted by Socialist or Communist States).

This is a different confusion than the Socialism confusion (scope of application), because the proponents of this never ending growth design (Capitalism) have conflated "Capitalism" with "Free Market." This is a categorical error. A Free Market is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic design model (not an entire system in and of itself). A Free Market is one without rules. Any other system, be it Capitalism, Socialism, or whatever, if insisted on by a society (or its governance), must be regulated to ensure no "bad -isms" make it into the system, and are thus the opposite of a Free Market.

It's either "Free" or it's not. Any compromise is an exploitable loophole, and someone will take advantage of it.

No one plans a free market, it just is.

I disagree. I mean, I sorta agree, but I disagree because it can't "just happen," rather, it must be fought for. Capital (money, goods, whatever) is a force. If someone's capital assets are large enough and they apply then directly to control the market, they can and will do so unless others actively work to ensure that doesn't happen (voting with their dollar e.g.). Please read my report on this to understand how this has happened. Indeed, Capitalism by design intends to become a world wide monopoly (which is exactly what we have).

The problem as I see it is, a Free Market can't be "fought for" by any "official" system (State or other formal control structure), rather it must be maintained by a conscientious society. it is awareness that brings about a Free Market. Ignorance and State input ensures it becomes not free.

It is when you have government control and regulations that you get these other systems like socialism.

That's not really true on the most basic level. That's more of an intention of implementation rather than by design, which is what I was trying to say.

Socialism, in its most basic form (as applied to a company), which is the form that is the crux of many arguments for it, is the idea that the people who work at a company determine all functions of the company through a democracy. Applying it to an entire society (a State) isn't necessary. It is, by design, an economic design model. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the State itself, unless one deigns to extend it to that scale.

It is this confusion of "State" v. "company" application that I was trying to elucidate.

But Capitalism is also just an economic design model. It says "excess capital will be reinvested into the company to produce increased levels of capital". It has nothing to do with a Free Market.

Because growth can't possible be indefinite, especially within a single company, it too must be regulated by the State or some other control structure. Capitalism can't be a Free Market on the broadest scale (the same scale generally attempted by Socialist or Communist States).

This is a different confusion than the Socialism confusion (scope of application), because the proponents of this never ending growth design (Capitalism) have conflated "Capitalism" with "Free Market." This is a categorical error. A Free Market is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic design model (not an entire system in and of itself). A Free Market is one without rules. Any other system, be it Capitalism, Socialism, or whatever, if insisted on by a society (or its governance), must be regulated to ensure no "bad -isms" make it into the system, and are thus the opposite of a Free Market.

It's either "Free" or it's not. Any compromise is an exploitable loophole, and someone will take advantage of it.

No one plans a free market, it just is.

I disagree. I mean, I sorta agree, but I disagree because it can't "just happen," rather, it must be fought for. Capital (money, goods, whatever) is a force. If someone's capital assets are large enough and they apply then directly to control the market, they can and will do so unless others actively work to ensure that doesn't happen (voting with their dollar e.g.). Please read my report on this to understand how this has happened. Indeed, Capitalism by design intends to become a world wide monopoly (which is exactly what we have).

The problem as I see it is, a Free Market can't be "fought for" by any "official" system (State or other formal control structure), rather it must be maintained by a conscientious society. it is awareness that brings about a Free Market. Ignorance and State input ensures it becomes not free.

It is when you have government control and regulations that you get these other systems like socialism.

That's not really true on the most basic level. That's more of an intention of implementation rather than by design, which is what I was trying to say.

Socialism, in its most basic form (as applied to a company), which is the form that is the crux of many arguments for it, is the idea that the people who work at a company determine all functions of the company through a democracy. Applying it to an entire society (a State) isn't necessary. It is, by design, an economic design model. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the State itself, unless one deigns to extend it to that scale.

It is this confusion of "State" v. "company" application that I was trying to elucidate.

But Capitalism is also just an economic design model. It says "excess capital will be reinvested into the company to produce increased levels of capital". It has nothing to do with a Free Market. Because growth can't possible be indefinite, especially within a single company, it too must be regulated by the State, or some other control structure. Capitalism can't be a Free Market on the broadest scale (the same scale generally attempted by Socialist or Communist States).

This is a different confusion than the Socialism confusion (scope of application), because the proponents of this never ending growth design (Capitalism) have conflated "Capitalism" with "Free Market." This is a categorical error. A Free Market is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic design model (not an entire system in and of itself). A Free Market is one without rules. Any other system, be it Capitalism, Socialism, or whatever, if insisted on by a society (or its governance), must be regulated to ensure no "bad -isms" make it into the system, and are thus the opposite of a Free Market.

It's either "Free" or it's not. Any compromise is an exploitable loophole, and someone will take advantage of it.

No one plans a free market, it just is.

I disagree. I mean, I sorta agree, but I disagree because it can't "just happen," rather, it must be fought for. Capital (money, goods, whatever) is a force. If someone's capital assets are large enough and they apply then directly to control the market, they can and will do so unless others actively work to ensure that doesn't happen (voting with their dollar). Please read my report on this to understand how this has happened. Indeed, Capitalism by design intends to become a world wide monopoly (which is exactly what we have).

The problem as I see it is, a Free Market can't be "fought for" by any "official" system (State or other formal control structure), rather it must be maintained by a conscientious society. it is awareness that brings about a Free Market. Ignorance and State input ensures it becomes not free.

It is when you have government control and regulations that you get these other systems like socialism.

That's not really true on the most basic level. That's more of an intention of implementation rather than by design, which is what I was trying to say.

Socialism, in its most basic form (as applied to a company), which is the form that is the crux of many arguments for it, is the idea that the people who work at a company determine all functions of the company through a democracy. Applying it to an entire society (a State) isn't necessary. It is, by design, an economic design model. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the State itself, unless one deigns to extend it to that scale.

It is this confusion of "State" v. "company" application that I was trying to elucidate.

But Capitalism is also just an economic design model. It says "excess capital will be reinvested into the company to produce increased levels of capital". It has nothing to do with a Free Market. Because growth can't possible be indefinite, especially within a single company, it too must be regulated by the State, or some other control structure. Capitalism can't be a Free Market on the broadest scale (the same scale generally attempted by Socialist or Communist States).

This is a different confusion than the Socialism confusion (scope of application), because the proponents of this never ending growth design (Capitalism) have conflated "Capitalism" with "Free Market." This is a categorical error. A Free Market is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic design model (not an entire system in and of itself). A Free Market is one without rules. Any other system, be it Capitalism, Socialism, or whatever, if insisted on by a society (or its governance), must be regulated to ensure no "bad -isms" make it into the system, and are thus the opposite of a Free Market.

It's either "Free" or it's not. Any compromise is an exploitable loophole, and someone will take advantage of it.