Free market capitalism

Thank you for your arguments. I will attempt to address them all, and perhaps expand further upon my main points. 19th century German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer explained that there are two real ways one can gain wealth in the world. One way is through voluntary, peaceful, civilized means, such as creating a product and allowing people to purchase it to mutual benefit, and the other is through coercive, violent means, and the other is seizing the property of others without their consent for your own benefit, creating a zero sum game. These two are known as the " Economic means" vs the "Political means". So option A is I start up a business, hire people voluntarily, and they trade their labor for my money, and customers exchange their money for my product. I mentioned earlier the principle of trade being win win, because going into the arrangement both parties expect to benefit. If one or both parties didn't think they would benefit, the interaction would not take place. Option B is rather than interact voluntarily in a civilized manner, to obtain wealth I could steal. I could get elected to public office and impose taxation on hard working people. I Could pass regulations creating a minimum wage, not allowing people to interact freely through voluntary association. My main point is, in a true free market system one gets rich by trading, exchanging value, not robbing it from other. Leave that to the government, that's their job. One can also get rich by colluding with the government, I.e special tax breaks, favourable regulations, subsidies etc. " Free market is for small time labor" No, no it isn't. Whether it's me shovelling my elderly neighbour's snow for 20 dollars, or I'm the CEO of Apple the principle remains the same: in both cases, it is voluntary trade. The workers evidently benefit from the arrangement, otherwise they wouldn't be working there, and I think it's fairly paternalistic to say that we have to "protect" them. They chose to be there. "Without regulation, a free market society would just turn into an Aristocracy. A dominant few businesses and enterprises would dominate all opposition and replace the need for further competition. The CEOs of those businesses would gain substantial power. Without regulation, those businesses can do as they please, with the wages and quality of the workers in serious danger. Races of all kinds would be segregated by different businesses for example. A Catholic may not be able to work at a shop based simply on the fact that he is a Catholic. Or a Muslim may not work in a mine simply because he is a Muslim. You see what i'm saying? To make someone do something they don't want to do is Force. To me, force in the form of regulation is a necessary evil. Without regulation and the enforcement of such, businesses would to easily take advantage of their workers." You seem to think that these businesses have magical powers that I'm unaware of. As I said, in a free market system one gains wealth to the extent that they satisfy their customers. If they start screwing up horribly, people will look to alternatives, and those companies better shape up or be replaced by better ones. With regards to the segregation issue, first of all throughout history much ethnic segregation was government enforced ( South African apartheid for example). We aren't living in the 19th century. Most people don't think that way anymore. But regardless, so what? It's their business. Should they not be able to hire/do business with whomever they want? And furthermore should there be regulations that people working for jobs cannot refuse a job offer on the grounds of the employer's race, as reprehensible as that may be? Why is it all on the employers? If it's my house it's my rules. Why? I own my house. I also own my business. Thus, my business my rules, and if you don't like it don't do business with me. Convince other people to do the same. Just don't use violence. People make these kinds of decisions all the time. For example, the fast food chain chick filet donates money to causes that would limit gay rights. Since I am in favour of homosexuals having rights, I choose not to eat there. That doesn't mean I get to go into the restaurant and beat the owner with a club for disagreeing with his stupid views. " This is called responsible capitalism". No, it's called a bunch of people violently controlling others. It's the opposite of compassionate, and it certainly isn't responsible. Looking forward to the next round. https://mises.org...