Free market capitalism

This will have to be relatively short, my apologies. With regards to the free market having no regulations, this is not exactly true. The market is not some abstract entity, it's you, it's me. We determine the terms of our interaction, and it should be like that for every human interaction. With regards to your statement talking about how there would be no guarantee that society would run properly without government regulation: firstly, I don't think it's anybody's job or right for that matter to "run society". Society is comprised of individuals, and the market is individuals within that society interacting voluntarily. And secondly, there is never a guarantee that " society will run properly". Not to put words in your mouth and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're implying that people are too incompetent, and would be helpless without the government. But if this is indeed what you are implying, then you have in effect created a self contradictory proposition. " People are incompetent, so we need to elect people to regulate the entire economy. " In your second paragraph, you talk about how without institutions such as the FDA, companies would no longer care about the quality of their food. If it isn't clear why this is pure nonsense, I'll explain why. You are in effect saying that companies make money by killing their customers. Does this even need explaining? Companies don't want a reputation that claims they poison their customers, this they have every incentive to make sure their product is safe for their customers. I'll give you a hypothetical: suppose it was found out that company A was dumping cyanide in their food supply. What would happen? What would happen is people would look to an alternative. Company B might say " we have rigorous checks to ensure that our meat is not contaminated. " Like now, there would be a high demand for food safety, and thus the market would come up with methods to ensure food safety. "These rules have been put in place to stop personal bias from getting in the way of the development of society. People, in any classification, should not be judged based on factors they had no power to change. The people are protected under regulation and under law; no abolition of regulation will change the fact that our people are better off ruled under law, than not being ruled at all. " You misunderstand, I'm not saying that if you own a business it is RIGHT to discriminate against people based on their race/gender/sexual orientation. I'm saying that because they own their business, they should have the right to associate with whomever they choose, for whichever reason they want. And that is a two way street. I think that it's immoral for a consumer to refuse to do business with a certain store based off of the owner's race or sexuality, but would you say no, there must be a government regulation forcing people to shop at stores that they do not wish to shop at? I doubt it. Im only going to be able to address snippets of your last two paragraphs because I'm running low on time. " the democratic part refers to the people being the one who decides what the regulations are. " What exactly is "the people"? I'm a person, you're a person. And yet we disagree. This abstract called " the people" does not exist, because it implies that each member within the collective are united in their views, when clearly they are not as this debate demonstrates. What you are advocating for is some people forcing their will onto others. "Democracy is obviously flawed in some way, but we cannot undermine that it gives us some pretty important modern day principles. Without regulation, companies could have sulfur in our cheese burgers or pay us $0.02 a day. Regulation is what keeps our society going; in a Sociologist's perspective, people are in different social classes and some of those people simply cannot find a high paying job and have to settle with the first one they get. Sometimes my friend, beggars can't be choosers and the people often have to endure treatment that they don't feel benefits them. " I've already kind of addressed the food issue, so I'll skip that. But a similar principle applies to wages. If company A has a starting wage of $7.00/hr. I work there and am in satisfied. Company B says that he'll pay me 8.00/hr, so I go there. Company B did this because it was worth it to him financially, and he felt that I could make more than 8.00/hr for him. That's how wages are determined, by the value of the employee to the employer. That's why you never hear about a minimum wage for CEOs. And I almost forgot: " Regulation isn't violent. " No? Then try not complying with them, and we'll see how nonviolent they are. . https://mises.org...