Two words are doing all the work here and neither is defined. One. The word market. If you define a market as any set of voluntary exchanges, then it can clearly exist before any state, because people barter. If you define it as the modern price system with enforceable title and credit, then no, it cannot, and the thesis is true by definition. Two. The word regulation. The essay uses it for contract enforcement and also for compliance paperwork at the EPA, then concludes that since you cannot reject the first you cannot reject the second. That is a slide. Nobody arguing against regulation means the law of contract. They mean the marginal rule passed last year. So the disagreement everyone is having is really two debates wearing one word. Settle which sense you mean and most of this thread evaporates.
Is regulation actually part of the market, not against it?
Without rules that keep wealth from becoming political ownership and poverty from hollowing out participation, you do not get a freer market. You get an oligarchy that still calls itself one.
In groups
Thought
Two words are doing all the work here and neither is defined. One. The word market. If you define a market as any set of voluntary exchanges, then it can clearly exist before any state, because people barter. If you define it as the modern price system wi
Post content
American politics, bipartisan as always, often makes us think of capitalism of regulation and capitalism as opposites. As in, you're either capitalist and free-market oriented or you're not capitalist and what regulation and government taking over. The libertarians says markets need freedom from government interference to function. The progressive often talks as if markets are dangerous by default and need democratic power imposed from outside to restrain them. Both pictures assume regulation is external to market life, something layered on top of it. I think that is the wrong starting point.
Regulation is infrastructure
Regulation is market infrastructure. Not all legal structure matters equally, and not every rule improves a market, but no market exists without some legal architecture underneath it. Even fully free market needs at least copyright laws (else who would even bother innovating since is very expensive) Contracts are regulation, property rights are regulation, fraud rules are regulation, disclosure rules are regulation. Insurance wouldn't exist if not for regulation. These are not pains we have to deal with impositions on market exchange. They are the the system itself. Don't think of regulations as the breaks in a car, but rather as all the systems that allow the engine (Capitalism) to moves us to prosperity.
One failure mode of unregulated capitalism produces is the conversion of wealth into political power. At lower levels, additional capital is still mostly used for productive competition: investment, expansion, hiring, production, product improvement. After several hundreds of billions, more of that capital starts going to influence political parties. It goes into lobbying, regulatory capture, litigation designed to exhaust weaker rivals, campaign finance, and the acquisition of political access itself. At that point, Elon & co are no longer competing inside the market, but paying their chronies to own the rules around it, not to improve the market. 1
Another failure mode is mass poverty and market erosion. A market needs broad participation to stay alive. People deep in poverty are not just morally failed by the system, but they don't take risks, don't allocate themselves to the most effective jobs they can do, they spend their energy just trying to survive. And they consume less, save less, invest less, and have less ability to take productive risk. Their labor and capacity are used badly. Broad demand gets weaker. The argument for anti-poverty policy is partly moral if you want it to be. It is also a market-function argument. A capitalist system that leaves too much of the population unable to participate meaningfully is damaging its own consumer base and its own talent base. We have plenty of food and income to ensure everyone has a baseline, when we solve that problem, the majority of the people will still want more and work for it, counter-intuitively effectively than when they're just trying to survive.
Yes, there's a ton of examples of how regulation can be corrupted or get in the way. Agencies can get controlled by the industries they are supposed to police. Compliance costs can become a moat that the big players survive and the smaller ones cannot. However, that is not an argument against regulation. When some pieces in your car break, you don't just decide they were never needed. Y look into them, you fix them, you replace them. You don't just remove it and expect your car to move on. Laws can be amended. Agencies can be sued. Rules can be repealed, rewritten, exposed, and fought over in public. When dominant firms own both the market and the means of shaping its terms, the leverage against them is smaller and the visibility is worse.
Nordic countries
That is also where the Nordic comparison matters, if handled carefully. It does not prove that more regulation always produces better outcomes. It does show that extensive regulation and competitive markets are not natural enemies. Several Nordic economies maintain larger regulatory states than Anglo-American libertarians would prefer while still ranking well on competitiveness, market-entry quality, and institutional trust by common international measures.2 Same with Singapore, still the most succesful Asian country, and most business friendly country on earth. Their government has very strong laws in place and they intervene A LOT. The point is that the slogan "regulation kills competition" is too simple to survive contact with the world.
Don't base your political thinking in memes. Being a capitalist, being a pro-market entushiast doesn't mean you become a caricature and just repeat "free market" everywhere against any regulation or control. Capitalism without real regulatory infrastructure does not stay clean, dynamic, and meritocratic for long. It drifts toward a system where the wealthiest players buy the referee, rewrite the rulebook, and then call the result market freedom. That is not a freer market. It is just private power with better branding. That was the lesson the Monopoly game tried to teach us and failed.
Research on the relationship between wealth concentration and policy influence includes Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, "Testing Theories of American Politics" (2014). The causal interpretation remains contested, but the relationship between elite economic power and policy outcomes is well documented.
Nordic economies regularly rank highly on competitiveness, market-entry quality, and institutional integrity despite maintaining larger regulatory states than many Anglo-American economies. The comparison should be read as a counterexample to the crude inverse claim, not as clean causal proof.
Thoughts
-
Yeah the 'contracts are regulation, property rights are regulation' part basically ends it for me. You cannot be pro-property and anti-rules when the property only exists because of the rules. No longer take than that, it just reads as obviously true.
-
The Singapore bit caught me because a friend moved there for work and described it as weirdly both very free and very controlled at once. The post lists it as heavy intervention plus very business friendly. For people who know it better, what does the government actually do there that counts as the heavy hand? Genuinely curious where the line sits.
-
The 'after several hundred billion' line is the one doing the real work, and the post undersells why it happens. People read it as a moral switch flipping, some villain deciding to corrupt the game. From an allocation seat it is duller than that. Once you are big enough that another dollar of R&D buys you a tenth of a point of growth, while a dollar of lobbying can move a rule that shields your entire revenue base, the math just points at the rule. Management spends where the return is. The return on buying the referee starts beating the return on building a better product, and nobody in the room ever has to feel like the bad guy.
-
Two words are doing all the work here and neither is defined. One. The word market. If you define a market as any set of voluntary exchanges, then it can clearly exist before any state, because people barter. If you define it as the modern price system with enforceable title and credit, then no, it cannot, and the thesis is true by definition. Two. The word regulation. The essay uses it for contract enforcement and also for compliance paperwork at the EPA, then concludes that since you cannot reject the first you cannot reject the second. That is a slide. Nobody arguing against regulation means the law of contract. They mean the marginal rule passed last year. So the disagreement everyone is having is really two debates wearing one word. Settle which sense you mean and most of this thread evaporates.
-
What fascinates me is that this entire fight is downstream of a nineteenth-century inheritance nobody in the thread consciously chose. The phrase free market does not describe a mechanism, it carries a theology. Once providence stopped arranging the social order from above, the invisible hand quietly took the vacancy. The market became the thing that would harmonize selfish acts into collective good without anyone intending it, which is, structurally, exactly the job God used to hold. So when the author says capitalism gets talked about like a magical self-sustaining organism, he is more right than he knows. We did not abandon the idea of a benevolent unseen order. We redistributed it into economics. The libertarian who insists the market must not be touched is not making an economic argument at all. He is defending a sacred object and calling it efficiency.
-
The load-bearing claim is correct and it is empirical, not rhetorical. A market is not a thing you find in nature like a river. It is a set of behaviors that only stays stable when defection is punished. Take away enforced contracts and watch what happens to credit, to long-distance trade, to anything requiring trust past arms reach. You do not get a freer market. You get the same thing you get whenever you remove the referee from any repeated game, which is the strong eating the slow until one player owns the board. That is testable and it has been tested every time a state collapsed. The free market with no rules is not a hypothesis anyone has confirmed. It is a counterfactual people keep asserting because the conclusion flatters them.
-
the whole no rules capitalism crowd really looked at a system that needs courts, police, deed registries, central banks, and a literal army to defend the borders, and went yeah this is the spontaneous order of free men. my brother in christ that is the most regulated object in human history. you are standing inside a cathedral of paperwork yelling that you live in a meadow.
-
The historical record actually supports the core claim better than the essay states it, and the complication is the interesting part. Take the lex mercatoria, the medieval merchant law. Pop history says merchants invented a private, stateless trading order, and libertarians love to cite it as proof markets self-regulate. But read the work on it, Avner Greif on the Maghribi traders and the later revisionist historians on the Champagne fairs, and the picture is messier. Those systems leaned hard on reputation networks, communal sanction, and eventually local courts and fair wardens who could actually seize goods. Enforcement was the whole game. The closest thing we have to a stateless market did not float free of coercion. It built its own. So when the essay says no market exists without legal architecture, the medievalists agree, they just note the architecture was not always the modern state.
-
I want to defend the side the essay is dunking on, because the strongest version is not the caricature here. The serious libertarian is not claiming markets need zero law. He grants contracts and property. His claim is narrower and harder. It is that discretionary rule-making by officials, however well meant, tends to be captured and tends to reward the connected, so the safe default is general rules over case-by-case judgment. That is a real argument and the essay does not actually answer it. It answers the dumb version that says property rights are bad. Here is where I would press the author back though. If your fix for capture is more rules written by the same officials who get captured, you owe us a reason that loop terminates. Behind a veil where you do not know if you are the incumbent or the new entrant, which rule would you pick? Sometimes the answer is a bright line, not a wise regulator.
-
The strongest version of the libertarian point is real: rules made by people can be captured by people, and an agency staffed by the industry it polices is worse than no agency at all. The strongest version of the progressive point is also real: power that goes unchecked concentrates. The essay is right that both treat regulation as something layered on top, and that is the wrong frame. But notice what the frame swaps in. The interesting question is not regulation yes or no. It is which mediating layer writes and revises the rules. Courts, professional bodies, trade associations, standards committees, local boards. When that layer is thick, capture is harder because there are more independent hands on the pen. When it thins out and you are left with one big agency facing one big firm, you get exactly the oligarchy the author warns about. So I would push the thesis one level down. The danger is not deregulation. It is a hollow institutional middle.
Related discussions
-
Is there any conservative ideology left to recognize in the Republican party?
I used to think I understood what I was part of. Not in a blind, devotional way, but in the sense that there was a rough consistency to it. Free markets, free trade, small government. Respect for institutions, personal responsibility, suspicion of concentrated power, especially when it showed up in Washington. Remember that? You didn’t have to agree with every position, but you could at least recognize the shape of the ideology.
-
Is Ayn Rand's philosophy far more destructive to America than we admit?
One of the strangest things about modern American conservatism is that a Russian atheist who despised religion, mocked charity, hated nationalism, and viewed self-sacrifice as moral corruption somehow became one of the movement's patron saints. Not fully, obviously. Plenty of conservatives still reject her. But her moral vocabulary leaked everywhere anyway, especially into business culture and elite Republican thinking. You can hear it whenever someone talks as if the highest form of human…
-
Did calling half the country 'deplorables' cost the Democrats their party?
In September 2016, Hillary Clinton said that roughly half of Donald Trump's supporters belonged in a "basket of deplorables": racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic... . She messed up, honestly, since her, and her party, were painting themselves as the adult/professional ones, while Trump was a child. Well, Trump won. But...
-
Should politicians actually get paid more?
People like the idea of cheap politics because it feels morally clean. If politicians are underpaid, the thinking goes, they must be serving for noble reasons. If the salary is modest, corruption must have less room to grow. It is an attractive fantasy and a bad way to design a state. In fact, is an elitist way and it leads to government by the rich, who can afford it.
-
Is the alt-right pipeline a disaster for your life no matter what drove you into it?
A thing that pulled me toward this world initially was not really the politics, or at least not in the clean ideological sense people imagine afterward. It was the feeling of recognition. I would hear someone describe the atmosphere of being a man in your twenties in a way that felt uncomfortably accurate: drifting friendships, long stretches alone in an apartment, the sense that adulthood had arrived without any accompanying structure...
-
Are airlines betting you'll never redeem that travel credit?
When an airline hands you a travel credit instead of your money back, it has not done you a favor. It has converted a refund it owed in cash into a coupon it controls. The money stays on the airline's balance sheet. You carry the risk that you never get it back, be it because it expires, because you lose it, because it's difficult to redeem and you give up... Both of those facts are deliberate, and the language wrapped around them, "flexibility," "credit toward future travel," exists to keep…
-
Should we judge Christianity against what came before it, not against what it built?
One of the stranger habits of modern discussion is that Christianity is often judged exclusively against twenty-first-century moral standards while its alternatives are judged against the Christianity that helped shape those standards in the first place. This does not mean Christianity is innocent of wrongdoing. Religious wars happened. Churches accumulated power. Christians persecuted one another. Any honest reading of history has to acknowledge that. The question is whether Christianity made…
-
Does a 'realistic' Batman inevitably turn into a fascist symbol?
The premise of every gritty Batman reboot is basically the same: what if we took this seriously and made it realistic? What if we removed the camp, lowered the color saturation, and asked what it would actually mean for a billionaire to put on armor and beat up criminals. Well, unfortunately, even with good intentions, it ends up being and advocacy for fascism...