Free Market vs Government regulation?

Lefts support Government regulation but Rights oppose it and they support Free market Lefts say Free market causes cruel competition and leads to economic injustice among people but Rights say Private sector could do much better job than Government so Free market should be adopted
Which one is better in your opinion Government Regulation or Free market?

  • Government regulation
    11% (2)11% (5)11% (7)Vote
  • Free Market
    39% (7)28% (13)31% (20)Vote
  • Mostly Government Regulation and some Free market should be adopted on the economy
    22% (4)15% (7)17% (11)Vote
  • Mostly Free market and some Government Regulation should be adopted on the economy
    28% (5)46% (22)41% (27)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Updates:
2mo ...

0|0
1|20

Most Helpful Girl

Most Helpful Guy

  • You need regulation it's must as long as it's not too much it's okay. The fact is free market doesn't exist in any country. Even countries with almost no regulation you still have to work with the government.

    0|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 0

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion!

What Guys Said 19

  • Here's the deal, when a truly free market is in play, corruption follows, without SOME regulation, there is no guarantee that that hamburger you just ate wasn't made from horse or dog, or even human flesh. Without oversight companies will cut corners and may compromise safety, health, or other major issues. And they will do it in the name of "consumer demand" meanwhile you as a consumer have few ways to evaluate the claims of the company. Without some kind of watchdog if a company claims that they spent 25 years in development, you would have to take them at their word, and if you found out that they were lying, without a legal system to back you up, you would have no recourse especially when the company begins to use it's power and influence to shut you up.

    Think about tobacco companies, and what they would have been able to get away with, if there was no government oversight.

    Certainly there is room for some free market, healthy competition is good for the consumer. But when big business pushes their competitors out by creating bigger and bigger monopolies that's a recipe for disaster

    0|1
    0|0
  • in an ideal world a free market would be great. but in an ideal world we'd have no need for government

    since we don't live in an ideal world and since a free market has proven throughout most of history to create great inequality i am a believer that government regulation is necessary to large extent

    i support a free market as an ideology but as a practicality i don't think it truly serves all people

    0|1
    0|2
    • 2mo

      "a free market has proven throughout most of history to create great inequality"
      You made me laugh. It was never made to put everyone in the same level. It was made to be efficient, and there is space for everyone in there. Start to distribute wealth and see everyone get the same amount of misery.

    • 2mo

      @RedHood7 glad i could make you laugh

  • Free market, but with some government regulation.

    Free market helps the best to be at the top. Competition is what makes the market improve and not stagnate. Governments just need to put some rules so that some businesses don't do illegal things and "play" fair, but that's about it.

    0|2
    0|0
  • a free market but only under voluntary mutual agreements, so individuals have a sense of self ownership instead of feeling as if they were state property or owned by a corporation.

    i believe the individual should be autonomous from government as well as corporation as any other institution, as institutions can be used for oppressive means. if an individual has the ability to be autonomous oppression by institution should decrease with every single autonomous individual in society. so more actual freedom for individuals = less power for institutions so we can work towards a free world by and for the people, instead of by and for the institution.

    if you want to call me an anarchist for believing this i have no problem with that.

    0|2
    0|0
  • It should be about half and half. Realistically, it should be free market, but people are shit. Allow free market entirely, you have what we have now. Rich getting richer, their money not being put back into the economy, causing higher inflation mixed with low wages, foreign labor for cheaper production, etc. But on the flip side, again, you need the people to dictate the economy and mobility within the system cause people are generally unmotivated if there's no risk/reward scheme

    0|1
    0|1
  • I think basic necessities required for living: food, clothing, health care, education, gas and housing should be regulated or subsidized to a certain degree to help prevent wild fluctuations in prices (i. e. make house flipping more difficult to help stabilize prices). Non-essentials should be dictated by market prices.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Show All
    • 2mo

      thanks bro

    • 2mo

      I don't know why america has no bargaining power but thanks

  • Government regulation is one of the things that can cause prices to go up. I believe in just a little regulation.

    0|3
    0|0
  • I would be centre left in my socio economic views - A lot of state with some free market

    0|1
    0|0
  • Both are needed in different situations to keep society working properly.
    Technology? Free market.
    National Defense? Government provided/regulated.

    0|1
    0|0
  • In the UK "free market" is a joke. Most area's for example only have one water company and in such industries it should be government owned and run.

    Most things I don't really care about as long as they are regulated well.

    0|1
    0|0
    • 2mo

      They don't have anti-monopoly laws there?

    • Show All
    • 2mo

      So you dont have free market, you have propaganda and governamental bulls&%t. Damn dude, the UK used to seem like a great place, but New Zealand seems ever brighter

    • 2mo

      @RedHood7 Like everyone we have problems. It's still a great place to live.

  • Mix of both. So if the free market was black coffee government regulation would be the dash of milk.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Free market with bare minimum of government regulation.

    0|2
    0|0
  • mostly free market, but with some government regulation mostly as minimum wage and stuff like that

    0|1
    0|0
  • Free market benefits large business owners. Look at the mess corporations have created

    0|1
    0|1
  • The last option for sure

    0|1
    0|0
  • An even balance

    0|1
    0|0
  • Fucking rigged system...

    0|1
    0|0
  • Money is EVIL. We are the only species who has to pay to live on a planet we were born on

    0|1
    0|1
    • 2mo

      completely agree

    • Show All
    • 2mo

      1-Private central banks are not an universal thing, and all banks are a scam. Being private means few to nothing here, and it has nothing to do with capitalism itself.
      2-Whoever is in power owns the government, and it frequently boils down to who has enough associates that they manage to turn the entire state into a corruption scheme.
      3-You dont get it son, I've heard that story before and going back to the stone age is not an option, get it? Also, you're aware that occultism has been a part of human societies since forever, right? Any group bent on secrecy can achieve a lot. Generalizing every person in power with a scam as an occultist is oversimplifying things. Power doesn't need occultism, power is a means for itself. Furthermore, JFK himself said that abolishing secret societies and lobbies was a big part into creatin a transparent and fairer world, ever thought that it wasn't a joke?

    • 2mo

      @RedHood7 Yeah you don't understand its all good. Money is evil, its a control scheme to make sure you have to have it to live instead of just being able to have basic shit like food and water which you could get yourself if you could own a piece of land free and clear.

  • Free market on principle, added by government regulation.
    This is a general rule, but it depends on situations and cases.

    0|1
    0|0
    • 2mo

      For example, a pure public good, like National Defense, should be provided by government. For half-private half-public goods like education, then it should be a mixture.
      For instance, for disabled children from low-income families, their education has to be added by government, because it is hard for private education providers to fulfill their special needs with a low cost (since they are such a small group).

    • Show All
    • 2mo

      This being said, I think the Liberals' pro-regulation/intervention policy is excessive, because such bunch of policies substantially reduce the power of market, thus reduce efficiency, both individual and social.
      However, I disagree with many Conservatives' pro-deregulation/market policies, too.
      Many Conservative policies are just as reckless as the Liberal policies, because both of them disregard the real problems and turn into an ideology war.
      One example: Liberals want to largely expand Social Security, but with high taxation, where are the incentives of workers? Conservatives want to immediately disband Social Security, but who pay for the welfares of the current retirees? (The welfare of current retirees is paid by current workers.)
      So, I dislike both of them. They are just ideologues who care about votes, but the public policy is always complicated anyway.

Loading...