A free market does not refer to the absence of coercion such as advertising but minimal government regulation.
you need government regulation because without it excessive liberal freedoms will be abused and you’ll end up shooting your eye out, ralfy. happens every time.
So you can still have a “free market” when coercion is maximally privatised?
If so, “free market” would seem a misleading term just because the unfreedom was decentralised.
I’m guessing the implication is that with minimal government regulation, we reach minimal coercion by definition?
This would, of course, place a great deal of faith in Classical Liberal economic theory - that tending towards perfection competition minimises coercion through monopoly and oligopoly etc.
I’ve explained that through the “Competitive Exclusion Principle” we know that perfect competition is not stable unless poverty is so great as to negate the advantage gained by success. The point is for the Free Market to get us out of this state of poverty so that we no longer need it, which means that with the physical restrictions of poverty no longer around to actually enable perfect competition to keep the Free Market in line, other means are needed. I’m not certain that only government regulation can satisfy that requirement, but it is certainly one way to do so if done properly. Anything that overrides the authority of decentralised markets could potentially fulfill this requirement, though in practice with too minimal government regulation or with government working too in line with markets and not to keep them in line, government will not suffice in this regard.
So what then? This is the only relevant economic question of our age. We know the market solution is limited and we know pre-Information-Age totalitarian governments with can’t keep up with populations beyond a fairly small size.
Until that is answered, we are left with hack solutions such as enforced advertising just to maintain the illusion of voluntary trade when the Information Age makes so much so freely available. The more we progress into this age, the less viable these hack solutions become.
The infusion of advertising even permeates into the information age, and some say it consists of the very opposite You are describing. It may consist more of a build up of pressures of the very complex forces of the market, which, like earthquakes, we can not really understand by prediction.
Great transformations have to naturally occur along pressure points, to be able to understand the under lying forces that shape the forces which drive the effective ingredients.
Distribution patterns suggest the effects to be contrary to curves expected, and that was behind the last past great recession.
The e caption to the rule is more manifest in economic history then the rule, and I gather, this exceptional and repetitive phenomenon has already been somewhat factored in, or rather, been devoured my the market.
If the great crash were ever to return, would market in extreme situations be for ed to view an ultimate shakeup like another world war to straighten it up, would it require it’s implementation? Certainly !
That is why minor quakes naturally are instituted to relieve pressures on major faults.
The point of a general depression of a universal scale can never again be permitted to occur, and that is the final arbiter of limits to authoritarian forces bearing down on market no events, the level of poverty can not ever negate successes.
So if Conservative were to say that return to the era of a great America would entail child labour, cessation of if social programs including cutting social security , who would listen?
Well some would, and they would argue on the basis of retransforming society into less complex, less visually promoted eras, where smaller family of resembling circles of affinity drove societal needs.
If this type of retransformative awareness became dominant force, would advertisement lessen the impact of cautionary voices of those, who warn that what you see is not always to your best satisfaction?
In fact , it diminishes your need to understand the idea of why you even considered buying it in the first place.
The infusion of advertising even permeates into the information age, and some say it consists of the very opposite You are describing. It may consist more of a build up of pressures of the very complex forces of the market, which, like earthquakes, we can not really understand by prediction.
Great transformations have to naturally occur along pressure points, to be able to understand the under lying forces that shape the forces which drive the effective ingredients.
Distribution patterns suggest the effects to be contrary to curves expected, and that was behind the last past great recession.
The exception to the rule is more manifest in economic history then the rule, and I gather, this exceptional and repetitive phenomenon have already been somewhat factored in, or rather, been devoured my the market.
If the great crash were ever to reoccure , would markets in extreme situations be forced to observe an ultimate shakeup like another world war to straighten things up? Would it require such extreme implementation? Certainly !
That is why minor quakes naturally are instituted to relieve pressures on major faults.
The point of a general depression of a universal scale can never again be permitted to occur, and that is the final arbiter of limits to authoritarian forces bearing down on marketable events, in which case , the levels of poverty can not ever negate successes absolutely.
So if Conservative were to say that return to the era of a great America would entail child labour, cessation of of social programs, including cutting social security , who would listen?
Well some would, and they would argue on the basis of retransforming society into less complex, less peripherally promoted eras, where smaller family of resembling circles of affinity drove societal needs.
If this type of retransformative awareness became dominant force, would advertisement lessen the impact of cautionary voices of those, who warn that what you see is not always to your best satisfaction?
In fact , it may even diminish the need to understand the idea of why competitive buying was considered in the first place.
That is, competitive buying based on peripheral levels of attributing value.
Free-markets don’t exist and never have. Free-markets is purely fantasy and fiction that useful idiots embrace right up there with the Bible.
Ok if you say so, but relative ones had in the original marketplace, where there was some village recognition of who was trading with whom, and what was being traded.
Unawareness came later, and anything advertised en-mass, was instantly a generic success.
Sure, monkeys see and do out of rote.
Valid? Ask the man who has
to steal to eat to survive, if he can’t trade. He is no less true.
I did just changed the terms, but meaning changes apart from a personal matter to get out of fallacy.
Situations change, what if it was a true Irishman, forced to abandon the village because of the potato famine?
The fallacie works only in a subjective context.
Nothing in this world is free or even free from coercion. There’s nothing free in the free market other than the ability for those that control it to steal other people’s labor, time, and livelihoods under a variety of false pretenses.
Prove to me in history where a free market has existed and then in detail define what a free market is. We can go from there.
If I tried, you’d call them all no true Scotsman - that’s the point of the fallacy.
Your response to Meno_ was actually the point of the thread - indeed nothing in this world is entirely free, as there is necessarily another side to the same coin wherever freedom can be identified.
This is absolutely clear as soon as you exemplify one person being completely free in one way, since another person is logically not free to do differently to what that person wants to do out of their own freedom.
This is probably your whole point as well, so I don’t want to come across as hostile or averse to your point - in fact I want to agree with it, just in the most correct terms that I can.
But more than merely a general point about freedom, I simply meant to apply it specifically to the market model that is characteristically central to Western economics for the purposes of this thread. I explain how the facade necessarily becomes increasingly untenable the more we advance into the future, and specifically why it will do so.
Ideally I intended to open up discussion concerning the future of the “Free” market model, as foundationally unfree as you rightly identified it to be.
My point still stands, there has never been a free market and free market economics is a fantasy or a kind of fairy tale people lull themselves with into believing even though it fundamentally has nothing to do with reality.
There is no reforming the current social, political, and economic system where this will become abundantly clear within two years or less. 
What comes next is western civilization’s violent and brutal downfall or collapse. It will be the most spectacular sight to behold once civil war, rioting, martial law, world war, and violent chaos engulfs the entire west. [And the entire world.]
We cynics and pessimists tried to warn the world but nobody would listen to us calling us crazy from the start. Well, now everybody gets to witness what we were talking about in horrific real time. Enjoy! 
Definitely, and I never argued otherwise.
Coercion is never minimized.
Enforced advertising is not meant to be a solution or meant to create an illusion of voluntary trade.
So you can’t coerce someone less, or coerce them less often?
Are you thinking this through?
Do you mean coercion is inevitable to some kind of balanced constant across any given society as an average?
This would make the “free market” no different from somewhere like North Korea, which doesn’t seem right to me.
I’m trying to make sense of this seemingly bizarre blanket statement, especially in the absence of any explanation by you.
Of course it is.
It’s a solution to keep money circulating even though anything digital can be easily distributed for free. The only “need” for money is capitalist.
Without consumers paying money for digital things they could get for free, and trying to enforce restrictions that can be bypassed being futile, selling exposure to advertising companies seems to be the only way to get money to circulate through these ever-growing markets. It’s a last resort, the model wasn’t intentionally constructed to bring about voluntary trade or an illusion of it, it’s to maintain voluntary trade, but only an illusion of it since it’s enforced.
Society needs coercion because people are largely selfish, lazy, and care only about themselves which is why volunteering societies never work. The trick is finding the right kind of stable management to run things but of course it only takes a few generations for any system to become corrupt, decadent, or self destructive which is why social revolutions whatever political guise they take is never ending all throughout human history because human beings have an enormous inherent character flaw concerning human nature. Human nature is definitely not inherently good nor do I believe most people are inherently good. Some people are good, honorable, and virtuous but a majority of human beings are simply just dumb destructive vindictive animals that need to be herded for their own good.
Yes, you’re free to do either.
What is that “balanced constant” when it comes to advertising?
The “bizarre blanket statement” is some sort of “balanced constant” which I’d like to see you quantify.
No, it’s not. Even the phrase “[e]nforced advertising” makes no sense. Are you claiming that companies are forced to advertise? And my whom? Or are you referring to consumers who are forced to view advertisements? And who is forcing them to do that?
And what does that even have to do with “voluntary trade”? The phrase refers to allowing people to trade voluntarily?
Advertising is not the only “solution.” There’s also pricing, availability of credit, planned obsolescence, and more.
Your next statement is incoherent. Did you mean that money needs “[a] capitalist,” or capitalists in general? Perhaps you mean capitalists need money?
Why are you limiting the scope of the discussion to “digital things”? Are you aware that non-“digital things” are needed to use them, and that many needs are “non-digital”?
I don’t understand the rest of the paragraph. Are you implying that this thread, contrary to the contents of the OP, is only about “digital things”?
“Free to coerce” with whatever degree and frequency! =D>
Let’s break this gem down into the terms of positive liberty (freedom to) and negative liberty (freedom from):
Being “free” to coerce sounds like positive liberty, yet at the cost of the negative liberty of those coerced, who are not free from your coercion.
This as a society-wide “freedom” means that no one person is free from another’s freedom to coerce them - the universal positive liberty is mirrored and literally cancelled out by universal negative liberty.
With the freedom and coercion cancelling each other out, “Free to coerce” is absolutely a nothing-statement.
Are you thinking this through?
You don’t seem to understand - I am not asserting the existence of any “balanced constant” as part of my argument, I am suggesting such a thing in an attempt to make your bizarre blanket statement of “Coercion is never minimized” make sense, when coercion clearly can be minimised with just a second’s thought required to think why.
So either a “balanced constant” applies to your bizarre blanket statement about coercion never being minimised, in which case the burden of proof rests on you to justify it by quantifying such a constant, or it doesn’t apply to your bizarre blanket statement any more than it applies to my argument, and so my attempt to help you out is irrelevant to the discussion and can be thrown out - not for my lack of trying to help you though.
Enforced advertising makes perfect sense when considering the position of those upon whom it is enforced. They aren’t forced to keep their eyes and ears open during the advert(s), but that which they’re freely choosing to do is being denied to them throughout the duration of any adverts. Unless you actively choose to be affronted by adverts, having your free choice denied to you is involuntary - it is enforced upon you against your will, even if you shut down your senses or do something else in the meantime. This is particularly jarring if the content of any advert disrupts the experience of what you would otherwise be freely experiencing.
It was never meant to apply to imply companies are forced to advertise by anyone - although now you bring such a thing up, there is a certain market requirement to advertise contingent on the desire of companies to stay competitive. Nobody is forcing companies to stay competitive, but if capitalists want to reap the benefit of being a capitalist, and not resort to selling their labour for much less reward, they are forced to advertise to the extent that they want to succeed. If they don’t, their market share will be marginal and relatively insignificant, if they stay in business at all - it’s a sure way to make any success minimal in the face of competition choosing to advertise. Like I said: “if [adverts] did not work then it would not be a monumentally huge industry” like it is.
I already answered this after you previously said “A free market does not refer to the absence of coercion such as advertising but minimal government regulation.”
To break it down to the same terms as I used earlier in this post, you’re saying voluntary trade only applies to positive liberty.
There’s something amiss here when negative liberty is compromised in the name of positive liberty.
Conceivably it’s perfectly possible for a free market to not impose on negative liberties whatsoever, if it were entirely optional without the significant costs of not participating. As it is, if you free yourself from the free market, you restrict yourself to self-sufficiency, and even then only if there’s any land that’s not “claimed” within the free market, freely accessible to you without needing the free market, which could support a self-sufficient lifestyle, and is guaranteed to remain this way for as long as you want. The larger the reach of the free market, the less free you are to not participate. And even if you do choose to participate, you are subject to its effects, whether economic, or socio-cultural, including adverts being placed with the explicit intention of being as unavoidably conspicuous as companies can get away with. All of these are violations of negative liberty, which is only possible to undo by enforcing less positive liberty.
Pricing and credit both fall squarely into the category of forcing money through platforms that easily distribute content freely. The easier it is to trade things, the less demand there is for labour and business to help out + the more any degree of pricing or credit becomes irrelevant - because it’s more able to be maximally free. Planned obsolescence is just another measure to force money into anything that could be much more free if the means to use it weren’t designed to periodically fail - and it would have to be extreme to make up for the revenue generated by forcing money into otherwise freely usable platforms through either pricing and credit or advertising.
The maximum freedom here is to let freely distributable commodities be free to distribute as and when anyone wants, as well as not resorting to enforcing adverts, pricing, credit, planned obsolescence and more onto people.
The problem is that this lack of “need” for money is incompatible with Capitalism, which is why my statement about it is perfectly coherent.
I don’t mean either “money needs capitalists” or “capitalists need money”: capitalists do need money in a capitalist economy just like anyone else, and money doesn’t need only capitalists in particular as many economic models need or at least use money. Capitalism is just one model that needs money, and therefore realms where money is not needed defy Capitalism. In these cases Capitalism does more to get in the way of freedom than to enable it.
The discussion isn’t limited to digital things, my argument is that the more freely a platform can be used, the less need for money (whether pricing, advertising or anything else) and as such: the more free the platform, the more enforcement of these things is a violation of freedom in any market. Digital things are just a great example of otherwise freely distributable content. And yes, obviously I am aware that they’re not entirely freely distributable contingent upon the material element of hardware - but given hardware, and to an extent the software programming to software, the use of the results could be entirely free - and yet things like adverts are forced into this possible freedom, making it unfree.
In the OP I offer “Think intellectual property or anything publishable on the internet”, which is perfectly compatible with my mention of “digital things” - there is nothing contrary to the contents of the OP here.
But more importantly, even though it’s most plainly obvious that adverts defy free market values in the digital realm et al. and that these markets are only eclipsing others more and more as technology advances, even in realms where things are still constrained by the physical (e.g. food, shelter etc.) any advertisement involved with these things is still an imposition - and fully intended to get your attention as well. If information is needed on products and services available, it would be perfectly possible to make such information freely accessible on a perfectly optional basis without any imposition whatsoever. It’s perfectly possible to arrange things such that you can go an entire lifetime without ever once seeing an advert, and staying as up to date as you want on entirely impartial and factual information about what you might want all the while.
In short, the scope is in no way limited to digital things, the discussion is universally relevant, only more obviously so with digital things as just one example, in accordance with the general trend towards the potential free distribution of more and more things.
This has nothing to do with your topic concerning advertisements defiling free market values. The first refers to marketing products and services. The second refers to less government regulation.
Are you thinking this through?
Understand what? You can’t even define the terms that you use! You don’t even know what advertising and free markets mean.
Next time, think things through before creating a thread. That way, you don’t come up with such bizarre arguments like advertisements “defiling” free market values and similar nonsense, and then insist that others don’t understand you!
The “bizarre blanket statement about coercion” in this thread is seen in the thread title.
“Enforced advertising” refers to businesses being forced to advertise. You’re talking about people being forced to view advertisements. Use the correct terms!
People are forced to keep their eyes and ears open during advertisements because of the duration? That has nothing to do with “free market values,” where businesses are free to do as they please.
And if you insist on regulations to decrease the duration, then that actually goes AGAINST free market values.
What does this have to do with your topic? You were referring to people being forced to view advertisements because the latter are too long. Now, you’re referring to companies forced to advertised.
Can’t you stick to a topic and discuss it first before moving on to another, or are you now claiming that because of competition, businesses have to advertise, and with that advertisements tend to be longer? If so, how does that prove your argument about free markets? Aren’t the latter about competition and using tools like advertising?
I never argued that voluntary trade only applies to positive liberty. In fact, I did not refer to voluntary (or involuntary) trade or positive (or negative) liberty, as these have nothing to do with the definition I gave above.
To recap, a free market is one where there is no government regulation. But since that’s not likely, then the mainstream view refers to minimum government regulation. Thus, free market economies are mostly mixed ones, as government regulation involving fiat currencies, corporate by-laws and registration, contracts, are still needed by businesses.
Duration of advertising has nothing to do with that. Your thesis, as seen in the thread title, is meaningless.
What you probably meant is that advertising (and not advertising per se but the duration) defiles some sort of philosophy you have concerning liberty.
You should have come up with correct terms!
Not just “forcing money through platforms” but increasing sales, business expansion, and more. And credit comes in several forms.
You obviously have a very limited and unrealistic view of economics and how businesses operate.
That point makes no sense at all, as the freedom to distribute involves advertising, etc. In short, what “defiles” free market isn’t advertising but your insistence on curtailing it. All the while, you see things the other way round!
Your next point, about a “lack of ‘need’ for money,” has nothing to do with your first point, as credit expansion involves a greater need for money.
Your third point makes no sense as well: what on earth does “money doesn’t need only capitalists” even mean? And why are you referring to other models when your title thread refers to one?
Yes, but you’re referring to “digital things.” “Non-digital things” may counter your points.
In that case, your thread title should be about advertising duration of “digital things” defiling “liberties.” That is completely different from the current title.
No, they don’t defy free market values. Free market values refer to less government regulation, which means allowing businesses to come up with advertising duration, among others, which they think will increase sales. From there, they can adjust if that doesn’t work.
What you’re calling for is regulation of advertising in terms of duration and anything else which you argue goes against whatever liberties you want to mention. THAT defies free market values because it involves government regulation.
BTW, there’s nothing wrong with that as long as your proposal gets a majority vote.