There are no “free markets.” Some of us know this, but the phrase is so clever! What is better than to be free? By equating their market capitalism with more basic freedoms, like speech, religion, and privacy, it becomes one of our founding principles. But it was never meant to be such.
The essence of “free” markets is exclusion. In order to force (or entice) some to pay for something, I have to be able to limit the quantity of an item and access to it. So, for example, if I have a well, and it happens to be the only well in a dry area, I can forced others to pay me for water. But if there is a river nearby, then my well has no value.
Exclusion plays an important role in our lives. For instance, only a few of us can own Rolls Royce’s. The limited quantity and high price excludes most of us. That is as it should be. If we could all have them, they would not have much value.
Exclusion is useful and creates desire for people to be more productive. The principle of “free markets” merely carries exclusion to an extreme. It says that it should apply to all commodities at all times, including even our drinking water. Before Enron went down, it was heavily invested in water supplies.
But here’s the deal: If Enron is in charge of our water, then Enron is going to exclude people from having access. After all, many people in many countries have nothing, and so cannot afford to pay for water. Enron cannot give things away, and so ropes off the water supply where it controls it, and people suffer accordingly.
The alternative to exclusion is inclusion. This idea, when carried to an extreme, has been called “communism.” The very idea that we should all have equal access to all commodities is an anathema to any thinking person.
The ideal society moderates between exclusion and inclusion, holding out most things for private ownership based on ability to pay. But some things, like water, basic foodstuffs, health care and modest housing and pensions, should not be subject to exclusion.
We call this ideal society “socialist,” but the free marketers have done a pretty good job of poisoning that well, saying that socialism and communism are evil stepsisters, or at least that the former inevitably leads to the latter.
It doesn’t, of course. Canada, Western and Northern Europe, Japan, and now China, are finding the precepts of socialism lead to an orderly society and a generally happy population. There are rich people aplenty in all of these lands, but wealth is spread more evenly and and more people enjoy better lives than the American system offers.
The latest battle ground is called “net neutrality.” As with water, our latter-day Enrons want to cordon off the internet so they can charge more for access for some, and exclude others. The rest of us, left in the middle, will have a mediocre product.
That’s how the free market works. It’s surprisingly Orwellian, as the least amount of freedom comes from the greatest exposure to “free” markets.
Piece of Mindful 
Our obsession with property and property rights has now encroached into Public Trust values like water, and access to water to such an extent there is no way to ultimately protect the water itself from overappropriation and contamination.
South American countries seem to be leading a post-neoliberal effort to prioritize those things too valuable to be handled by markets and greed alone. We, on the other hand, are just beginning to understand what neoliberalism really means to quality of life as regulatory barriers fall, and everything public becomes private. We have a lot of catching up to do.
LikeLike
If only we could be more like Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Were private farms and land owners were forced off their land and consequently the general population starved.
Same happened in Russia, Cuba, and now Venezuela.
LikeLike
The topic at hand is exclusion. It is a philosophical discussion. I advocate moderation in elimination of exclusion for “…water, basic foodstuffs, health care, modest housing and pensions. I argue that almost all other goods and services should be subject to the exclusion principle.
I argue that “free market” capitalism doesn’t really exist, but that the exclusion principle is a positive value for non-essential goods and services.
I don’t know what the hell you’re commenting about.
LikeLike
Did I say farmland? I don’t think so.
Let’s stick to water for now. So, you want Coke and Pepsi to own water, sell you water? Since 6th Century Rome, Justinian as I recall, water has been public. In Rome today the springs run 24/7 throughout the city for all to use. You prefer that would be privatized?
Montana’s water is held in trust for the people (public) for its use. You cannot own the water, but the right to use it.
I know this represents a Randian dilemma, but perhaps this one time you can think for yourself and decide. What will it be, private or public water?
LikeLike
With few exceptions who owns more property than farmers?
Likewise, farmers utilize water to a greater extent than most.
I drink private water, crystal clear from a spring I privately developed. My friends and neighbors always comment on the ice it makes-some even taking some home when they leave.
I own it and could sell it.
I wouldn’t buy or use Billings public water.
LikeLike
You may think you own your water, but you’d be wrong. You own a right to (appropriate) use it, in your case for domestic, consumptive use. That water, however, belongs to the people of the State of Montana. The State grants you that right to appropriate. That’s the law, plain and simple.
LikeLike
Mark – I think you’re right, there’s no such thing as free markets, but there are markets that are less restricted and thus generally more efficient, and generally less so.
But I must disagree with you on ‘”Western Europe” and “now China.”
China has absolutely done away with any such ideal. The wealth gap in China is growing rapidly; the poor are suffering the environmental brunt of the economic gains and the wealthy are paying to get away from it. The government continues to enforce LIMITED ACCESS (exactly what your post is about) to residence in cities – the key to getting a chance at joining the ranks of the wealthy, a growing group that is nonetheless still firmly in the minority.
Western Europe is a mixed bag – I’m sure there are nations that make it work beautifully, and I think that Germany and the Scandinavian nations are making it work beautifully. But I’ve also seen how southern Europe uses socialism to justify rent seeking behavior and corruption rivaling that seen in capitalist countries.
LikeLike
I think the Chinese are going to have a problem with exclusion and their supportive culture. That would take an authoritative hand, like communism or free marketeers? We’ll see how they handle extremes of wealth.
Can’t say much more. You seem to have eyes and ears.
LikeLike