First, just to make sure we are on the same page, I am not some kind of free market radical, and I was not arguing for free markets, only arguing the definition.
> Youu believe that a Free Market can exist when buyers don't have access to information and amidst is rampant fraud and violence?
Existence? Sure. The only thing I was pointing at here is your very non-standard definition of a free market.
For the fraud and violence, your original statement was "no fraud", not "rampant fraud". I think you would agree that there are very few markets without any fraud, no?
Such a strong claim definitely requires proof.
To get back to your original claim about free information, I think some amount of regulation would be required for information to be freely availble.
Otherwise, why should someone give away their competitive edge (ie. the information), without any gain? Would be interesting to hear you take on that.
Not the person you are replying to, but I agree with him/her.
The definition of a free market has to do with it being free from regulation, not that information is free [0][1][2].
The same thing applies to the claims you made in this post, but maybe you mean that all of these things have to be true for a free market to work well, rather than for it to exist?
Again, I still think this requires proof, especially with regards to information having to be free.
> And truth be told, it seems like Emanuel - who seems to have said some pretty unpleasant things and is the primary target here - was roped in as a way to tarnish Lee's more recent, more relevant, more even-handed comments.
Lee never defines active as having to do with professional activity (at least not in what's quoted in the article), that is Emanuel's definition.
> Youu believe that a Free Market can exist when buyers don't have access to information and amidst is rampant fraud and violence?
Existence? Sure. The only thing I was pointing at here is your very non-standard definition of a free market.
For the fraud and violence, your original statement was "no fraud", not "rampant fraud". I think you would agree that there are very few markets without any fraud, no? Such a strong claim definitely requires proof.
To get back to your original claim about free information, I think some amount of regulation would be required for information to be freely availble. Otherwise, why should someone give away their competitive edge (ie. the information), without any gain? Would be interesting to hear you take on that.