What the hell is "economic freedom"?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It has to do with how resources are allocated.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It has to do with how resources are allocated.

Hmm, tell me more.

It comes down to whether individuals are free to obtain and allocate capital and labor, or if they are forced into a system of allocation by others.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Uh, yeah, he has the freedom to take risks, and to accept responsibility when those risks turn sour. It would not be in any bank's best interest to make such loans.

Stop trying to re-define freedom into "non-freedom".

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Uh, yeah, he has the freedom to take risks, and to accept responsibility when those risks turn sour. It would not be in any bank's best interest to make such loans.

Stop trying to re-define freedom into "non-freedom".

Banks misleading people which causes them to lose capital, without which your freedom goes down significantly, is inherently anti-market and hurts the country.

Banks misleading people? Nobody forced anyone to take out loans. What was "misleading"?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest. Liberty isn't guaranteed, and strongest people oppress weakest people.
It's mostly the animals' social organizations.

Individuals each acting for his or her own best interests together create the order necessary for the 'common good'.