Whoa, authoritarianism? Who said anything about authoritarianism? All prosperous economies are quite heavily regulated. You sound like that messianic group in the 40s and 50s of Milton Friedman, Mises, Hayek and friends who believed that the market solves everything. No one is proposing communism; no need to dig up the politics of the Mont Pelerin Society.

All regulations on voluntary market activity are a form of prohibition, where engaging in some voluntary activity is punished by prison sentences or expropriation of wealth. That is textbook authoritarian intervention. Just because it is popular and the most powerful countries do it does not mean it is not authoritarian.

I don't believe that markets will solve everything but I do believe that the best chance we have to solve problems is through voluntary market action as opposed to authoritarian action.

> That is textbook authoritarian intervention.

It's really not. It's not authoritarian when a democratically elected government creates regulations that it's citizens want. That's just governance.

Otherwise every law a government passes is authoritarian, in which case the word is meaningless.

Any law that punishes a voluntary action is authoritarian, whether it has a democratic mandate or not.

Not all laws punish voluntary action. For instance, a law against theft is not authoritarian.

Theft is a voluntary action. The thief is taking an action of their own volition. Your definition is flawed and meaningless.

I should clarify, when I say "voluntary action", I mean mutually voluntary or consensual action, where no one's person or property is violated.

The idea of being free to act in any way other than violating the rights of others (though violence, theft, etc) is a pretty widely accepted principle of a free society.

Nearly all laws are passed under the belief that someone is victimized when the behavior is but prohibited (or required).

The vast majority of such justifications are hollow, and usually premised on the idea that adults are too incompetent to make correct consumer, employment, etc decisions for themselves. E.g. laws against selling dangerous products like drugs to adults. The arguments for such laws are only appealing to the sound-bite digesting 20-second-attention-span crowd. I'd argue that they'd never stand in a court of law.

> The vast majority of such justifications are hollow

Eh, depends on the law in question. Banking regulations, for example, protect consumers and the broader economy from short sighted actions in the part of bankers. I don't think the justifications are hollow given the history.

> and usually premised on the idea that adults are too incompetent to make correct consumer, employment, etc decisions for themselves.

Well, if you believe citizens are too short sighted to vote rationally, then I don't know how you can argue that they are not too short sighted to make other decisions rationally.

But more to the point, some laws are truly intended to protect people from their own decisions (often in the context of hardships, such as usury laws), but many are intended to protect society as a whole, where the belief is that individuals are harmed collectively by the actions of others.

> E.g. laws against selling dangerous products like drugs to adults.

I don't feel like drug laws and market regulations have much in common.

>Eh, depends on the law in question. Banking regulations, for example, protect consumers and the broader economy from short sighted actions in the part of bankers. I don't think the justifications are hollow given the history.

A regulation that prevents me as an adult from investing in a high risk instrument is not protection against aggression (which is a justifiable prohibition). It is nanny state authoritarianism and denies me as a banking customer options because of an assumption on the part of busy-bodies that I can't be trusted to make wise investment decisions for myself.

>Well, if you believe citizens are too short sighted to vote rationally, then I don't know how you can argue that they are not too short sighted to make other decisions rationally.

Can't you see that this argument can be made more compellingly against your position than mine? If you think consumers are not smart enough even to make purchasing decisions for themselves, how could you possibly entrust them with to elect politicians that will impose thousands of force backed mandates and prohibitions on the economy, that intimitaly affect every aspect of our lives, and determine the winners and losers among thousands of companies?

Either we accept the precepts of liberal democracy, and assume an adult has a right to determine their own path in life, or we give into fascism and make decisions for them. If we choose the latter, there's no principled reason to preserve the right of the masses to vote.

All of the arguments given for prohibitions on mutually voluntary actions to "protect society" or "protect consumers" seems like hollow justifications for authoritarianism to me.

Justification for restricting individual actions should be based on empirical study of whether or not they harm others, not on an a priori creed that appeals some simplistic logic. What constitutes a free decision cannot be decided by the decree of a mid-20th-century fringe think-tank. For example (although this example, too, is very simplistic), capturing a bird and putting it in a cage restricts its individual freedom. But if it is discovered empirically that 98% of birds of that kind are unable to resist the draw to some sound at a particular frequency, then playing that sound is also a restriction of their freedom. In other words, "free" is not defined by math, but by the actual study of the behavior of actual people in actual societies. I'm not claiming that careful studies are always or even usually, conducted, but nor is it the case that freedom is defined arbitrarily.

>Justification for restricting individual actions should be based on empirical study of whether or not they harm others, not on an a priori creed that appeals some simplistic logic.

Harm others or harm themselves? Or are you referring to the restrictions themselves, and whether they harm others? I don't think the threat of imprisonment should be used to restrict human action that is nonviolent. This is not just libertarianism. This is common sense and basic decency.

As for private property rights and their scientific justification: they are the manifestation of the first possession principle that is found in game theory experiments to be an emergent behavior that maximizes social welfare, and which even other animals exhibit.

Violating property rights, by prohibiting financial transactions outside of state licensed banks, or demanding a percentage of all earnings made in private trade be transferred to politically appointed authorities, is often a great contributor to the concentration of wealth, and maintains the status quo, so your intuition that anti-authoritarianism and private property rights serves the rich is wrong.

Just to give concrete examples from humans, it is not clear to me why private property is an a priori untouchable liberty, while economic pressure is declared to be kosher and categorically different from physical pressure. Both require actual empirical study of their interaction with human behavior to determine which is an essential freedom and which isn't. In fact, there seems to be no logical justification at all for the categorization done in this Mont Pelerin tradition. Rather it seems like arbitrary choices that miraculously happen to justify the status quo, and ensure that the power of the rich (economic) is deemed ethical, while the power of the poor (numbers) is deemed an encroachment on freedom. This system of ethics is transparently self-serving.

> where engaging in some voluntary activity is punished by prison sentences or expropriation of wealth. That is textbook authoritarian intervention.

That's not what authoritarianism means. When society restricts some individual freedoms that's not always authoritarianism. You personally may not like it; you may be ideologically opposed to it, but that's not enough to make it authoritarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Otherwise, every possible society would necessarily be authoritarian for a simple reason: a society comprises more than one person. For simplicity assume there are only two. Either person A is allowed to do as they like -- including things that may restrict B's freedoms -- in which case the system is authoritarian, or there is some social mechanism in place that forbids A from behaving in this way, in which case the system is also authoritarian.

>That's not what authoritarianism means. When society restricts some individual freedoms that's not always authoritarianism. You personally may not like it; you may be ideologically opposed to it, but that's not enough to make it authoritarian.

I'm referring to the more generic meaning of authoritarianism, as in imposing authoritarian measures, from Google:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an adjective favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Personal freedom means being able to do anything you want outside of violating other people's person or property without their consent. The idea of being free to act in any way other than violating the rights of others (though violence, theft, etc) is a pretty widely accepted principle of a free society.

That means any consumer protection law, that restricts the right for a party to offer a particular product/service, by fining or imprisoning those who do, is authoritarian.

A law against theft or murder is not authoritarian.