isn't slavery a compelling argument against "let the free market reign"?

[unblock]

viewed through a completely economic lens, slavery is a prime example of what the free market is capable of -- seeks, even -- in the absence of regulation. throughout time and throughout cultures, people and groups in power have subjugated people and groups out of power for their own economic benefit.

i am a capitalist, but just like football, it needs good, solid, sensible rules and good, solid, sensible referees.

if you permit holding and tripping and facemasking and so on in football, it ceases to be football and is reduced to "who's the biggest bully". it would be a joke of a sport at that point.

similarly, if you permit anti-competitive behavior, trusts, monopolies, monopsonies, externalities, fraud, and so on, it ceases to be capitalism and is reduced to "who's the biggest bully". it is a joke at that point.

slavery inherently involves violence of one form or another, usually including physical, and as such is often viewed differently from other forms of economic bullying. it's worse, in that sense, but there's no economic rationale for saying that slavery should be illegal but fraud or price-fixing should be permitted. all violations of the basic requirements for capitalism to work properly are crimes against the economic system, and there needs to be a power (government) strong enough to enforce those rules.

to whatever extent the government becomes unable or unwilling to enforce those rules, the economic system becomes a joke.