The fair market system was developed in recent years as a response to the percieved injustices in capitalism and alternative to other opposing economies. Other opposing economies include collectivisation of control of earned individual wealth, either in the form of industries financed with their own labor, or in the form of personal possessions. Either are considered unjust.
The proponents of the fair market believe that the origin of most economic inequality was the forcible appropriation of natural resources and to a lesser extent produced goods, by the state and other aggressors. Monopolisation of natural resources placed many populations in dependence on the state, often the feudalistic proto-states of medieval Europe.
Without land to grow food, a person becomes dependent on others for survival. They may be required to work on land they do not own in exchange for only part of the crop. The landholder trades nothing except the use of natural resources they did not create. By expropriating their labor in this way, the aggressors were able to finance invention and construction, especially important in the case of factories.
Many dependent laborers were removed from the land they worked after the introduction of factories, so that they would be forced into working in them. Their dependence enabled factory owners to demand long hours at low wages and often in dangerous conditions.
Expropriation of labor continued, leaving only the descendents or favored of the aggressors to finance further industrial/technological development. This led to their acquiring control of many later industries and patented technologies. Access to natural resources improved over the years, but by that time the consequences of historical monopolization had concentrated industry, wealth, and the ability to produce luxury goods in the hands of the undeserving.
In light of this view, fair market proponents support removing the control of industries and patents from the undeserving and distributing control of them among those who historically provided the labor that financed them. However, they do not require that industry and patents remain controlled in equal portions. This is a measure supported only as a restitution for past injustices, and fair marketeers do not favor collective control of earned individual wealth.
The fair market economic model was intended to prevent dependence on natural resources from creating injustice again, while justly preserving an individual's right to the products of their own labor. Scarce natural resources are to be quantified and control granted to each individual equally.
Plentiful resources are those that are in quantities large enough that everyone can make use of as much as they can and there will still be more left afterward. Until plentiful resources become scarce, there is no benefit in quantifying them or measuring individual ownership of them. Equal access is required because of the fact that some of these resources may be easier to access than others, and each person should have access to resources at each grade of difficulty. It would be unfair for one person to access a surface deposit of gold and another be forced to mine deeply.
The fair market respects an individual's right to the products of their own labor, including personal possessions but also including industry and patented technologies. Provided that the financing of either was not provided by dependent labor, they are the individual's own products and as such their own exclusive property. The fair market strictly opposes however, control resulting from dependence.
The fair market system was first presented by Alexander Temal in his work bearing the same title in 1999. It has subsequently been discussed in his Common Interests (2002) and Historical Injustice (2004). Geolibertarian Dan Sullivan discussed a similar system in 2001 but that notably lacked support for restitution of labor through reposession of industry. The system bears close resemblance to syndicalism.
