Political Compass #20: The freer the market, the freer the people.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were. I will also suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them.

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.

*Proposition #20: * The freer the market, the freer the people.

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Disagree.

Up to a point, I agree: After that, I consider that capitalism starts to fail in critical areas better served by government mandate: Freedom to truly suffer when you lose the game of life is no freedom at all.

Are the citizens of a rich country in which capitalism fails to provide millions with universal electricity, legal representation, health insurance and other necessities more free than where the state intervenes more forcefully? I would say not - I certainly wouldn’t feel more free given such uncertainty should I ever, say, lose my job. And as for a completely free market, well, gangs of children fighting over a rubbish tip is not my idea of a “Land of the Free” by a long stretch. Few people think that private charity could provide adequate universal policing, so it seems even more naïve to believe that it could further provide a universal education, healthcare or safety net for these losers of a Winner Takes All game. Social Darwinism does not free the people - it oppresses them.

On the other hand pure Marxism is, of course, less free still. Only an anarchist would hold that all taxation is oppressive, but anyone can recognise that those subject to 100% taxation lack many freedoms available to those who can accrue private wealth. (Although, since the proposition speaks specifically of the market, one should not conflate all of the social restrictions on freedom which characterised past Marxist totalitarian regimes with the purely economic restrictions of a 100% tax.)

“The less free the market, the freer the people” is clearly false. But I believe that proposition #20 is also false. Freedom from preventable suffering is as important as freedom from unduly oppressive taxation, and so the free market should be interfered with for the common good. The chance to live a Third World life in a First World country is hardly a liberating enfranchisement.

2

Agree.

Except for those wishing to take things to an illogical extreme we all recognize that government has a role in our lives. In fact without a government that protected individuals from fraud, theft, etc. we wouldn’t have a free market.

Electricity isn’t a right, legal representation unless you’re charged with a crime isn’t a right, health insurance isn’t a right, and many other necessities aren’t a right. Need doesn’t entitled an individual to anything.

It’s false if you take it to the illogical extreme. True otherwise.

Marc

3

Marc:

Private security could protect individuals - indeed, hiring oneself out in such a capacity is arguably the essence of the free market. If you cannot afford the personnel or weaponry to protect your property, does your “need” for protection entitle you to that protection? Why is protection from crime a right, given that other people must pay to provide you with that service even though they could afford to meet their own security needs themselves?

Of course I believe that universal policing via enforced contributions are justified, but I also believe the same about healthcare, education and a social safety net. I wish to understand the “cherry-picking” nature of those who believe that policing and education is a right even for the homeless but, say, food is not.

Well, we must debate what is “illogical” and “extreme”. I might find the provision of universal education but not universal healthcare somewhat perverse, nay illogical. I might also find the Third World lives of some people in First World countries “extreme” given the vast quantities of food and energy which go to waste.

Ultimately, we are each merely setting our personal threshold past which we consider that a free market begins to oppress rather than liberate. I think that if one sets such a threshold at all then that is reason enough to Disagree.

4

All taxation is by definition an expression of violence and oppression. We agree that a certain amount may be necessary, but I see very few people lining up to hand over cash to the IRS. [For non-Americans, the IRS is the Internal revenue Service, and handles income tax collection] How many people would pay if they were not forced to? Taxation is backed by threat of force.

I consider the right ot buy and sell as I please one of the only concrete rights I have. Free speech is a debatable right (sadly); some countries, even free western ones, have extensive restrictions on it. Whether an individual case of speech is allowed to be or not can vary considerably from place to place. moreover, it may not be apparent what will be tolerated in any given place, hence the many lawsuits and countersuits about it.

The ability to buy and sell is quite open and concrete. There are strict legal rules on it. Its openly acknowledged what is and is not allowed. In that sense, the legal right to buy and sell whatever has not been deemed illegal is a concrete a right - one established in law, open, and difficult to change.

5

Wait… what’s the question here? Is it “The freer the market, the freer the people” or is it “The freer the market, the better off the people”? The OP seems to be addressing the second question, not the first.

6

Actually, though, I’d be interested in seeing your definition of ‘free’ and ‘freedom’, SentientMeat. The way you use the terms in your OP implies a lot more than the ‘absence of political restraints’, which is what usually comes to my mind.

7

cckerberos: “An absence of oppression” will do, having not looked at a dictionary. I consider Social Darwinism to be oppressive in a social and perhaps even political sense.

bandit:

Note that the legal and policing systems protecting your property rights only exist because of taxation (ie. “an expression of violence and oppression”). This is still ultimately an arbitrary granting of some rights over others - it surely makes taxation no less “violent” or “oppressive” if that tax pays a judge or police officer’s salary rather than that of a nurse or a teacher?

8

(5.25, -4.10): Agree

I think your answer depends on how you interpret the question. I read it as “All other things being equal, the freer the market, the freer the people.” I add that phrase because without it, you have to make assumptions. And with that phrase, I don’t think anyone could argue the “disagree” position - increase freedom along one axis while holding the other constant, and total freedom increases.

But it’s reasonable that one could interpret the question to mean something else. I see the range of possible governments along the whole 2-dimensional grid of the Political Compass, with “freer” being (of course) generally towards the lower right. But it seems that most governments tend to fall along a diagonal that goes from lower left to upper right. If someone interpreted the OP question to pertain to that diagonal, then moving to the right would imply fewer personal liberties, and if personal liberties are more important to that person that economic liberties, then I see that increasing economic liberty could be seen by that person as decreasing personal liberty.

9

+7/-3

Agree.

And I agree that one must differentiate between freedom and comfort when answering this question. Freedom is not about guaranteeing success or hapiness or even health. In that sense, freedom can be a scary prospect.

10

-3.5/-2.4 (at least this time I took it)

I ticked disagree (this time). I have trouble consistently interpreting the questions.

What is the definition of a free market? I am assuming that the definition of a freer market is one less trammeled by government regulation (or other goon squad activity).

A market dominated by a few monopolies or oligopolies might be free in a trivial sense (no gub’mint men (with guns, no less) enforcing the regulations) but at the same time completely locked up - you will buy necessary product X at price Y because there there is only one source or several colluding sources then I don’t think that society is freer.

11

Paladud, something like (7, -1.5) picks Strongly Agree

So freedom is only freedom when you reap its benefits without facing risks and consequences?

It is ultimately freedom to feel joy, suffering, whatever you can accomplish without infringing on the freedoms of others. If you feel obligated to help everyone in need (and given the broadness of your views of need, I’d probably fall into that category) kindly do so with your own resources.

You might assume that I’m a wealthy miser from these statements. Think otherwise. I go to a community college, tutor math near the edge of the local ghetto for laughable pay, and live mainly on ramen noodles. And I feel a hell of a lot prouder than I would if I went to a fancy university at another’s expense. I get to realize my potential on my own, or fail on my own.

If you’d rather live in Huxley’s Brave New World, go for it. Just don’t drag me along.

12

Libertarian/Right
Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.18

Ticks agree.

Again, this is another bad question, IMO. What exactly is the definition of ‘freer market’? What’s meant exactly by ‘freer people’? Its all in your interperatation.

A ‘freer market’ to my mind isn’t one with no restraint at all. Only an anarchist would think that. But its one with a minimum of government of interference, allowed to opperate, within the limites society places on it (i.e. laws, taxes, etc), but unconstrained otherwise by having to ‘do good for society’. Its a fine balance.

Businesses are in business for one thing only…to make a profit. They aren’t in business to do good deeds. And a ‘freer market’ allows businesses to freedom to operate in a manner to maximize those profits, while still imposing some rules and structure on them so that they behave in such a manner that the society they operate in feels is appropriate. And to my mind, thats good for ‘everyone’…i.e. society as a whole benifits when our market is ‘freer’ and our industries are strong and productive.

This is pretty much how I interpereted it as well. Freedom is the ability to try, not the guarentee that you will succeed. Its the promise that you can STRIVE to do or be anything you want to be, not that you WILL be or have everything you strive for.
-XT

13

Why does free market = monopoly? Monopolies are notoriously hard to achieve, and even harder to maintain without government backing.

“The market” also does not equate to “big business”, which I think some people may assume. “The market” is just people buying and selling things. In this sense, “the market” and “the people” are one and the same. This political compass statement is damn near a tautology.

14

This is another question on the political compass that I find to be bad form.

I actually believe the reverse, the freer the people, the freer the market. If the people are not free (and I’m pretty sure the original question is concerned solely with political freedoms, and SM has gone off on a tangent about social darwinism that I don’t feel is tangent to the question), then the market cannot be free.

However, it isn’t asking about the reverse. I clicked agree, but primarily because I felt it was a badly phrased question, and when I come upon those I simply click on the answer that reflects my political leanings.

I don’t believe a free market guarantees anything, and I also don’t think this question has anything to do with stuff like government assitance et cetra.

15

If I may ask a question of those ticking Agree: How would you describe a most free market?

Surely, if a least free market is one which is totally regulated by government, most free is one with no government involvement: ie. a Social Darwinist dystopia where only private security protected property, and without any oppresive taxation to pay for policing the ghettos where the poor who could simply could not afford healthcare or education (save for a surely pitifully inadequate provision from private charity) and might literally starve to death?

Least free market=100% mandatory taxation, most free market=0% mandatory taxation, agreed?

16

This is a difficult one to answer and subject to some basic interpretation. Originally, I chose agree, reasoning that people who live in free markets are in general more free than people who live in managed economies. After more reflection, I choose disagree for the following reasons.

1- The free-est major market in history, in my opinion, was in laissez-faire America in the latter part of the 19th century. Want to sell poison and call it medicine? No problem. Want to sell meat without inspection? Want to hire child labor? Want to pollute the water? None of these were any obstacle to business in that era. It is hard to imagine a freer market. Were the people any more free back then? I don’t think so- I believe that we are more free today. More free to express dissent, more free to embrace other lifestyles, more free to read what we choose, more free to practice minority religions, more free to be of a different race. Sensible restrictions on the free market, in the form of child labor laws, pollution controls, drug controls, anti-discrimination laws, etc. have made the people more free than the absence of these restrictions.

2- Two nations, China and Vietnam, come to mind as examples of nations that now have markets that are more free than in the past but the people still do not enjoy basic civil liberties.

3- On the other end of the scale, some western European nations have embraced socialism to varying degrees and are among the most free peoples of the world. Socialized medicine, for example, is counter to the ideal of a free market but where provided can be said to make the people more free.

17

I have tried to explain this to you before. The essential difference between providing police and providing food is the use of force. NOT, BTW, forceable taxation, but in the act of meeting the need. Ideally, the police use force as a retaliation against those who would use it against others. That is, they arrest criminals who would use force against other citizens. This activity requires the use of force. Regardless of how you gather the money to pay the police, they have to use force to achieve their purpose. This is an essential difference between the police and every other social need you think the government should fill.

But you see, this is a strawman you have built in your own head. No serious speaker* has suggested that the government will or should go away. If you understand the government as an institution for regulating (organizing might be a better word) the use of force within a society, it is easier to see the difference between arresting criminals and passing out food.

Try to remember, the essential difference between police and welfare has nothing to do with the way in which they are paid for.

18

Firstly, I’m going to make a point that I have made before. As far as the political compass itself goes, I’m almost certain that it was designed more with “gut reactions” in mind. It wasn’t meant for every single question to be analyzed with absolute and extremely dissecting logic. When you look at the questions every single one can be argued into infinity. It’s meant to just strike your very basest and most “natural” opinions.

Secondly, you have a warped view of capitalists/Social Darwinists/non-Socialists.

Even the most ardent true Social Darwinists of old did not advocate anarchy, or a lack of government. The Nazis to a degree had Social Darwinist leanings, and you cannot say they were “anarchists”, they are as opposite on the political scale as anyone can ever be.

The political compass recognizes the difference between economic issues and social issues.

That’s why someone can believe the government shouldn’t interfere with the markets but should be allowed to for example police the nation.

You seem to be saying that anyone who is not a socialist is a complete anarchist survival of the fittest type person. Even myself, probably the only Social Darwinist around, only holds it up as “maxim” not an absolute. I don’t believe we should have absolute Social Darwinism, I believe that however it should be a guiding principle.

If we want to use this logic I can say, well, anyone who is not a capitalist believes that there should be no free enterprise whatsoever, that the government should manage every single aspect of not only the economy, but of its citizen’s lives. Obviously I’ve gone down a ridiculous slope, as you have made it a habit of doing.

You don’t have to be all or nothing, you obviously do not believe in all or nothing, it isn’t fair of you to force an all or nothing stance on non-socialists (if you aren’t a socialist then you can’t agree with the government existing, that’s a ludicrous stance.)

To hit back at your question. Here is how I define “free market”, “economic system that operates on the principle of supply and demand without government interference.”

What I mean by this is, the government cannot interfere with the supply or demand aspects. If government tries to create artificial demand or artificially decrease/increase supply, they are violating the principles of the free market.

That is the basic definition that I have for the free market, and here are the criteria that also must be met in a society before a market can truly operate freely:

  1. Information - The people must have the right, and ability to access information about a product. Without information, they aren’t making informed decisions, and the market is not truly free because the S/D curve is no longer based on true supply and true demand.

  2. Free Enterprise - There must be free enterprise, without free enterprise, there is no free market. There must be free individuals who can set prices et cetra or it is nothing other than a planned economy.

  3. Regulation - There must be some government regulation to insure that cartels, monopolies, trusts, et cetra do not gain influence of the entire curve and manipulate it for their reasons. As bad as an interventionist government is, cartel or monopoly is just as bad because they destroy the S-D curve.

Number three is the ultimate problem with the free market. Societies must decide what is the limit to regulation, how far can we regulate before we have violated too many of our ideals? How much regulation is too much, how much is too little? That is a question for society to answer, and different societies have answered it different ways.

Also, if you look at my definition of free market, you can obviously make the argument that no such system has ever existed. You would be right. Just as no truly “socialist” system or truly “communist” system has ever existed, they are maxims/ideals, but not absolutes or actuals.

19

1- You make good points about the laissez-faire system of the late 19th century. Then you throw in tangental things:

-More free to express dissent
-More free to express other lifestyles
-More free to read what we choose
-More free to practice minority religions
-More free to be of different race

All of these, every single one, had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the economic system. They had to do with society, and society’s views on social matters and how those views were reflected in the U.S. Congress, the White House, and the USSC. To try to blame these social issues on the market economy is inaccurate, to try to link them is intellectually dishonest.

2- Again, the markets in China and Vietnam aren’t all that free by Western standards. China is certainly freer than it was during Mao’s reign. So actually as the market has grown freer, so have the people in that case. Bad point to bring up since it disproves your assertions.

The question didn’t say, “the freer the market, the absolute freedom of the people.”

3- That’s a personal opinion. But in the U.S. we don’t have universal health care and our life expectancy is easily equivalent to most of Europe. Especially when you factor out murders and traffic accidents.

20

pervert

But this is surely as arbitrary a difference as “policing begins with a ‘p’, but education begins with an ‘e’”? In terms of there being a universal need which must be met, I do not undersatnd why policing is considered so important that even those on the far economic right would not propose leaving poor inner city areas without policing, leaving victims of crime to suffer, and yet they might turn a blind eye to victims of non-universal healthcare or welfare. In both cases there is a need which must be met. Precisely how that need is met in terms of the nature of the act is surely a red herring?

I erect a strawman by asking whether something was an accurate representation? Please, enlighten me: How do you describe the most free market? Surely government regulation of the use of force constitutes interfering with the market?