There is clearly a positive correlation between economic and political freedom. No matter what else you think, you cannot deny that politically free states and economically free states tend to come from the same set. This isn’t UNIVERSALLY true and obviously people will disagree over the details of who’s freer than whom or what constitutes freedom and what doesn’t. But the correlation is ridiculously obvious. Denying the correlation between free markets and free people is just foolish.
But you don’t listen to the answers. You build your strawmen, people answer, then you pretend you didn’t hear. Look back over this tread alone. I’ve seen this answered several ways by several different people.
As I said before, no one but an anarchist thinks the way you are trying to strawman…i.e. the ‘free-est market’ is one totally devoid of all government regulation. Its ridiculous and NO ONE IS SAYING THAT BUT YOU. Freedom doesn’t equate to anarchy or lack of all government, SM. You can be individually ‘free’ and still live within the structure of society, with rules imposed by that society.
Most of the ‘agree’ people are saying its a sliding scale, with the ‘free-est’ system represented by the minimum government regulation and interference (and I’m sure there would be a huge debate as to where on that sliding scale things should be)…making a balance between the protection of society from monopolies and cartels and other corporate abuses to rig profits (which are ALSO very bad and contrary to a free market) and government interference and over regulation, or dicking with supply and demand, trade tarrifs, etc. So, again, I ‘agree’ that the freer the market, the freer the people.
On reflection, read through Martin Hyde’s post…he did a much better job of laying this position out than I can.
(I think China is an excellent example btw…no one in their right mind could argue that the people of China are LESS free now than they were under Mao and a totally controlled economy. Nor could anyone fail to notice that the Chinese market HAS become freer. Its not completely free and open…but then again, neither is China…yet.)
No. It is an essential difference between two actions. One involves the initiation of force the other does not.
Not at all. Preventing the violation of rights is fundementally different than providing resources. The difference is, once again, in the way that force is used. Is force simply another tool of humans? Or is it something different. Perhaps something which should be minimized.
No. Force negates reasoned choice. That is negotiation (or agreement) in the face of force is not free. So, puting the power to regulate the use of force in the hands of a democratically elected government allows the decisions to use or not to use force to be subject to specific rules. That is, it removes force from the market. Thus making the market more free. Not less free.
Your question assumes that force regulation is not different than resource allocation. There is a fundemental difference that you are missing. I’m not sure exactly what it is that you are missing. I am having trouble seeing the two things the way you do, so I am having trouble seeing the error, as it were. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that I am having trouble stating my position.
People cherry pick because they have different ideas of what the purpose of government is. I view the #1 purpose of government as protecting the rights of it’s citizens. That means there has to be a police force of some kind to enforce various laws against assault, fraud, theft, murder, etc.
Well looking at the real world I see that nations with a high degree of freedom and the least oppression tends to have a pretty free market. All those nice things like socialized medicine, law enforcement, and education you find in western europe is supported by a free market. So I’m still going to have to agree that the freer the market the freer the people.
I agree absolutely that the market does not equate to big business. I also agree that a free market does not equal monopolies. I like markets, I really really do. I like buying, selling, choices. (I hate negotiating and haggling, but that’s a different story). I think that (more-or-less) free markets are a strength of our society. The market incentivizes. It drives us to excel. Competition does strengthen us as a whole (when it doesn’t weaken us at any rate).
But monopolies, trusts have been created, do exist/have existed in places and times. Just because in the United States in 2004 there are few entities that approach monopoly status does not mean that they cannot, do not, will not exist or have not existed. If the relationship between independent actors in a market becomes too one-sided, then the freedom of the market, the freedom generated by that market, disappears for one side.
Markets, as you note, are not big business. Markets are also not the people. Markets are just markets - a way of interacting economically. My only beef with the statement was that to me it assumes that the government is the only goon, the only 500 pound gorilla around. I guess I also think that the perhaps inevitable collapse of a monopoly - say ten years from now- could leave me equally screwed.
I know of no better, no freer, economic system* than a moderately trammelled market economy. Offsetting goons, if you will.
*whether a market economy works for all technology levels and scales is another question, for a different thread
If I might respectively suggest, you could challenge this assumption of yours. Monopolies have existed, certainly. But a distinction can be drawn between a simply monopoly (you are a monopolist over your own labor) that is a single provider of a particular good or service in a particular area, and a coercive monopoly. A coercive monopoly is the one that everybody is afraid of. They have the power to raise prices, kill competition, and generally distort the normal market forces. I have not seen a serious study, but it is my opinion that coercive monopolies can only exist with some sort of government interference. Take a look into the history of any of the popular trusts that Teddy broke, and you will either find government collusion from the begining, or a company which was simply the best at what it did.
Just submitted for your consideration as an aside.
I think some of the confusion comes over what “rights” are. In the United States we were founded on the Lockeian principles of “natural rights.” And rights such as “universal health care” don’t quite qualify.
The preamble sums it up, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The argument can be made that we “must institute universal health care” in order to insure the right to life. This is not true, obviously, because a nation without universal health care has proven the equal in life expectancy of nation’s with universal health care.
But, assuming it was true, there is a trade off involved. IN providing universal health care we are infringing more on the right to liberty (we’re taking away yet more freedom in relation to ability to spend your money), and pursuit of happiness (less money = less happiness.)
So how do we decide how to balance it all out? The social concerns, military budgets, poverty, et al? We decide among ourselves, democratically, that is the valid method. Some societies value property rights over the right to be “free from poverty.” Not many societies actually take this to the limit of letting people die from poverty (the United States has safeguards in place that prevent hospitals from kicking dying poor people out just because they cannot pay, and also we have many programs for our poor to keep them off the streets, homeless people exist in America mostly because the vast majority of them–up to 90% according to some studies–are mentally ill and do not know how to apply for the services needed.)
Again, one begins with a ‘p’, one does not. Why should suffering caused by force be addressed by government but not suffering caused by cancer?
Well, again, I fail to see why such an arbitrary difference is so important.
Agreed, but then again I believe that suffering is something which should be minimised. Is suffering caused by force somehow more regrettable than suffering caused by an untreated medical condition?
And perhaps neither are decisions based on utter desperation at one’s financial predicament, but that is a red herring of my own. The scenario whereby private firms compete to provide the best regulation of force, without the unfair governmental monopoly of a single state-run police department, would appear to me to be what was meant by a “more free market”. Would you agree?
It appears to me that each of us look at the anarchist Social Darwinist dystopia, find reasons for avoiding it via governmental economic interference, and then declare that the resulting scenario is the “most free”. I look at this dystopia, which I consider to represent a “most free market”, and seek to minimise suffering via government interference. You look at the dystopia, and might be as repulsed as I, but only seek to minimise the suffering from one specific (and IMO arbitrary) cause, and declare this to be a “most free market”. I suspect we’re merely tomayto-ing and tomahto-ing.
That’s right: Prevention of crime, like prevention of cancer or prevention of illiteracy, requires resource allocation. I do not see why some must be universal but others need not be. That one involves “force” seems to me no compelling a reason than that one involves “illness”.
xtisme
I can only assure you that I am debating in good faith (indeed, I didn’t think it was possible to misrepresent someone’s views by asking what they are). As I explained to pervert, I simply perceive some answers to be rather red herrings which I chase so that we might find the specific point of disagreement. I now understand that, as John implied, many here are using “free market” in an almost tautological sense: if the people are “most free” then that market in which they operate is most free, even though there might be considerable governmental interference in that market. (In which case my market, wherein minimisation of suffering is achieved by guaranteed universal meeting of genuine health/education/welfare/policing needs, is “most free” in my eyes. That doesn’t strike me as being particularly helpful in analysing different systems.)
The reason I began this whole endeavour was to confront and explore opinions which only seem to be widely held in the US. I am genuinely not deliberately mischaracterising those views, but merely asking those who hold them the most forthright and least time-wasting questions I can think of. Paladud
Let us avoid hysterical slippery slopery - you sound like you have a fulfilling, if frugal, life. If you are not genuinely suffering then I see no particular reason to advocate allocating you extra resources. However, if you lost your job or became ill and could not afford your treatment, I would advocate using tax to help you just as I advocate using tax to prevent crime against you.
Martin - did you really score 10.00 on the economic scale or is that merely what you’d like to have scored? Your answers here have been far more reasonable than what one might expect from such an extreme. (Incidentally I, like Karl Pooper, interpret “pursuit of happiness” as “minimisation of suffering”.)
No, there is a more fundemental difference which you are ignoring.
Because the government is far better suited to addressing crime and war than doctors. Just as doctors are far better suited to address cancer rather than war or crime.
Well, that may be because you are stuck on labeling it arbitrary. Let me try and address it below.
No. It is not more regrettable. But they are fundementally different things. Suffering caused by one person violating the rights of another is fundamentally different than suffereing caused by the failure of the individual in question, or by an accident beyond that individual’s (or any other’s) control. You do understand the difference between positive rights and negative rights right?
Well, but the difference between free and desperate is the difference between alive and dead. There is a fundemental difference.
No. Again, you are constructing a red herring. No one has suggested that the disbanding of the police or army would lead to freer markets.
Well, no. I am not trying to avoid any evolutionary forces or whatever. I am merely trying to establish a principle by which men can live together free from the arbitrary application of force in their daily interactions.
No. You’ve missed the point again. You cannot simply say that suffering is suffering is suffering. It sounds as if you are not willing to make any differentiations in this regard at all. From other posts in other threads, I know this is not the case. I’m sure, for instance, you would not favor government intervention to alleviate my suffering at not having a new plasma TV. And yet by your definitions, it seems that any such refusal would be arbitrary.
No we are not. You are proposing that force be applied to as many societal ills as possible. I am proposing that force only be applied against the initiation of force by others. The difference is very large.
Again, you are getting hung up on how a thing is paid for. The difference is not where the money comes from. The difference is that crime prevention (or retaliation) requires the use of force. If nothing had to be paid for this would remain.
This was not addressed to me, but I want to comment since it contains in relief all of the misconceptions you are laboring under. The first is that you have this idea that “genuine suffering” is an easily defined thing. As has been noted in other threads it is not. People suffer genuinely from all sorts of things. The second misconception, however, is that there are “extra resources” to pass around. In order to posulate this, you have to accept that an individual’s labor is not his own. The extent to which you do this is the extent to which you formulate a society to be less free than others.
One more:
You see, in a free society there would be nothing stopping you from doing just this. You would be free to establish whatever criteria for pursuing your own happiness that you want. Additionally, you would be free to decide what sort of suffering needed to be minimized. It is only socialism which intends to force either of these decisions on a population.
Summary:
Let me see if I understand this. You believe that drawing a distinction between an activity which requires the application of force and an activity which does not is arbitrary. May I assume then, that you believe that the application of force is an acceptable tool for men to resolve their differences? If I want something that another person has, why should I refrain from taking it by force? Or are you saying that I should only do so if I can convince some government bureaucrat that my lack of that resource is “genuine suffering”? I’m still not sure at all how you can claim that such a system is more free without doing odd things to several definitions.
You say more fundamental, I say tomahto. I am not ignoring what you tell me, I simply disagree.
The proper equivalent here would be police officers and soldiers and doctors. I believe that government is equally well suited to addressing war, crime and cancer, regardless of who exactly pays the wages of these three professions.
I understand that there are many differences one could draw attention to between all manner of things; whether they are “fundamental” or indeed even “useful” is another matter. I have never found this particular distinction very compelling.
Again, we appear to be talking at cross purposes - I consider competition in the crime prevention industry to be a freer market in this regard, but contend that it has unacceptable social consequences. You appear to be saying that because it would have unacceptable consequences it is less free. If that is fair comment, I could describe non-universal healthcare as “less free”.
As you most certainly can, and as I agree with. I merely go further and try to establish a principle whereby suffering can be minimised. I think we’ve both hit our “bottom line”, our true point of disagreement on which we base our entire political worldview.
I could make differentiations, as you do, but I believe that they are ultimately myopic, socially detrimental and have unacceptable consequences. Our fundamental difference is that I don’t think there are fundamental differences, only superficial and arbitrary differences which some people think are fundamental.
You would not consider this a misuse of the word “suffering”? Would “inconvenience” or “dissatisfaction” not be far more accurate?
I say it isn’t. Tomahto.
“Remain superficial”, IMO.
Not easily, no, but I believe it is at least far more clear than “happiness” or, indeed, “freedom”.
Or “more free”, if I consider feasibly preventable suffering oppressive.
No, I consider it to be unacceptable because I agree that unregulated force causes suffering, which I seek to minimise whatever its cause.
Having clearly identified precisely where we differ, I think further useful input might be limited, but I’m happy to keep this thread going. It’s certainly a useful one for the general audience so thanks for your cooperation, perv.
The government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. When a citizen initiates force against another citizen they are violating that citizen’s rights. It is that violation that authorizes the government to intervene. When a citizen contracts cancer their has been no violation, thus the government is not authorized to intervene.
Of course, if you disagree with the above interpretation for the role of the government then the argument doesn’t work.
For what it’s worth, I think that the “anarchist Social Darwinist dystopia” (more neutrally described as an “anarcho-capitalist society”, I believe) with private police forces is indeed a freer society than one in which the government holds a monopoly on force, and as such the proposition “the freer the people” still holds. That doesn’t mean that I want to live in such a society, of course.
Thanks for the feedback. Obviously I was a bit clumsy in making my points, If I might try again:
America in the late 1800s was an incredibly free marketplace. Businesses had very few restrictions on what they could sell, what they had to pay for labor, how they treated the environment, etc. Putting some restrictions on the marketplace, in terms of child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, environmental laws, and drug regulations have made the marketplace a bit less free but have made the people a bit more free. Children are more free to enjoy their childhood, minorities are more free to seek employment, we’re all more free to breath cleaner air and are more free from the harm of unsound medicines. Other basic civil liberties, unrelated to the freeness of the marketplace, are also more in evident than in the 1800s. My premise is twofold: 1- Some well-written restrictions on the rights of businesses increase, not decrease, the rights of individuals. 2- Some individual civil liberties are entirely independent of the freeness of the marketplace. Therefore my conclusion is that freer markets do not necessarily lead to freer people.
Taking it outside the US, I note that while China and Vietnam have both embraced some degree of capitalism, neither has abandoned their totalitarian restrictions on civil liberties entirely. I also note that some European countries have embraced a small degree of socialism, but still have not abandoned civil liberties. Again, I conclude that there is no clear relation between market freedom and individual freedom.
I am not sure how to separate out the effects of government interference - certainly a number (the majority?) of railroads beyond the eastern quarter to third of the US were in no small part the creation of the government, though privately controlled except during times of war. I don’t think that I would say that later abusive behavior by a railroad can then be blamed on the government that paid for the track. Except for major cities, a community is unlikely to be served by more than one railroad - the capital investment is too high.
What of natural monopolies? Is collusion between producers prevented in any way? Is OPEC a coercive monopoly? From my point of view the fact that Saudi Arabia is a country rather than a company is irrelevant?
I understand what you are saying, Perv. I don’t entirely agree, although I can’t say I have spent a huge amount of time looking into the area (though I may see what the library has).
I think we are getting sidetracked as a result of my bringing up monopolies (again). I am merely trying to point out that merely removing all government interference in markets will hardly guarantee that society will be freer/better. I think there are enough counterexamples, however temporary, to justify my not being a market fetishist.
OPEC is actually a cartel which is different structurally and functionally from a monopoly. Cartels are illegal in virtually every market/mixed-market economy in the world. The only reason OPEC is tolerated is obviously because their product is so valuable we really don’t have any alternative (aside from military force, which is somewhat messy, obviously.)
Yes. I did not say that taxation was wrong, merely by definition oppressive and violent. It is legalized and even necessary theft, which is why we tolerate it. But in a moral sense there is little distinction between taxation and theft. We need taxation to support certain rights and freedoms - the cost is acknowledged as being less than the gain.
You make much better points here. And I agree with them more fully than before, in fact they reflect sentiments I’ve already expressed.
To me, the most important aspect of the market are the laws of supply and demand. When S-D can operate effectively, resources are allocated in probably the most efficient way possible. The problem of scarcity is solved in the most efficient way possible.
For that reason, I consider a market “free” when it has correctly functioning laws of S-D that aren’t being hindered by outside force. A monopoly or a cartel breaks the law of supply and demand, and in essence “shuts down” the supply/demand aspect of that segment of the market.
Look at it like this. The market is the human body. A cartel is like cancer, a monopoly like say, a very serious virus, we’ll say malaria or something. The government is the physician. The government needs to destroy the cancers and sicknessess that develop on the market, or the market’s correctly functioning supply and demand would fall apart. However the physician cannot be overzealous, and the physician must be very careful, or it will do more harm than good.
That’s why things like tariffs, subsidies, et cetra interfere with the market as well. They’re like medications that aren’t needed but are being forced down the throat of an unwilling patient who doesn’t know any better.
Right. but you disagree that the differences in the definitions of two concepts is more fundemental that differences in their spelling.
No, it is not.
In what way. If I suffer anguish, embarassment, and perhaps even suicidal thoughts over my lack of a plasma TV, how is that not suffering.
I’ll tell you how. YOU have decided that I don’t need one. YOUR moral judgement about my needs has led you to conclude that they are less important than other’s. How will this change if you leave the decision up to some bureaucrats?
Now who’s saying
But you see, my principle does not require that you define freedom or hapiness. I only require that force be limited to being used as an antidote for the initiation of force. That’s it. No definition of hapiness or freedom involved.
I appreciate you willingness to talk about these things. Thanks as well for going over the political compass. I only responded to a couple things in this one. You can have the last word on the subject if you want.
Let’s step back a minute. Can we agree that a market where I am free to sell my widgets at whatever price I wish, but you are also free to come over, punch me in the nose and take my widgets without paying for them is not a free market?
In other words, without some prohibition on the use of force to transfer goods a free market does not exist. That is why the OP’s contention that an absolutely free market would necessarily mean a market with no government is flawed. A market, free or not, cannot exist if there is no reason for people to buy and sell their goods and services rather than steal them.
I suppose I’m a bad libertarian for not asserting that a free market would exist under anarchy. But under anarchy our economic system would resemble the economic system of our earliest human ancestors. Anyone who wants something will take it, provided they have the strength. Which means an eventual reversion to a hunter-gatherer economy, since no one will produce excess goods…if they are strong they won’t produce excess goods since they can always take them, and if they are weak they won’t produce excess goods since those goods will just be taken away. But of course such an anarchic situation wouldn’t last long enough to force us back to hunter-gatherers, since someone is going to set themselves up as a king and make us all work as farmers or industrial slaves or whatnot.
So therefore, my belief is that a free market, by definition, requires some sort of agency outside of the rules of the marketplace to maintain the market. This doesn’t always have to be government, it could be some sort of strong religious or social custom. Fear of punishment by the gods can be as effective as fear of punishment by the cops. But there has to be some sort of rulemaking agency for the rules of the market to exist. And without rules there can be no free market.
Yes, this can be difficult for socialists to understand. But capitalism cannot exist without property rights, and property rights cannot exist in anarchy. You might claim this is contradictory. But it is no more contradictory than asserting that a society where murderers are imprisoned is more free than a society where they are allowed to run free.
