I would also like to thank SentientMeat for this series. I’ve found it quite informative.
I’m also interested in seeing the responses to the next proposition : “Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.” because it is quite a doozy.
Well, likely I was pulling from other arguments over the free market on this board. The term “no one is entitled to a risk-free life” is a nebulous one that many free marketers use to gloss over near-total lack of concern with the welfare of those who lose under the free market, I’ve seen it used that way REPEATEDLY. Frex, the people who studied hard an long to become topnotch computer proglrammers and then got outsourced by cheap Indian programming labor – they lose house, car, everything. Sure, they have no “right” to such stuff, but it seems a poor way for any society to reward the industrious.
In many third world countries capitalism seems to be operating quite happily in congruence with actual slave labor. The workers get nothing but subsistence, the factory owner gets EVERYTHING and thus is able to keep prices low because of his very low cost labor. This is is MORALLY WRONG. It is EVIL. And it is the FREE MARKET in action.
So, I’d DISAGREE.
I believe he was, too. Businesses and products are not necessarily politically neutral. The example of reading material is also not necessarily politically neutral.
Like a television show about a homosexual couple having supporting advertising? Like pornography aimed at homosexuals? Where does the politics begin and economics end, exactly? In general: there is no clear division. In specific societies the border might be more clear.
In my experience a great many things fall under the umbrella of economics since a great many things deal with efficient allocation, competition, and resource scarcity. But no, not necessarily everything.
Can you think of a way to politically allow people to say whatever they want, yet effectively nullify that right through laws that are strictly economic in nature? I think the border is not as clear as you would like it.
It can be a strictly political issue if the economics are open. It can be an economic issue if the politics are open. In general, I think, it is both. Our familiarity with a certain political theory and application should not cause us to dismiss other realistic alternatives.
I was about to post my agreement with your statements, but I am not sure that your logic is not circular. (I think the reason I posted disagree to your agree is largely one of definitions - you are using a more pragmatic definition of a free market than I am.)
A free market (regulated so as to be most free) maximizes personal freedom to those who participate in it. You and I may agree that the market should be regulated to maximize the freedom of the participants but then disagreeably on the nuts and bolts as well as on what maximizing freedom means. Which probably just goes how deep the commitment to the church of the free market lies in our society, while considerable infighting amongst sects yet exists. 
Well said.
I think part of the issue is that the question from the Political Compass is using “free” in two different senses.
It is, as you say, almost tautological to say “the freer the market, the freer the participants” if you are talking about uncoerced choices in both phrases. It may be the case that the designers of the Political Compass meant “the freer the market, the better-off the people”, which is not quite the same thing.
I happen to believe both are true, by and large, both because I value freedom more than other forms of the Good, and also because I believe a free market economy leads to the greatest good for the greatest number in other ways as well.
I haven’t thought carefully enough about SentientMeat’s definition of the Good as “avoidance of suffering” to know if I accept it or not. My immediate reaction is to pick liberty as a higher Good than that definition because it allows people to make up their own minds about what is the Good.
The Declaration of Independence mentions “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as among the fundamental rights of man. I like that definition, especially in a foundational document for government.
The right to life means that government commits to defending the lives and persons of its citizens against external threat - national security, the police function, etc. Liberty means guaranteeing the right to make uncoerced choices, in the marketplace and elsewhere. And “the pursuit of happiness” means that I can make up my own mind about what I want from my life - I can decide for myself if “happiness” means “avoidance of suffering” or “getting rich” or “wasting time on the Internet arguing philosophical issues”. 
But note that for me, this means making that decision for myself. Government (or anyone else) cannot or should not coerce me into deciding that I cannot be happy unless somebody else does something for me (or whatever).
Part of the disagreement on nuts and bolts you mention, no doubt.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan
That we are all questioning our fundamental principles in these threads does us no little credit, I feel. I too must ask myself when liberty is unacceptably compromised in pursuit of a minimisation of suffering. (The example I usually give is that suffering might ultimately increase overall if unduly high taxation retards “progress” such that a future cancer patient suffers when there otherwise might have been a cure.)
However, as you can see, I also happen to have one of the most negative social libertarian scores of us all - clearly I take this thing called “liberty” very seriously indeed, whatever its definition. Of course I, like you, believe that we ought to be free to decide what we want from our life. But I tend to shy away from the term “happiness”, which is highly subjective (and as tricky as proving something true), and concentrate more on “suffering” which is rather clearer since it can often be medically diagnosed, regardless of its cause (and is more akin to proving something false).
Where the market alleviates suffering, as it clearly does to a great extent, I advocate its freedom with all my heart. But where suffering exists despite the market, I advocate governments stepping in to address it. I believe that the suffering of a nation’s people is the concern of its government.
My apologies if I mistated your position, SentientMeat. I hope I did not.
I wasn’t implying that you did not.
I expect that we are coming up against the differing definitions thing again.
You are probably right that physical suffering is easier to recognize than “happiness”. Other forms of suffering, even under a medical model such as you seem to be suggesting, are trickier.
You and I would agree that a person could be “suffering” from a lack of liberty. Comparing that kind of suffering against a different kind, even against physical suffering, is difficult or impossible. And, since governments deal with large groups of people who experience their lives and perceive their possibilities differently, no one answer to the “what kind of suffering is worse?” question will ever satisfy everyone. Therefore my bias is usually against the government trying to decide that question at all, but simply leaving its citizens to be as free as possible and answer the question for themselves, by the way they live their lives.
Even if you and I would agree that a person was “suffering” from a lack of health care, my tendency would be to look to some other agency besides the government to address that genuine physical need. Because government is a blunt instrument, and any answer they are likely to come up with is going to help the one person in front of them and not necessarily everyone else in the society.
And, since government programs are suggested by politicians, advocates of those programs are always going to deny that there are ever either hidden costs, or unintended consequences to their policies. And there always are. And since those costs and consequences are denied, it is difficult or impossible to evaluate, except from experience, whether even a level of physical suffering is going to be alleviated by large-scale government practice at an acceptable price.
I think you and I would agree that even some level of physical suffering might not justify increasing suffering in other ways. Some levels of medical spending, for instance, could not be justified even if it meant that some hopeless case lived for six months longer, to put it that way.
There is, in other words, a tipping point at which the cost to “liberty” outweighs even some level of suffering. Although I am sure you and I would probably disagree on where that tipping point lies.
Difference of opinion is what makes a horse race, as Mark Twain said. And, it might be added, political parties, election campaigns, and the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan