Holy long post, Batman.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Trianglechoke7: And let's say that, in practice, forced redistribution of wealth (whether it be interventionism or full-fledged socialism) made the poor continually more wealthy while also allowing the rich to become more wealthy.
And let's say that, in practice, forced redistribution of wealth (whether it be interventionism or full-fledged socialism) made the poor continually more wealthy while also allowing the rich to become more wealthy.
In that case, there would be unanimous support for it, and it would cease to be "forced redistribution". Right?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
I suppose I wouldn't. I support voluntary exchange because it makes all individuals better off. And you can't just think collectively either. If the "poor" are made poorer, then so is everyone else in a free market. In a world where a free market would make everyone poorer, then everything else changes as well. So I wouldn't know what to support.
Trianglechoke7:For those that believe it is wrong to take someones property, would you still want the free market to be used in practice?
I can end the poor's poor conditions by killing them, should I do it? They won't have to even worry about being poor anymore. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Jim Miller,
(1) I am staunch advocate of the free-market.
(2) You didn't use the appeal to consequences properly.
An appeal to consequences is only fallacious when referring to the truth of a proposition, not to it's desirability. My question is one of how desirable the free market would be given the hypothetical consequences I outlined, and whether it would be ethical to use forced redistribution to increase the wealth of the poor. By claiming I used the appeal to consequences you are claiming that it is never relevant to consider the consequences of an action when discussing ethics. Maybe it's not, but you would have to prove that, and that can't be done by simply appealing to the appeal to consequences.
When it comes to public policy, consequences may be perfectly relevant.
(3) Yes, I am aware that when making transaction both parties believe they will be better off. However, it's logically possible that the poor could get poorer under the free market. For example, what if all business owners came together to form a cartel in which they decided to keep wage rates down? I'm not saying this actually happens, I'm just saying it's logically possible.
As for someone elses claim that in the scenario in which forced redistribution caused the poor to get richer and the rich to get richer, which would entail that everyone would voluntarily submit to it, thus not making is forced, imagine that the rich got richer at a slower rate than without the redistribution. In this case, the rich may object.
This whole question is just seeing whether people are willing to stick to their natural rights guns.
The good thing about the free market in the real world though, is that it protects natural rights and has the best consequences.
Trianglechoke7:(3) Yes, I am aware that when making transaction both parties believe they will be better off. However, it's logically possible that the poor could get poorer under the free market. For example, what if all business owners came together to form a cartel in which they decided to keep wage rates down? I'm not saying this actually happens, I'm just saying it's logically possible.
No, it isn't. Even if cartels could work, that would only be possible if "all business owners" and "all wage earners" were necessarily distinct groups, which may be true for Eloi and Morlocks, but not in the real world.
It's logically possible that all business owners and all wage earners are disctinct. It's logically possible that they could make a cartel and never try to one up and break the cartel.
"For those that believe it is wrong to take someones property, would you still want the free market to be used in practice?"
Yup.
preface: within the limits of this discussion the middle are omitted and only the poor and wealthy are considered.
Quick Answer: One must, ethically, want the free market.
Question:
IF by free market we mean private property owners within a territory are free to trade, or refuse to trade, their title in property with others;
and IF a group of individuals within the territory, the poor, are those who's private property monetary value is below a given point on the lower end of the scale;
and IF a group of individuals within the territory, the wealthy, are those who's private property monetary value is above a given point on the higher end of the scale;
and IF within a period of time the poor sustain a real loss, or at least no real gain, in the monetary value of their private property (the poor get poorer);
and IF within the period of time the wealthy obtain a real gain in the monetary value of their private property (the rich get richer);
and IF the losses of the poor and the gains of the wealthy were caused by the free market only, and not some other cause(s), omitting for this discussion if/how that could happen;
but IF a forced redistribution from the wealthy to the poor would allow for the poor to obtain a gain while at the same time still allow the wealthy to obtain a gain, albeit a smaller of a gain;
THEN would one who believes it is unethical to take someones property, still want the free market?
Answer: Yes, and only yes. One could not, ethically, want otherwise because to want otherwise would be unethical.
Reason: To not want the free market is, by definition, to not want private property owners to freely trade their title in property with others. This restriction is in itself a form of property "taking".
Conclusion: Therefor, for one believes it is unethical to take someones property, it is unethical to want other than the free market.
regards,
jim miller
liberty study group
Trianglechoke7: It's logically possible that all business owners and all wage earners are disctinct.
It's logically possible that all business owners and all wage earners are disctinct.
By definition, all current business owners and wage earners are distinct (if you ignore the possibility of someone owning a small business while also working for someone else); what I said was that it would require "all business owners" and "all wage earners" to be necessarily distinct groups. I.e., it must be impossible for any wage earner to set up his own business. Otherwise it's not necessary for cartel members to defect, since non-members (current wage earners) can set up businesses outside the cartel.
What's the point of this question? Its a hypothetical question which yields no new knowledge when answered. Assuming we aren't all utilitiarians, we would choose the free market due to its _moral_ desiribility. Even if you were a utilitarian justifying the market on the grounds of the majority's utility, the poor would have to make up a significant population in your hypothetical world and the utilitarian would also have to formulate an epistemological basis for measuring utility (so he could show how the utility of the majority is declining).
I'm afraid your hypothetical is just empty. Such extreme arguements can be useful such as the trolley and gunman problem. Both involved issues where the actor was forced to make a choice between dying himself or killing others to save him. The thread pretty much closed when causality was brought into the equation. It would immoral to flip the switch and kill that one person in the trolley problem since your actions had a direct causal connection to that one person's death which was similar to the gunman forcing you to kill someone else to stay alive. Those questions actually led you to a definite conclusion.
Reason is the guiding light that shines through the veil of ignorance.
Trianglechoke7: I agree that the free market is the best avenue for increasing the wealth of the poor. However, what would your position on the free market be if, hypothetically, the free market made the poor poorer, or at least kept the poor from becoming more wealthy while the rich continuously became more wealthy? And let's say that, in practice, forced redistribution of wealth (whether it be interventionism or full-fledged socialism) made the poor continually more wealthy while also allowing the rich to become more wealthy. For those that believe it is wrong to take someones property, would you still want the free market to be used in practice?
I agree that the free market is the best avenue for increasing the wealth of the poor.
However, what would your position on the free market be if, hypothetically, the free market made the poor poorer, or at least kept the poor from becoming more wealthy while the rich continuously became more wealthy? And let's say that, in practice, forced redistribution of wealth (whether it be interventionism or full-fledged socialism) made the poor continually more wealthy while also allowing the rich to become more wealthy.
For those that believe it is wrong to take someones property, would you still want the free market to be used in practice?
The problem i think is that we dont have a free market as it should be, all we see are mergers, more mergers and bailouts. The US gini index proves that income inequality is a big concern. Capitalism and free market is meant to be for the many not for the few. But if free market creates poverty for the many and wealth for the few, then I dont want it.
C'mon, guys, I'm seeing a lot of folks dodging the question, here. Basically, what he's asking is whether or not you're a utilitarian; if the free market really would result in everything being objectively, economically worse for everyone, would you still support it because it's correct in principle. I'd say yes, but I'm not a utilitarian. I think being free is more important than being wealthy.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap