A Friend asked me this question:
How can Free Markets (by any definition) work when all individuals are not free? If you don’t know something is possible, you can’t choose to do it. Systems of oppression limit individual possibilities. How can a "voluntary exchange" be equitable when there are gross inequities amongst the players? Inequities that are often exacerbated by one party gaining more capital?
Thoughts?
Who claims we have a free market? The American economy is anything but a free market. Our controlled economy is why we are now in a depression. Gov't influence on central banking, and the corresponding interference in the economy is what creates boom/bust cycles.
Also, a debt burdened society (corporate or personal debt) is not a free society. When you are a debtor you have an obligation to your creditor. Hey who pays the piper picks the tune. Right now the US gov't is holding the purse strings to the bailout money injected into these companies. That means that government is making banking and car production decisions now. Who knew - us gov't knew how to make sound banking or car making decisiosn.
I don't quite get your statement. If the media does not have control of your mind and/or an opressor does not have physical control of your body or thoughts or you are not a debtor then why isn't the individual free?
ViennaSausage: A Friend asked me this question: How can Free Markets (by any definition) work when all individuals are not free? If you don’t know something is possible, you can’t choose to do it. Systems of oppression limit individual possibilities. How can a "voluntary exchange" be equitable when there are gross inequities amongst the players? Inequities that are often exacerbated by one party gaining more capital? Thoughts?
Who cares if it's equitable or not? Both parties benefit from the exchange or they would not agree to it. Both parties therefore improve the other's condition.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
A voluntary exchange is never equitable. If both agree, that means that both of them are better off by accepting it.
My friend and both agree that we do not have a free market. It took awhile to get there but thank goodness we can agree on that.
However, from my understanding, she is asking how the free market is better than the current market, or even a socialist market with respect to not oppressing individuals. As an extreme example, take for instance Marx. One of his allures is that the poor are taken care of (I am not defending the position, just stating that his position is alluring to many individual). Or another example, how Obama and his administration can take care of the less fortunate, the out of work. How does a free market take care of the poor? How does the free market show compassion? Does it show compassion?
I doubt she would except the answer of "Who cares if it's equitable or not?" (Although I do agree.) Is there another strong yet "caring" austro-libertarian arguement for equity? I stumbled upon something from Walter Block a while back stating that he was not an egalitarian, but if he was, the free market was a better way to do it (or something to that ilk).
From what I gather, the question she is asking is about opportunity and compassion. For instance, how can an individual make a voluntary exchange if they do not have the opportunity to make a voluntary exchange?
If no one wants to make a voluntary exchange with him, he won't. This is unlikely, because in the market there are always possibilities of voluntary exchanges. Solidarity, beneficiency and charity will be private. There will be less social exclusion (and less poverty), because without minimum wage laws everyone could get a job and be better off.
ViennaSausage:One of his allures is that the poor are taken care of (I am not defending the position, just stating that his position is alluring to many individual). Or another example, how Obama and his administration can take care of the less fortunate, the out of work. How does a free market take care of the poor? How does the free market show compassion? Does it show compassion?
As far as compassion goes, it is shown only when someone makes a sacrifice for another person based on their own free-will, compassion is shown through charity in that it entails self-sacriface to help someone else; however, there is no sacrifice in the government's social programs, for the government has nothing to sacrifice, rather it can only force others to sacriface. The entire concept that a government can show compassion in its policies displays a flawed comprension of compassion.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
What is "oppression"? "Inequity"? How is an "inequity" exacerbated by "gaining more capital"? Why does freedom entail being in possession of something? My thoughts? This is question-begging, ill-defined rubbish. Until she fleshes it out, it's little more than that.
To darkness I condemn you...
I agree. I have asked her to define all those crazy terms, but while waiting for a response, thought it be good to get some ideas of how to respond given the original prompt.
Interesting arguement.
I recall another discussion I was having with another liberal friend. She was saying "we all need to sacrifice for those in need," or something to that effect. I responded to here saying something like, "I am fine with sacrifice, and I protecte your right to sacrifice yourself. Just don't make me sacrifice something I do not want to."
Clearly all individuals are not equal and never will be because of different inheritances, strenghts, weaknesses and specific uniqueness. However, even though there are unique inequalities amongst individuals, it is the role of the state to treat all individuals as equal under law. It is when the state tries to equalize all people in the natural world though coercive law that you run into trouble, even though it may seem like a warm hearted gesture. The free market, therefore, can surely seem cruel and that is also why humanitarian issues (such as welfare) could easily be taken care of on the free market. The point of the free market is allowing all individuals a level playing field of fair competition.
ViennaSausage: Interesting arguement. I recall another discussion I was having with another liberal friend. She was saying "we all need to sacrifice for those in need," or something to that effect. I responded to here saying something like, "I am fine with sacrifice, and I protecte your right to sacrifice yourself. Just don't make me sacrifice something I do not want to."
This is one of the arguments I hear the most. But I don't understand why people with that view don't simply set up their own charity to help people in need. What are the justifications to steal from one person to help another- instead of doing it through voluntary means? I'm not sure what the bleeding-heart liberal response to that is.
I remember having a conversation with a friend who described herself as socialist- and she was telling me how people are greedy and won't give enough to charity. So I point out the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation- and all the money that was poured into that. Her response was "HE COULD WRITE OFF THE CHARITY FROM HIS TAXES"- as if that somehow negates the charity work.
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