Comment by barrkel
16 years ago
You have completely missed the point. Contrasting economic systems is completely irrelevant.
The choice here is not between different economic systems, but between different moral systems.
You cannot make a free market your moral system because markets are amoral. That is, it is not that they are not immoral and so should be replaced with something else; rather, they have no moral content - morality comes from somewhere else.
You can pay someone to punch a third party in the nose. You get the value of knowing that someone is going to get hurt. The other guy gets your money. The transaction, in the free market, by itself has no moral content, though. A free market just means exchanging value for mutual gain. It doesn't say that those values have positive or negative moral worth.
False distinction. The GP is saying that economic systems are moral systems. He even says why, and cites examples.
He didn't miss your point. He saw your point, and thinks it's wrong.
Your use of "moral content" is entirely ambiguous, because that content will vary depending on which moral system you refer. And since a market is essentially an amalgamation of individuals (whom likely have or are capable of inducing moral content through their actions and desires), it is likely that a market has a great deal of moral content regardless of which system you pick.
The moral system I'm referring to is the moral system called "free market" - which is what the article actually says.
Do not confuse capitalism with anarchism.
Capitalism believes in a government which protects private property and human life with physical force. You can pay someone to punch someone else, but that's inconsistent with capitalistic philosophy.
Why would a government protect human life with physical force? Remember, the justification must be from a free market, not with reference to some other moral system.
What, in a free market moral system, prevents slavery? The justification must come from the free market, if free market is to be the moral system.
The justification must come from the free market, if free market is to be the moral system.
How can there exist a free market without the guarantee of the protection of private property? Without that you have anarchy (whoever is physically strongest wins).
I've never heard of someone invoking the idea of a "free market" without implying that the agents of the market are protected from physical harm.
This is by no means 'official' but from the first sentence of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market:
"A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to outlaw and prosecute force or fraud."
When people say "free market" this is what they imply.
What, in a free market moral system, prevents slavery?
The government.
6 replies →