Why I Believe in the Free Market
posted by OnThePath | October 22, 2009
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketThis will probably ruffle a few feathers ... oh well!
"Well I sometimes call myself a libertarian but that's only because most people don't know what anarchist means. Most people hear you're an anarchist and they think you're getting ready to throw a bomb at a building. They don't understand the concept of voluntary association, the whole concept of replacing force with voluntary cooperation or contractual arrangements and so on. So libertarian is a clearer word that doesn't arouse any immediate anxiety upon the listener. And then again, libertarians, if they were totally consistent with their principles would be anarchists. They take the position which they call minarchy, which is the smallest possible government... The reason I don't believe in the smallest possible government is because we started out with that and it only took us 200 years to arrive at the sorriest occupation of government that we have now. I think any government is dangerous no matter how small you make it. Instead of governments we should have contractual associations that you can opt out of if you don't like the way the association is going. Religions fought for hundreds of years over which one should dominate Europe an then they finally gave up and made a truce, and they all agreed to tolerate each other — at least in this part of the world... But I think government should be treated like religion, everyone should be able to pick the kind they like. Only it should be contractual not obligatory. "
-RAW describing what a real free market would look like: key concepts here are voluntary, contractual, open, and the ability to opt out.
start quasi-coherent rant ...
When I say "free market," I'm not talking about the system we operate under today, this is NOT THE FREE MARKET. The system we have today incorporates corporatism, lobbying, elements of facism, top-down planning, the bogus theory of an implicit social contract, oligarchy, managed interest rates, tariffs, and subsidies, amongst other things. These features come together to form an extremely narrow concentration of wealth and power. Once again, this is NOT THE FREE MARKET.
The Left has tried to demonize the system we have today by claiming the "free market has failed." It's a neat and tidy way for them to market their collectivist dream to the ignorant and legistlate it into action. Because remember, politicians can plan your life and can make your economic decisions better than you can! This is the Left's attempt to keep the status quo going. Don't get me wrong, the Right is guilty of the same thing, but they use different means to achieve the same ends. Sorry, I'm not buying into Obama's collectivst dream. I don't have a problem with socialism or any other system, I have a problem with systems being imposed. If you want to start a socialist commune in Washington, go ahead and do so. What I'm saying is we should have the freedom to create autonomous systems.
If I hear one more time someone claiming that "the free market failed," I am going to flip out. Why am I going to flip out? I'll tell you why - because in order to come up with REAL solutions we have to figure out what sort of system we currently have (it's NOT THE FREE MARKET), diagnose the problems, and then fix them. If we misdiagnose the system which we are operating under, we will completely miss the problems, and the solutions. We will be working on fixiing problems that don't exist (that wouldn't all together be new, the government is very adept at that, as a matter of fact, that's how they justify their existence - by magnifying non-problems until they warrant a solution that is too big for the people to handle).
If you believe that human nature will cause actions which are not rational, and that we require Nanny State governance to guide us towards rationality, then you are being philosophically inconsistent by creating a system of infinite regression. If anything, the people governing us have incentive to make even worse decisions because they are spending tax dollars (aka other peoples' money).
-I believe that human nature is essentially good
-I believe that people are capable of making rational decisions if given the correct information
-I believe that people can plan their lives better than the government can
-I believe that adding additional levels of governance to govern the people governing us (supranational regulatory powers) will NOT cause progress, but will retard it
-I believe people are more capable of deciding what is rational in their lives than a governing body
Please, do not think for a second that we have any semblance of a free market in this Country.
Peace
Comments
agreed..
— Oct 24, 2009
For a big topic, here's my small comment: free markets can work in smaller societies where there's an inherent protection against those who'd monopolize or abuse the trust of the community. Those that tried such abuse would be found out quickly and shunned.
In a larger society, it's very difficult to vet who to trust. The free market aspects of our economy, such as they are, do work - people know that if they use a broker or put money into wall street/stocks etc. they will make a tiny profit while the corporations make a lot of profits. To be general, the alternatives are to either become an expert in finance youself, or, keep your money out and make no profit. The current situation we're in is because people inherintely trusted, and the greedy did what the greedy do - they abused. The answer is not! not! not! to employ more governmental oversite and restrict what minor free market ideology that's left, but for people to be more aware of the trust they are giving and maybe, take a few steps back from blindly trusting everything being shoved in front of their face. Make better decisions.
A Challenge
— Jan 31, 2010
Errico Malatesta offers us this challenge: what use is government (in its modern form) when we all have so much to offer that can be done without political or economic interference? Here:
"Thousands of these undertakings are even now the work of voluntarily formed associations. And these are, by the acknowledgment of everyone, the undertakings that succeed the best. We do not refer to the associations of capitalists, organized by means of exploitation, although even they show capabilities and powers of free association, which may extended until it embraces all the people of all lands and includes the widest and most varying interests. We speak rather of those associations inspired by the love of humanity, or by the passion for knowledge, or even simply by the desire for amusement and love of applause, as these represent better such groupings as will exist in a society where, private property and internal strife between men being abolished, each will find his interests compatible with the interest of everyone else and his greatest satisfaction in doing good and pleasing others. Scientific societies and congresses, international lifeboat and Red Cross associations, laborers' unions, peace societies, volunteers who hasten to the rescue at times of great public calamity, are all examples, among thousands, of that power of the spirit of association which always shows itself when a need arises or an enthusiasm takes hold, and the means do not fail. That voluntary associations do not cover the world and do not embrace every branch of material and moral activity is the fault of the obstacles placed in their way by governments, of the antagonisms create by the possession of private property, and of the impotence and degradation to which the monopolizing of wealth on the part of the few reduces the majority of mankind."
He states quite simply:
"Men work, exchange, study, travel, follow as they choose the current rules of morality or hygiene; they profit by the progress of science and art, have numberless mutual interests without ever feeling the need of ant one to direct them how to conduct themselves in regard to these matters. On the contrary, it is just those things in which no governmental interference that prosper best and give rise to the least contention, being unconsciously adapted to the wish of all in the way found most useful and agreeable."
Now, his view was extreme, anarchy. I don't agree with it, entirely. But, I would like to use this, motivationally. To resurrect some form of progress, to move on from the Sumerian, stone based, and now Washington, paper based methods of exchanging value. It's ridiculous, in my not-so-humble opinion, how little we've progressed in the, oh, several THOUSAND years of our current capitalist system. Again, I'm not saying "rah-rah, let's go anarchy." And I'm not saying capitalism is inherently evil. I'm just saying... it's slowing us down, terribly. I want humanitarian laws unrestrained by capitalist conquest. I want simple things like helping one's neighbors to be possible without calculations of bills and by-laws. ...with a healthy respect for what good having laws does to keep those individuals and societies STILL developing towards more charitable, less selfish and self-destructive ways regulated and somewhat peaceful.
There is some balance, for sure. I'm rambling. Haha, this is a GREAT AREA for conversation!!
namaste
