Author Topic: freemarkets/capitalism question  (Read 764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4308
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
freemarkets/capitalism question
« on: April 15, 2009, 09:09:06 PM »
i'm hoping someone can explain something for me. this is, in fact, where i find myself differing from anarchists, free market capitalists, etc.

i once argued this out with a really brilliant anarchist. he totally obliterated me, but i never understood what he meant, how it made sense, i still feel he was wrong, and i still don't get it.

scenario (we're in an anarchist free mark capitalist utopia):

everyone on your street decides they want to bulldoze your house and put up a starbucks. so it happens, because the market demanded it. everyone is better off for it but you, who just got raped.

anarchists, and many pure capitalism people--seems like we have a good number of them on this forum--will argue that somehow the market protects individuals. my questions is how? it seems to me that the best interest of the market is always the best interest of the majority. the market doesn't give a shit about you as an individual, it doesn't care about private property rights, etc.

i've had people babble nonsensically that somehow the market would magically provide for private security in one form or another, or somehow it would be in the best interest of the market to protect the individual. personally, i think it's in the best market to exploit the individual wherever benefits the majority.

could someone explain this to me, or player devils advocate or something?

thanks <3.

HardDrive

  • #1 Red Guy
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 3636
freemarkets/capitalism question
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2009, 10:34:13 AM »
The entire scenario is based on a logical fallacy. The free market itself is not supposed to be what determines rights and laws. The basis of the free market comes from the governments insuring property rights and rule of law. That's probably also why you haven't seen a fleet of evil starbucks bulldozers. Private property is one of the incentives that drives capitalism, and it's not derived from the market.

Free markets with common sense regulations at a local level, rule of law, and property rights also create businesses which are beholden to the consumer. The consumer is their lifeblood. They function because of the consumer. Regulations can also be put on companies which have monopolies that still allow them to be profitable but don't allow them to gouge consumers, normally at a local level. A good example of this would be Cable/telecom which is always trying to screw over exclusive markets. Business still profits, citizens are protected.

I'll close this out by adding that historically there has been very little to no famine in free market capitalist societies, and people who own private property also have incentive to keep it clean. The biggest famines and most polluted places in the world are government owned and sanctioned.

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4308
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
freemarkets/capitalism question
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2009, 10:46:32 AM »
very well said. i completely agree. i'm trying to remember how i so pitifully lost this argument like, oh, nearly a year ago.

HardDrive

  • #1 Red Guy
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 3636
freemarkets/capitalism question
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2009, 10:30:09 AM »
It's difficult to argue. It's a very "hands-off" approach compared to the current state of thought. There's no magical recovery button and people don't have a huge government behind them for better or for worse. Corporate greed gets endless news coverage and the mindset is really high-regulation.

I think what people miss is the power of the consumer. In a situation where you aren't propping up defunct businesses, the consumer is what you produce for. You produce for what the consumer wants so the consumer sustains you. This is really more than just a transaction, it's how you demonstrate your usefulness to society. Monopolies and bailouts cause the businesses to produce what they want. That is not useful to society. Business and capitalism are not omni-benevolent concepts, but they with the proper consumer mindset do require you to do good things to function in them.

Gus

  • Member
  • Join Date: Oct 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 1833
freemarkets/capitalism question
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2009, 01:48:20 PM »
Quote from: MANiFESTO;292766
very well said. i completely agree. i'm trying to remember how i so pitifully lost this argument like, oh, nearly a year ago.

Was it because the anarchist you were arguing with was describing a potential scenario that tended to ignore consumerism, rule of law and property rights?

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4308
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
freemarkets/capitalism question
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2009, 01:53:29 PM »
nope.

Gus

  • Member
  • Join Date: Oct 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 1833
freemarkets/capitalism question
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2009, 02:04:38 PM »
That was helpful.

S R

  • TROC Staff - Tech
    Ladder Champ
  • Join Date: Nov 2004
  • Location:
  • Posts: 389
freemarkets/capitalism question
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2009, 01:03:18 AM »
Interesting, I'm still trying to figure out the other persons arguement or how the hell you could lose. Don't feel so bad Obama got 60mil people to vote for him and probably 20mil of them are like WTF did I do.

We've never had a pure capitalism in the US. One of the corner stones on the founding of our republic is property rights so unless you live in Conneticut you wouldn't have to worry about eminent domain. Markets in themselves do not protect an individual. Markets exist to reap the highest possible profit on a product or service. Monopolies / oligarchies are only kept in check by quasi government entities (PSC's, FTC, etc). Great example are cable companies, they are given exclusive rights (most times) to a market. Their rates are subject to local scrutiny.

"it seems to me that the best interest of the market is always the best interest of the majority." I'll argue to opposite to this statement. Prior to 1984, what telephone options where there? Rotary phone.. maybe pulse at a few locations. AT&T's monopoly hurt the majority via high prices, few options, and no innovation. Railroads in the late 1800's built their tracks all differently. They did this in an attempt to control the market in there area. Now a days, markets are generally more behaved due to external forces (government) not self regulation.

"the market doesn't give a shit about you as an individual, it doesn't care about private property rights, etc." The market is there to reap the highest protential profit from an individual so yes it doesn't "care" if you can buy other goods and services. However the market may not care about property rights but the individual businesses who compose the market do. In your Starbucks example, if the property being  taken over is a 7-11 the individual business cares but the market no as it would reduce competition.

"i think it's in the best market to exploit the individual wherever benefits the majority." I'm guessing you meant to say "the best interest of the market to exploit". Again the market doesn't care as along as it has consumers willing to buy its goods or services. The market would be willing to exploit all.

I would argue that it is competition within markets that provide protection for individuals. As companies strive to sell the next unit, it is willing to make concessions to the consumer.

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4308
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
freemarkets/capitalism question
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2009, 01:20:54 AM »
Quote from: Gus;292871
That was helpful.


haha. never mind this thread. sorry all.



 

* Permissions

  • You can't post new topics.
  • You can't post replies.
  • You can't post attachments.
  • You can't modify your posts.