A free market is inherently perfect.

Yeah, and so was Communism in theory

What? Free markets are perfect in theory and in application. They are absolutely perfect in and of themselves.

Communism first requires domination, subjugation, and repression of a number of basic freedoms in order to function in the first place.

Intro-level philosohpy student

Calling any system perfect pretty much disqualifies you from debate, but I'm up for a philosophical discussion with anyone as long as everyone at least agrees to not be a pompous ass for the first two pages...like getting all 1950s on me and saying that I'm Socialist because I find appeal in some of what Marx says. Guess what chump? I've studied Nozick and some Rand too.

I'll take an initiative and make a thread.

So let's discuss our favorite thinkers. I'm going with Nietzsche.

Why Freddy?

Methinks LW was saying that they are economically perfect. Markets result in suppliers providing sufficient goods or services to satisfy demand. In this respect they are perfect - no shortages or surpluses, according to these terms economic definitions. C'mon man, didn't you take any econ in school?

They can be perfect because of their limited scope - suppliers, demanders, goods or services. That is NOT to say that they solve all problems, because not all issues can be restricted to economics.

Walter Williams.

Jesus

I took econ in high school, my teacher was great, and as far as I'm concerned there isn't too much I can complain about with the free-market. After all, how else would I have the computer I'm typing on? But economics is hardly a SCIENCE and the free-market has replaced spirituality and nature with capitalism. I disagree with general ideas of capitalism, I think that science is now a tool for advancing our comfort rather than as something to be marveled at as wonder...like a science lab is used to create a nicer type of skin-cream to prevent acne. Then people take advantage of it, have no idea how the science is used (and neither do I in almost every daily object I come across) in whatever type of technology one speaks of, and then the idea of science goes underappreciated - hence the rise in fundamentalism and religion.

Capitalism is still a system, and I remain unconvinced that people at the top simply had more "drive" and that they should be the object of our praise or amazement like a Greek statue. And for people who choose otherwise? Of course they are reaping benefits the free-market has to offer and again, that isn't in dispute. Having authority with capital is still having authority. But one thing that is completely missed by the general public on the idea of liberalism is that liberals don't necessarily believe the power of government is better, because the government will still infringe on individual rights...rather, government should be a tool to grease social gears, not start wars, kick people off their land, discriminate, etc. A pragmatic, flexible democracy simply takes precendent over a raw capitalist system because it is closer to the core of human morality - everyone has a say and equality is desired - and not passive enough to let individuals simply induldge in exploitation and treating others as means for their own ends.

And let me quickly elaborate on the previous point - equality is desirable because the most telling aspect of human morality is to imagine what it is like in another's shoes. Capitalism is likely to dismiss those less interested in having authority on a material level, and intelligent people who aren't fully taking advantage of the system are left behind and treated as less. Why? Because they don't have the capital. Yes capitalism is beneficial towards personal achievement in ways other systems are not, and competition is always healthy, but that really depends on who defines the terms and what those rules are. And it certainly isn't just the government. Not to mention the fact that it is based on materialistic resources and those resources are one day bound to run dry, and it happens on a daily basis somewhere in the world, and usually in developing countries that are already so behind everyone else. And they reject capitalism on many grounds, not just because some peasant picked up a copy of "Capital." It is because of spirituality, invasion of culture, and the history of the free-market: rich guys hiring thugs to kill organizers and union leaders, pinkerton detectives, spreading misinformation, etc. So ultimately no, that's why you'd have a hard time arguing that the free-market is a perfect system, but then again what really is?

Subjugation, oppression, and brutality became the face of Communism through Mao, Stalin, and Pol-Pot. But that's not what Marx said. Marx provided a rhetorical force against the nature of capitalism. My knowledge of Marx is limited but as evident by a few comments here and there over the last few years at this forum, I take it I probably know more than most. So sue me if I'm being arrogant, but there's a lot of misinformation. During the 1960s, Marx was being assimilated into western thought like any other philosopher in history, but he was rejected outright by the establishment to the point of harassment, bullying, censorship, and libel. Not to mention those that were running a cruel war against a poor country that was embracing those ideologies. What better weapon to use against the academics that were poisoning the minds of 60s youth? Shit. And who was the source of these problems for the 60s left? The U.S. government. Government? Think about it.

So no, I'm not offering any alternatives through Marxism and anybody who'd call themselves a Marxist in 2007 would have to be an idiot or living in the mountains of Peru. But anyway, that's another topic completely. Economics is no more of a science than psychology and sociology, it just has a much different application.

Im taking a Phil. class this summer, and we are on descarts. This guy must of been on some serious drugs, becuase the stuff he wrote about "wax" is confusing as hell.

thats one of the best posts i've seen GV, and I agree with it almost entirely. In relation to that, my biggest problem with capitalism or our society in general i guess, is that people seem to think this is the best we can be. our society is the height of progress, the greatest invention in history. never mind the fact that its screwing over the planet, screwing over the majority of the population on the planet, and anyone who doesn't want to play by the rules of our civilization/capitalism is quickly thrown aside. It's almost sad to think about how many perfectly happy native groups and communites that have been destroyed in the past couple hundred years because "our way of life is the right way"

Kant

Where's the discussion?

from what i remember i've read some Kant, Freud, Nietzsche and Hume but in the end i still have to go with myself.

That is seriously, probably, the best post I've ever seen you put out there GV.

But I really don't see much of an argument against the basic thesis that a free market is inherently perfect. To a certain extent, I have a distaste for the fact that our society has pretty much boiled down to a society of convenience. But then again I think, it's a free market. It will go where it may. If you're going to uphold the fundamental principals of Democracy, who are you, or I, or anybody else to judge companies that are developing creams to make acne go away? What about condoms? Or abortion? What's that all about?

The market has simply ventured in a general direction of convenience. But still, underneath it all, the free market is inherently a flawless thing.

I think that at the point our society rests on, there's really not too much need for government regulations in our economic system. I think there should be some environmental regulations to safegaurd the population. But most labor laws are useless today. Kids MUST go to school, and if a 15 year old wants to do a part time job outside of school, so be it. If labor laws were to dissappear, and labor providers were to start exploiting labor again, I don't think a whole lot of people would put up with it. And the free markets of organized labor would pop up as needed.

With so much information instantaneously accessible by anybody, I really don't think there's much need for regulation as it stands.

Ah, but anyhow, I really don't see too much in there that argues against the concept of infallible free market economics. Just let it go. We'll take care of the rest.

But there has to be certain parameters in place to make sure that people are sold goods that are fair and safe. May I remind you that the reason we have 8 or 9 hour workdays is because it was organized by people who petitioned their leaders in government and launched boycotts, not because citizens decided to just stop buying goods from businesses that treated their employees unjustly. For the most part anyway. There's a pretty high demand for marijuana in a lot of places, so why not just let the market take over the drug trade? In many ways I'd be fine with this (at least in regards to pot), but we can't take an absolutist formula and apply to towards how society should function. I'm pretty sure that's why Communism failed.

D. Alexandre Usilevsky

Marcus Areulius