Do free-market advocates really want to stop people from being disadvantaged?

So there's a popular video on youtube of Thomas Sowell talking about the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" (in today's political terminology)...

 

 

During the conversation Sowell mentions how "[liberals (again, of the socialist variety)] are for helping people who are 'disadvantaged' as they put it.  Whereas I think conservatives want to stop people from being disadvantaged."

 

Someone posted a comment that asks:

"Conservatives want to stop people from being disadvantaged? How so? And what evidence is there that conservatives have done anything to stop anyone from being disadvantaged?"

 

This got me to thinking.  What are some good answers to that?  (And I mean good in the sense that they well be heard by the type of person who would ask that kind of question.)  I'm interested in crowd sourcing some intriguing and thought-provoking and salient responses to that sort of thing.

I think this is the most prominent, driving, important, hard-hitting issue with most leftist that makes it difficult for them to be comfortable with free markets.  I think their lack of understanding of the market process, and the lack of a "visible direction of good purpose" inclines them to believe that capitalism and freedom is uncaring and uncompassionate.

I think it is something that was articulated pretty well by Hayek, which I brought up here and here.  In the video in the first link, he says "I think in most instances it is a deeply ingrained intellectual attitude which forces them to disapprove of something which is unintelligible and to prefer something which is visibly directed to a good purpose."

This to me seems to be the biggest hurdle to reaching Leftists.  They don't understand how the market works, so they are inclined to favor things that are "visibly directed to a good purpose", that is, they care about and are largely focused on intentions...even to the neglect of results.

What are some responses to the above question that can help overcome this intellectual obstacle?

 

Well another thing that Sowell likes to talk about is how liberals focus on outcomes rather than processes.  So it's important to note that while "conservative" market friendly policies may make the personal process of attaining wealth more accessible and individual oriented, it will never guarantee an outcome for anyone.  Generally speaking, if you want to be able to guarantee outcomes, it's probably going to come at the expense of someone's freedom, whether it be economic, political or otherwise.

That being said, capitalism is uncaring and uncompassionate because capitalism is just a framework; it's a systemic process.  It can't care about anything, it's not a person.

People can care about other people but ironically the people who profess deep sympathies for the poor are not always the ones personally trying to help them with their own time and money.  For them it's not enough for them to help poor people they want everyone to help poor people and they want to elect people who profess to wanting to help poor people.

Something that perhaps liberals have the hardest time understanding or believing is that the people they elect to redistribute wealth may not give a god damn about helping poor people, they might just be interested in power.

When they watch the political process in action they may see how power brokering actually works and so I think they might find themselves disillusioned about the government's ability to remedy poverty through market intervention without essentially giving the keys to the castle to the very thing liberals seem to despise the most: BIG BUSINESS RAWR!!

tl;dr Tell them that systemic frameworks can't care about anyone only people can and that that process of private charity and giving should be as important or more important to them than using the government to guarantee outcomes for the few at the cost of the many.  

I'm not trying to poor cold water over your efforts, because you have a point, but it's not exactly what was asked.

And of course in the end only people can be caring and compassionate, but I thought it was obvious what was meant by what I said...that the framework of capitalism leads to worse outcomes and less compassionate and less caring existence.  Obviously their belief is that you need to force the outcomes you want...as in make people do "the right thing", because if you don't "incentivize" them (through coercion), you won't get the desired outcomes.

 

The question asked was: "How exactly is it that conservatives want to stop people from being disadvantaged?  What evidence is there that conservatives have done anything to stop anyone from being disadvantaged?"

I want to hear ideas on some responses that might actually get a person who would ask that kind of thing to think.

I honestly do not believe that simply replying: "Systemic frameworks can't care about anyone only people can and that process of private charity and giving should be as important or more important to you than using the government to guarantee outcomes for the few at the cost of the many" is going to resonate.

 

Well what do you want them to think about?

I personally think the question's a trap.  It puts the burden of proof on you rather than them and it doesn't define the standard for demonstrating what they're asking to be demonstrated.

You're essentially being asked to defend a statement Sowell made in passing that could probably be understood better if this person actually studied Sowell's writings.

Saturday, May 12, 2012 23:36 EDT
.post #150

John James:

The question asked was: "How exactly is it that conservatives want to stop people from being disadvantaged? What evidence is there that conservatives have done anything to stop anyone from being disadvantaged?"

I want to hear ideas on some responses that might actually get a person who would ask that kind of thing to think.

I'd first try to find out what the questioner means by "conservatives." Who does the questioner think of when he hears the word "conservatives"? Depending on which people the questioner thinks of, one answer to his question might be "There is no evidence that conservatives have done anything to stop anyone from being disadvantaged."

To "get the person to think," one thing I'd try is to point out that frequently, what is called "conservative" is the opposite of "free markets."

Sun. 12/05/13 10:43 EDT
.post #151

John James:

I think this is the most prominent, driving, important, hard-hitting issue with most leftist that makes it difficult for them to be comfortable with free markets. I think their lack of understanding of the market process, and the lack of a "visible direction of good purpose" inclines them to believe that capitalism and freedom is uncaring and uncompassionate.

I think it's worse than this. Some people think "capitalism" is actually malicious. This belief underlies Max Barry's book Jennifer Government, as an example. If you can't read the book, read some of the customer reviews. Many people equate "capitalism" with what I'd call "corporatism."

For example, this:

...its characters let loose in a world where a hostile takeover involves cyberterrorism and paramilitary action as well as stock market manipulation and the Government stands seemingly powerless against the idea that "free trade == anything goes". ... The book represents a sharp rebuke to the forces of laissez-faire capitalism as both of its protagonists are shown journeying away from the corporate mindset that built this strange, homogenized mess of a world, and also shows a sense of just how strange reality could be.

To some people, "laissez-faire capitalism" means "anything goes" (including murdering your customers). They see consumers as essentially hapless, powerless, shopping-zombies, and corporations as all-powerful entities capable of committing almost any abuse without the threat of suffering any consequences, while commanding an unceasing flow of money from the consumer's wallet. They think that without well-intended government to impose responsibility on corporations, they'd be answerable to no one. As you say:

This to me seems to be the biggest hurdle to reaching Leftists. They don't understand how the market works, so they are inclined to favor things that are "visibly directed to a good purpose", that is, they care about and are largely focused on intentions...even to the neglect of results.

Another problem is what I'd call "the failure to discriminate." Some people don't discriminate between conservativism and libertarianism. Here are two examples from an online discussion with such a person Sieben and I got involved in a few years ago:

me: Perhaps, but libertarianism as a proposed political system is a relatively new idea.

him: No it isn't. Conservatives have been arguing for it.

and

me: I'm not arguing for the status quo. I'm proposing we try libertarianism.

him: It is implemented. We live in a representative democracy that has developed a government controlled by special interests, business interests.

So, "conservatives have been arguing for" libertarianism, and libertarianism "is implemented," according to the guy with whom I'm engaged. He thinks libertarianism is what we've got now: "a representative democracy that has developed a government controlled by special interests, business interests." He thinks I'm an advocate of the status quo, even though I explicitly deny that. He thinks I'm failing to see how they're the same, whereas I think he's failing to see how they're different.

Here is another exchange from the same thread, as an example of the esteem with which some people hold the competence of "others":

me: And neither, apparently, are the wishes of the lowly consumer, who has to pay for it all and take what his masters in their supreme wisdom decide he must have.

him: Most consumers haven't a clue.

What he seems to be saying here is that he doesn't trust most consumers to make "correct" decisions (i.e. the decisions he'd make). It's an arrogant and disdainful attitude towards "others." It's paternalism. Consumers are seen as clueless, destructive children who must be protected from their own stupidity by wise, daddy government.

So, how to change this attitude? I don't know if it's possible. Instead, I would try to expose the attitude to those "clueless" others when the attitude is presented as "compassion." Try to expose the arrogance and elitism behind the smiling statist face. So, while the discussion might not change the mind of your statist opponent, your exposure of the true nature of his ideas might influence those watching the discussion.

 

 

I guess the real problem is that for some people "helping the disadvantaged" means literally giving them things whereas to others it may simply be trying to change the conditions that led to them being disadvantaged in the first place.

People in the first group are going to have a very hard time with the idea of free markets because in a free market no one would be required to give anything to anyone directly.

If their standard for helping the disadvantaged is forcing people to give them stuff then they're right, "free markets" wouldn't allow them to do that.

If free markets are creating more goods and services for the masses and driving down prices- this is the absolute best way to help the disadvantaged. If burdensome regulations, bad monetary policy, taxes, weren't in place then perhaps even an apartment in New York City would cost only $300 a month. Some panhandlers wouldn't be living in homeless shelters anymore in that case. I don't see anything that could possibly help the disadvantaged more than lower prices. 

I think when  convincing "the other side" about the compassion in free-markets you have to show that prices will go down and that this is what is going to improve everyone's standard of living

The moral argument that stealing money is wrong just kind of gets you into a mess where people will argue that we're all citizens that are part of "society" and we have a moral obligation to do this and that blah blah blah. It ends up usually being a waste of time since in my experience most people don't like to budge on issues that they might personally identify with such as being a good citizen of their country. Or about some new philsophy where the clothes your wearing belong to everyone and not to you or something like that. 

Better to show that markets bring down costs.  Every argument about government aid such as subsidies for college tuition or in healthcare- the "other side" never seems to ask why the costs of college or healthcare are skyrocketing. If everything is dirt cheap there's no need for any intervention. 

But the process of bringing down prices is systemic and doesn't necessarily happen on any particular timeline.  People have bills to pay today as well as tomorrow.

An anecdote to demonstrate the dilemma: my girlfriend's parents are not people of means and as such they have found it very difficult to pay their rent.  They are old and not very well qualified so they are basically reliant on unemployment insurance and social security checks to subsidize their living arrangement.  Still they have found it very hard to make ends meet and so they're probably going to have to break their lease and go live with their other adult children.  This is part of the market process.  While ultimately it must happen it still sucks for them while it's happening and they would be more than happy to accept another handout instead of being forced to move out of their comfy apartment.  I could tell them "well if it were a libertarian society things might cost less so you might be able to afford more" but that wouldn't really help them pay their rent this month.

Sun. 12/05/13 18:00 EDT
.post #152

Having stressed the difference between "conservativism" and "the free market," I'd reword the question, from

"What evidence is there that conservatives have done anything to stop anyone from being disadvantaged?"

to

"How would the Free Market help the disadvantaged?"



I would then suggest these answers:

1. The free market would provide the disadvantaged with a solid defense against the theft, via inflation, of their savings. With a free market, the disadvantaged would finally be immune from the ravages of inflation. Not only that, but the disadvantaged would actually see the value of their savings continually increase. Only the free market can reverse the welfare state's heartless and cruel theft of savings.

2. The free market would provide the disadvantaged with myriad opportunities to finally extract themselves from what was previously, under the welfare state, permanent and hopeless poverty. With a free market, "disadvantaged" would only be temporary and transitional.

3. The free market, by enormously raising everyone's income, would be of greatest proportional advantage to the currently disadvantaged. It's entirely likely that poverty as we currently define it would cease to exist and be relegated to the dustbin of the welfare state's sordid history.

These answers are deliberately non-technical, the idea being to provoke further questions about what, at first blush, must seem to the "liberal" like absurdly unrealistic outcomes. If further explanation was requested, I'd definitely stress the absolute evil of a fiat monopoly monetary system and how it transfers wealth, on an unseen and continual basis, from those who can least afford to lose it to those wealthy elite who control the system. I would emphasize that no person who sincerely professes to care about the disadvantaged could, in good conscience, support our current monetary system. In other words, I would assert that only the free market can claim the moral high ground when it comes to helping society's most disadvantaged persons. Don't meekly apologize that we refuse to rob Peter to pay Paul; instead, proudly proclaim that when it comes to helping the poor, the free market is the only efficacious and compassionate choice.