But not out of society. Here's a quick observation that should hopefuly help you cut through a lot of garbage people throw out against the free market. Free Market - Freedom + Markets All the anti-market problems are really problems with freedom. What people do with their freedom. Sometimes they hire the wrong person, sometimes they charge the wrong price, sometimes they produce the wrong product. Its just a problem with freedom, because obviously you can repeat the same teleological shenanigans outside of markets.
So get them to concede that they have a problem with freedom, not markets. Un-free markets are fine. In Un-free markets there can be regulations against descrimination and pollution and being mean to kittens is punishable by death.
Then simply observe that you can't just destroy freedom. Existentialists know that ya can't choose "no choice". It's a performative contradiction. The state is a free agent. And if the problem is freedom then the state is no resolution. Their whole philosophy is based on a double standard where they think they can control the state, but for some reason can't control the market. There is no philosophical difference between saying "Obama should do X" and "Bill Gates should do X". So why do they always default to the former? Just because there's a subject called "political philosophy" does not mean it is remotely coherent.
Always a great thing to point out.
In many of my debates and discussions over the years, one of the points I usually try and stress is that the government operates in a market also. Votes are a commodity that are traded. We can get the government out of the market, but you can't get the market out of the government! Markets can either be voluntary or violent, free or monopolized. What the government does is effectively establish monopolies over certain market sectors, with somewhat predictable results.
A generally good way of thinking about things but from what I see its somewhat superficial in that, under this line of reasoning there is no fundumental difference between a man killing someone else and one trading with others. Neither freedom is not a homogeneous commodity. Freedom under the free market is more beneficial than freedom under government control but this then relies upon the original issue of practical analysis, otherwise from what I believe your standpoint is there should be no difference between government freedom and market freedom.
Sieben:Their whole philosophy is based on a double standard where they think they can control the state, but for some reason can't control the market.
Excellent statement.
I think that there are people that receive income from the state that actually believe in the state genuinely. There are also people that think the state is a waste of money, but continue to exploit it anyway.
Neodoxy:A generally good way of thinking about things but from what I see its somewhat superficial in that, under this line of reasoning there is no fundumental difference between a man killing someone else and one trading with others. Neither freedom is not a homogeneous commodity. Freedom under the free market is more beneficial than freedom under government control but this then relies upon the original issue of practical analysis, otherwise from what I believe your standpoint is there should be no difference between government freedom and market freedom.
I mean, if you really want, you can say that freedom in markets is "less dangerous" than freedom in governments, but that's not really necessary. EVEN IF freedom is the same in markets and governments, the logic applies.
"What most people are objecting to is that the market gives people what the people want, instead of what the person talking thinks the people ought to want." -Milton Friedman
John James:"What most people are objecting to is that the market gives people what the people want, instead of what the person talking thinks the people ought to want."
Sieben:It gives people what they want in proportion to how well they can secure it from other people. In most cases, this means people consume in proportion to their productivity. Most people find this problematic as a hard rule for distribution.
Bingo.
But Friedman is wrong in that he oversimplifies - the market does not just give people what they want. That's not the core problem for socialists. Its that people can only get what they want >if< they can pay for it, usually by working for their MRP*. *Usually Marginal Revenue Product, but if you're really poor it stands for Meal Replacement Powder.
Free market agents get what they want to the extent that they've provided others with what they want. One's capacity to benefit from voluntary exchange (i.e. "get what they want") is proportional to their (or their ancestor's) previous participation in beneficial voluntary exchanges (of labor, products, services). Yes, one's ability to "get what they want" would be grossly impeded by the fact that they've been laying on their couch for the last ten years.
Well, usually. But then there's charity. Lefties usually discount free market charity because it is never "enough". So /shrug.
Sieben:But Friedman is wrong in that he oversimplifies - the market does not just give people what they want. That's not the core problem for socialists. Its that people can only get what they want >if< they can pay for it, usually by working for their MRP*.
They would say you're "missing the forest for the trees." He wasn't saying "If you have a free market everyone just gets what they want droped in their lap." Obviously. He was speaking to the point of what Sowell calls "the anointed"...people who believe that they are wiser and nobler than others, and that the way to improve society is to have the government force people to follow what the anointed want, rather than let people do what they themselves want to do. These people are objecting to the free market because the free market is just that...a market in which people are free to get what they want...and the anointed do not think they should be able to.
Reason.tv keeps a running monthly illustration of this.
Sieben: Lefties usually discount free market charity because it is never "enough". So /shrug.
Lefties usually discount free market charity because it is never "enough". So /shrug.
somehow this line made me laugh out loud :D so true and hilarious.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
MaikU: Sieben:Lefties usually discount free market charity because it is never "enough". So /shrug.somehow this line made me laugh out loud :D so true and hilarious.
Sieben:Lefties usually discount free market charity because it is never "enough". So /shrug.
As an interesting aside on this matter, Stossel actually has asked the question about charity...and surprise surprise...
And here's an entire episode of his show dedicated to charity and who gives more.