The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

'The Freer The Market, The Freer The People'

How valid is this statement?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for Overground
Overground
OP
17
pretz
This is all very political compass.


Guilty as charged. I just thought it was an interesting idea. If an invalid one, which rather hinges on the definition of the word 'freedom'.
Overground
Guilty as charged. I just thought it was an interesting idea. If an invalid one, which rather hinges on the definition of the word 'freedom'.


I think the question we need to be asking is "do we even want freedom?" :wink:
Reply 3
Avatar for Rubix
Rubix
If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life, then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods. Thus reducing society to a very victorian and oppressive society which rewards the rich and takes away from the poor.

A think a healthy balance is most appropriate, which coincidently is what we have now.
Reply 4
Avatar for Veni_vidi
Veni_vidi
9
Rubix
If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life, then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods. Thus reducing society to a very victorian and oppressive society which rewards the rich and takes away from the poor.

A think a healthy balance is most appropriate, which coincidently is what we have now.


I agree with you there.
Reply 5
Avatar for Apagg
Apagg
13
Rubix
If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life, then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods. Thus reducing society to a very victorian and oppressive society which rewards the rich and takes away from the poor.

A think a healthy balance is most appropriate, which coincidently is what we have now.


What kind of dictionary are you using?
Reply 6
Avatar for Veni_vidi
Veni_vidi
9
Apagg
What kind of dictionary are you using?


he is saying if a market is more free people would benefit from it by having a better quality life or living standards e.g. quality products at low prices, easily accessible for everyone etc.
Overground
How valid is this statement?


I note you're an Aston Villa supporter so you know which example you can use to argue against the title. Extortionate price tickets of football matches.
Apagg
What kind of dictionary are you using?


I'd also like to know.

Regarding the topic, I think China's economic transition and State Capitalism form a clear counter-example to the statement, obviously assuming you mean "freer" in terms of civil liberties.
Rubix
If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life, then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods. Thus reducing society to a very victorian and oppressive society which rewards the rich and takes away from the poor.

A think a healthy balance is most appropriate, which coincidently is what we have now.


I agree that the free market doesn't provide all that is necessary for society but people can have wonderful living conditions and not be the least bit free.
Reply 10
Avatar for Apagg
Apagg
13
But who ever means material quality of life when they say freedom?
Reply 11
Avatar for Apagg
Apagg
13
DeuceSevenOff
I'd also like to know.

Regarding the topic, I think China's economic transition and State Capitalism form a clear counter-example to the statement, obviously assuming you mean "freer" in terms of civil liberties.


Untrue. In introducing economic freedoms the Party has had to grant increased property rights, of a sort, and has also introduced some local representative democracy.
Veni_vidi
he is saying if a market is more free people would benefit from it by having a better quality life or living standards e.g. quality products at low prices, easily accessible for everyone etc.


Quality of life is equivalent neither to economic freedom or civil freedom.
Apagg
Untrue. In introducing economic freedoms the Party has had to grant increased property rights, of a sort, and has also introduced some local representative democracy.


I forgot the title was "freer"; I was saying a capitalist country could be authoritarian at the same time. Yes, what you said is true.
Reply 14
Avatar for Prudy
Prudy
15
I suppose another aspect is how you define freedom. As in positive or negative.
Reply 15
Avatar for 2026
2026
15
'The Freer The Market, The Freer The People'


Boll-cks! [Or as the American say, bullsh-t!].
Reply 16
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Rubix
If by the 'freer the people' you mean a better quality of life


Er, no, of course he doesn't. The two are very distinct things.

then the free market doesn't cover for public or merit goods.


*******s.
L i b
*******s.

Er, aside from his dubious choice of the word 'cover', he is stating a fact.
Bismarck
It's true by definition. Economic freedom is one aspect of freedom, so it follows that having a maximum amount of economic freedom makes the people more free than the alternative. A free market doesn't mean that the people will be free, but it does not mean that the government cannot exert as much power over the people as it would if it controlled the economy.
That's an incredibly simplistic take on it - I trust you understand the concept of negative liberty?

I can't see how a big business oligarchy would be any freer than a mixed economy at all. In fact, a huge portion, if not all, of the economy would be completely sectioned off by multinationals and big business.

I suppose one would be free to get a job in a variety of ASDAs however. Sounds great!
Reply 19
Avatar for Apagg
Apagg
13
CorpusNinja
Er, aside from his dubious choice of the word 'cover', he is stating a fact.


Careful

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you