Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Conservative =/=conservative.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Ah -- no, it isn't. Market exchange at the very basic level happens through spontaenous order -- it's not directed, it's not created, it happens because every single different human comes together for just one purpose: profit. Nobody ordered markets to come into place. Nobody, in a market orders people to create goods and buy and sell them. It happens because of the order amongst human beings that arises spontaenously without central command or direction. Perhaps you are right that in the modern world we have some things that are artificial creations, intellectual property for instance, but the basic principle of the market is anything but artificial.
    Yes but the basic principle is basically an irrelevancy when you look at what it has become. Nowadays it is almost synonymous with Capitalism for example.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Communist Daughter)
    Yes but the basic principle is basically an irrelevancy when you look at what it has become. Nowadays it is almost synonymous with Capitalism for example.
    Something cannot function without its basic principles. The basic principle of market exchange is spontaneous order. Markets -- or, at least, real markets, aren't controlled or directed by any authority that would make them artificial.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Markets -- or, at least, real markets, aren't controlled or directed by any authority that would make them artificial.
    This is perhaps an Anthropological question. When if ever has a market that you consider 'real' existed?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Communist Daughter)
    This is perhaps an Anthropological question. When if ever has a market that you consider 'real' existed?
    Well, they still do, its just that with regulation comes direction and control.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    One presumes that morals have everything to do with the free market?

    One of the major questions in political philosophy regards equitable distribution of goods (who is entitled to what) within our society.

    If a free market (or any other allocative system for that matter) didn't meet human needs and act within a certain moral framework, there would be little to recommend it.
    And what is the moral framework of the free-market economy as opposed to the moral framework of the state-controlled economy? I only meant that the "morality" of the free-market is the same as the "morality" of a state-economy therefore judging them based on morality is meaningless. They both function as a "machine" for the distribution of goods. Markets, in my opinion, serve human needs better for the reasons that I've mentioned. More efficient allocation of resources and more extensive application of knowlege. But that has nothing to do with the system being moral in your sense, I don't think. A state-run economy is just as moral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emvard)
    And what is the moral framework of the free-market economy as opposed to the moral framework of the state-controlled economy? I only meant that the "morality" of the free-market is the same as the "morality" of a state-economy therefore judging them based on morality is meaningless. They both function as a "machine" for the distribution of goods. Markets, in my opinion, serve human needs better for the reasons that I've mentioned. More efficient allocation of resources and more extensive application of knowlege. But that has nothing to do with the system being moral in your sense, I don't think. A state-run economy is just as moral.
    Depends really, you seem to be hinting at a consequentialist justification for markets (More efficient allocation of resources). Now why is it an intrinsically good thing that resources are allocated efficiently? The reason is because it benefits human welfare (raises living standards and the like) in comparison to other systems (such as central planning, as you highlight. However, it would be a false dichotomy to hold that the only alternatives are a complete free market and a totally state planned economy, if the criteria is human welfare. Utilitarianism certainly doesn't justify absolute property rights, because there can easily emerge some situations in which compromising property rights (such as through taxation) will have more beneficial consequences than leaving the property rights absolute. For example, I believe (and I'm willing to accept a degree of speculation here) that a consequentialist ethical system would push towards a mixed welfare state, with a free market economy and some measures designed to improve the standards of living of the less well off.

    As it happens, I'm not opposed to the absolutism involved in capitalism based upon private property for consequentialist reasons, my reasoning is that all established property rights are as much restrictions on freedom as they as they are freedom establishing. The result of this is that libertarianism, rather than justifying itself on the ground of freedom, would have to find another means of explaining itself as the most equitable system (possibly on consequentialist grounds, but I don't believe they support absolute property rights either).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    snip
    What sort of property rights do you believe in?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    What sort of property rights do you believe in?
    I don't, except for basic items allowed for pragmatic reasons such as food, clothing and shelter.

    If I was a consequentialist I'd probably gravitate towards permitting private property rights but allow them to be compromised for taxation purposes if the taxation would benefit people who were otherwise suffering. Which would make me a social democrat of sorts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    my reasoning is that all established property rights are as much restrictions on freedom as they as they are freedom establishing.
    So are rights against being raped and murdered, on that definition of freedom. Which is one reason why it's a bad definition...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    So are rights against being raped and murdered, on that definition of freedom. Which is one reason why it's a bad definition...
    Not really, if you differentiate between justifiable restrictions of freedom and unjustifiable ones (something which libertarians end up doing when you look at the libertarian approach to punishment). A prison sentence is a restriction on freedom, now the question then becomes, is it a justifiable restriction on freedom?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    I don't, except for basic items allowed for pragmatic reasons such as food, clothing and shelter.

    If I was a consequentialist I'd probably gravitate towards permitting private property rights but allow them to be compromised for taxation purposes if the taxation would benefit people who were otherwise suffering. Which would make me a social democrat of sorts.
    Well, I fail to see how you would come to this conclusion if you value freedom so much.

    As Russell Kirk knew "Property is Freedom".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Well, I fail to see how you would come to this conclusion if you value freedom so much.

    As Russell Kirk knew "Property is Freedom".
    My point being that certain freedoms conflict, therefore tradeoffs have to be made regarding how freedom may be maximised.

    And I couldn't care less what Russell Kirk thought, do you have an argument to go with that quote? Quotes on their own prove nothing, and it's a permanent irritation of mine (both of forums and as someone who debates as a hobby) that people think they can solve an argument with a quote (blatant appeal to authority if ever there was one).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    My point being that certain freedoms conflict, therefore tradeoffs have to be made regarding how freedom may be maximised.

    And I couldn't care less what Russell Kirk thought, do you have an argument to go with that quote? Quotes on their own prove nothing, and it's a permanent irritation of mine (both of forums and as someone who debates as a hobby) that people think they can solve an argument with a quote (blatant appeal to authority if ever there was one).
    Well, I don't see how you can believe in any valueable form of liberty and not support property.

    Property is the result of our labour and our will. Need to be able to produce to sustain ourselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Depends really, you seem to be hinting at a consequentialist justification for markets (More efficient allocation of resources). Now why is it an intrinsically good thing that resources are allocated efficiently? The reason is because it benefits human welfare (raises living standards and the like) in comparison to other systems (such as central planning, as you highlight. However, it would be a false dichotomy to hold that the only alternatives are a complete free market and a totally state planned economy, if the criteria is human welfare. Utilitarianism certainly doesn't justify absolute property rights, because there can easily emerge some situations in which compromising property rights (such as through taxation) will have more beneficial consequences than leaving the property rights absolute. For example, I believe (and I'm willing to accept a degree of speculation here) that a consequentialist ethical system would push towards a mixed welfare state, with a free market economy and some measures designed to improve the standards of living of the less well off.

    As it happens, I'm not opposed to the absolutism involved in capitalism based upon private property for consequentialist reasons, my reasoning is that all established property rights are as much restrictions on freedom as they as they are freedom establishing. The result of this is that libertarianism, rather than justifying itself on the ground of freedom, would have to find another means of explaining itself as the most equitable system (possibly on consequentialist grounds, but I don't believe they support absolute property rights either).
    Well first of all I am not the one who mentioned the state planned economy. If you check again, it was CommunistDaughter who compared the free-market economy with the state-run economy on moral grounds. I only responded to him but I never said that these two are the only alternatives.

    Now you have to be careful. I cling (maybe unconvincingly) to deontological "libertarianism" (I seriously hate that word). The fact that I am sure that a market economy is the most effective in distributing goods and etc does not mean that I would initiate force on anybody in order to achieve such an economy (unlike consequentialists). I am completely against that. A free-market economy doesn't "need" violence in order to create prosperity for its participants. In fact it is, I think, the very nature of the free-market that demands non-violence. It's how it stays free. But I wouldn't consider that a moral characteristic of the free-market no more than I would consider the motto "for human needs not profit" a moral characteristic of the state-run economy. Because in the end, both systems serve the public, the free-market more effectively - I think. That is a common morality and therefore not worth comparing them on these grounds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Well, I don't see how you can believe in any valueable form of liberty and not support property.

    Property is the result of our labour and our will. Need to be able to produce to sustain ourselves.
    Being able to produce is not synonymous with having exclusive ownership over something.

    This is a really basic concept.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Being able to produce is not synonymous with having exclusive ownership over something.

    This is a really basic concept.
    No, of course not but what is created is (at least to some extent) owned by the creator.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, of course not but what is created is (at least to some extent) owned by the creator.
    Why? And why should the rights of ownership be inviolable?

    More to the point, if I plough a field, and then never touch it again, why should I be entitled to own it for all eternity.

    Private property rights are a fairly recent historical invention, the vast majority of human societies have existed without them. To say that they are socially necessary is short sighted at best.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Why? And why should the rights of ownership be inviolable?

    More to the point, if I plough a field, and then never touch it again, why should I be entitled to own it for all eternity.
    No, what I'm saying is that if you plough the field and pick the vegetables that grow in the field, you are entitled to use those vegetables.


    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Private property rights are a fairly recent historical invention, the vast majority of human societies have existed without them. To say that they are socially necessary is short sighted at best.
    Private property has existed since the Garden of Eden. It is most certainly not recent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Well, I fail to see how you would come to this conclusion if you value freedom so much.

    As Russell Kirk knew "Property is Freedom".
    Funnily enough, Proudhon is quoted as saying exactly the same thing. You don't often see those two in agreement now, do you!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 10, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.