Topic: Free markets and social problems: - page 6. (Read 8711 times)

Ah yet another "omg I am really a slave" poster.

If modern people in democratic states are not free, who is our master?

In all of those cases, the perpetrator is forced to act inconspicuously should they wish to remain in their state of lesser consequences, and their freedom is thus affected. The fear of being harmed is enough to persuade the fellows of those being harmed, that they must act to disarm the harmer would they be found out. The harmer has overwhelming incentive to hide, and the non-harmers have overwhelming incentive to remove the harmer (or themselves - flee) from their environment. If they didn't care about being punished (having a god complex), they may very well be punished by underestimating opposition, or be forced to defend themselves by destroying anyone that has cause to harm them (rebel), or to be isolated by the flight or extinction of prey.

One solution might be to kill all humans except yourself, then you'll mostly be free...but still subject to the whims of nature anyway.

The point of all this? None of us are free, and the modern world is the result of this duality between liberty and protection.


No, save for the illusion of it. There is no available claim on this planet without contest, so the Boston man is shackled to a society (where can he go and stake an uncontested claim without an army?). His house is only his by law, the tenet of which is to refuse the freedoms of everyone else over that land. The system that gives him freedom over his own property is the same system that denies him freedom on every other. So, it is an illusion.

So the murderer of a homeless man will face the repercussions of the homeless man?

The polluter will face the repercussions of those who don't know they were polluted?

The thief will face the repercussions of the victim even though the victim can't afford to pay someone to find who the thief was?

 

I can see that happening.  1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion was regarded as horrendous.  Nowadays, abortion is normal and slavery is regarded as horrendous.  Who knows how people will look back at us?

Maybe in 200 years from now, people will be vegetarian and will argue the free market didn't/couldn't liberate animals back then.

Just about nobody is really free. There's always someone who has some power over you. Even if it's just your wife.

So is an American citizen living in Boston in his own house a free man?

Free: Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

That is, to take responsibilities for one's own action.

And in doing so, face the repercussions of those who you are willing to harm.

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
Nelson Mandela

Which is what?

There is only one logical answer to this.

Your would-be-actors are still free to act. They are just oppressed at every turn when they have to consider the consequences of their every act, due to all of the "lawful" minutiae. Maybe we should differentiate between capable and free. I know what capable is. That's just science and physical fact. The real question is, what does it mean to be and act freely?

Its important not to link markets and morality. Morality changes and markets change to suit it.  Just as we look in horror at slavery and racism today, its a fair bet that future generations will look back in disgust at mass abortion and at factory farming.  Markets operate within the moral frameworks of their societies - if those changes come to pass, the market in abortion services and in factory farmed pork will go away.

When there is law (and oh boy there is law) men are not free to act to solve their problems. Freedom is no guarantee, but in the current situation would be free actors are stopped at every turn.

Europe I guess. I dunno, thats why I asked. I don't have time right now to research it beyond scanning wikipedia.

To avoid throwing the new global warming thread off topic:


I'd first off say none of those practices took place in the context of a free market. As long as we have that out of the way:

Didn't the industrial revolution make slavery less economical before governments took action?