Your argument is akin to saying that free markets can’t exist without murder, rape, theft etc because a “free market” can’t truly be free if we don’t allow individuals to have slaves, murder at will, rape whomever they please and steal whatever they like.
Laws against murder, rape, and theft aren’t economic regulations. Laws against slavery are.
A system of distribution? No, it is merely the concept that I am able to freely exchange my labor, assets, or currency for your labor, assets, or currency. Perhaps the priest does produce something of value, but I consider him more of a swindler that tells pretty lies in and asks your some of your money. I suppose it’s just not worth mine. If a hedge fund manager can protect my assets through a crash, that may appear to be useful service. However, I don’t have much more faith in the hedgie than the priest.
I don’t think I follow the argument here, or at least see it being relevant in all cases. I suppose it is a bit ambiguous to speak of capitalism, and better to speak of the freedom to exchange. Surely though, more people have been raised out of poverty through opportunity and incentive than forced redistribution.
Is there a functional difference? Or merely a semantic one? What does opportunity mean in an economic sense and does it have monetary value? (The answers are No. Yes. Opporunities can only be provided at some expense to someone somewhere. Yes.)
In other words, as Free Marketeers are so fond of saying: There is no free lunch. If people in poverty get raised up, it comes at a cost someone is paying, and poor people are rarely in a position to be paying it. The simple fact is that in mercenary economic decision-making getting people out of poverty counts for not just squat, but diddlysquat. The only reason that people are enriched by a private land owner discovering gold is that they need labor, but given some other magical option where they don’t have to pay anyone- they won’t. Look at Africa and conflict diamonds for example. There’s at least one example of how people making a mercenary economic calculation have realized that it’s cheaper to enslave your neighbors than pay them. In fact, you don’t have to look far, just back- in time.
The mining industry in the United States engaged labor in an extremely coercive fashion. Now, I would certainly argue that taking laborers who are known to be living on subsistence level income and telling them they won’t get paid for another two weeks (for labor already completed) because production quotas weren’t met constitutes enslavement. But, since people get picky about slavery (as in it happens, but could never happen again, or here, or to them) I’ll just call that a mite unethical. It is only with the imposition of regulations on the mining industry that people could lift themselves out of the poverty which the industry had so often cast them further into. These regulations came at a coerced cost to the industry, hence forced redistribution. I should add that this wasn’t just the forced redistribution of wealth in the sense of currency. Often it came in the form of the redistribution of health, safety, and other “non-economic” benefits- which I find is a term often used to describe things that cost money, but just can’t be traded.
He’s not blasting capitalism itself, he’s blasting the perversion of an economic system we used to call capitalism. And rightfully so. “Free market” capitalism (aka Trickle Down Economics, aka Reaganomics) has degenerated into a monstrous, out of control demon feeding off the depravity of pride and greed, forgoing any illusions it may have once harbored of servicing freedom and prosperity for all.
‘Laws against murder, rape, and theft aren’t economic regulations. Laws against slavery are.’
I’m not seeing this. Clearly, enslaving people and depriving them of their liberties and perhaps lives is a political act. Economic facts may follow, but they are a consequence of the political act.
I’m curious what you mean by “regular people”. I find it a curious phrase. Am I not “regular”? Because I have an obvious leftist bent? Are you not regular? Is no one here regular? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m being quite serious here.
I do agree about the old 20th century ideological battles. But we do have serious problems with the inability to drill down to the core of these problems. Until we can find a language in which to do that, we’ll all keep sweeping across the surface, in these partisan debates. I think at this point, the 99% vs. 1% is not a workable grounds for rallying around, because it’s too much tied into the partisan debates we have here. I’m not sure what the ideology should be going forward, but too many people are turned off by this language, sadly, as it’s important and pretty accurate.
We have switched… to natural gas. That’s why all the fraking here (including the “think about it” campaign you hear on NPR) and the wars in places like Afghanistan and Syria (with us in very round about ways supporting these foreign rebels–via the Saudis, who we are quite generous too). But, yeah, the oil/energy problem is serious, but only because we make it so. We all know there are alternatives. I find food and water shortages to be far more serious in nature, to be honest…
Clearly, enslaving people and depriving them of their liberties and perhaps lives is a political act. Economic facts may follow, but they are a consequence of the political act.
what if I told you
that an act can be political and economic at the same time
those things aren’t mutually exclusive. what you say is true; slavery is a political act, especially the kind of racialized slavery we had/have in the states. But that doesn’t change that banning the ownership and trade of anything, including humans, is an economic regulation that cannot happen in a truly “free market.”
I agree. But there is a strata of the rich who are philanthropic (Gates, Buffett, Soros, etc), but what is the point of their philathrophy, should be the question we’re asking. What is the real goal and effect of the Gates Foundation projects. What are they trying to do by reforming schools–educate children, full stop, or educate them to be good workers (which is what the 19th century philanthropists were doing in setting up schools). Really, I think charity is a poor substitute for an equitable society.
How is it forced redistribution if the tax dollars go to support a system that disproportionately benefits some more than others. It’s a cliche to point out how tax dollars pay for roads and infrastructure, as well as has subsidized numerous industries–for example computing, not to mention cash crop farming.
We all pay into the system – and don’t give me that BS about how the poor don’t, because, yes they do pay taxes, too, even if it’s not from income taxes, they pay in a myriad of other ways. The middle strata are stuck paying the lion’s share, because the poor have less to pay in, and the rich find all the loop holes they can, often paying a lower rate if they have no active income from employment…
People have traded value with each other for as long as people have lived in communities, and especially when we settled and began farming. No one doubts that. But all forms of value exchange are not capitalism, nor are they built on such inequality that capitalism is built on–this is not to say that only capitalism had a class system or inequality, but that the nature of the inequality is different, and often built on violence, exploitation, and lack of alternatives. Go read Davis’ book if you don’t understand. Hell, read some Marx. Read some Zizek, or EP Thompson or James Scott Sidney Mintz, etc. Read something other than Milton Friedman maybe to get a sense how capitalism has impacted peoples actually lives. it’s not always positive. Just because people are making more now than they did before, doesn’t mean their lives are actually better.
I just want to use this as much as possible, so here you go…
Calvinists?
Agreed.
Laws against slaver are purely an economic regulation? Well, okay…
Laws against slaver are purely an economic regulation? Well, okay…
No one said purely. It’s certainly a lot of other things. But it’s also an economic regulation.
surely so are laws against murder, rape and theft, all of which can, and do, generate cash for people.
To clarify: I use ‘politics’ to mean the theory and practice of whose will shall prevail in a community; in other words, the study and exercise of social power. I use ‘economics’ to mean the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of value. In the case of slavery per se, I don’t see much value necessarily being produced, transferred, or consumed. It is true one could, in a manner of speaking, ‘create value’ by enslaving someone, and transfer it by selling the slave to a slave-owner who could ‘consume’ the slave by appropriating his labor power, but this seems like a borderline use of economic thought. Moreover one could theoretically keep slaves without any significant economic inputs or outputs. Political actions do often occur with economic results in mind: a robber may force me to give him my wallet, from which he expects to derive value, but I would call the robbery itself a political act, in that the robber is compelling me to submit to his will. Of course anyone may define these words differently, but that’s what I mean.
surely so are laws against murder, rape and theft, all of which can, and do, generate cash for people.
Well, then, you’ve proven @heavystarch’s strawman correct: “free markets can’t exist without murder, rape, theft, etc.” I was wrong to suggest that those weren’t economic regulations as well. I had my reservations about theft, for sure.
@starrygordon Ownership is also an economic act, integral to “production, distribution and consumption of value” in a free market capitalist system. If slavery is owning people, then it is an economic act, and banning it is economic regulation, which cannot exist in a free market.
To prohibit these things without economic regulation would look something like this: “don’t murder anyone, unless there are economic transactions to come of it.”
Don’t worry. They’ll fall back on the fact that “catholism is as close to pagan as you can get and still call yourself a Christian,” as an old roommate of mine once put. Then they’ll go back to watching Joel Olsteen and his “prosperity gospel.”
Maybe it’s because I grew up in the Catholic Church, maybe it’s because I’m an atheist, but I will never trust a religious leader that doesn’t take vow of poverty. It’s just too easy to take advantage of people when it comes to religion.
How am I changing the accepted definition of free markets?
“A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority”
I never disputed that definition - I merely stated that slavery would not be acceptable in a truly free market as the free market is derived from individual sovereignty - self determination - self governance et al. Taking another human as a slave would be anathema to this. You really think that individual freedom is negotiable because we don’t have a singular moral authority? IMHO the singular moral authority is the desire of nearly every human on this planet to live freely. It is rare to find a human that desires slavery or serfdom outright. Most if not all humans desire the freedom to live their lives as they see fit
What’s odd is at the outset of your statement is where you accuse me of changing the “accepted definition of free markets” then at the end of your statement, you remind me that no two people can agree on what free markets look like.
Is there an accepted definition or is the free market definition in flux?
Regardless I still maintain that slavery is anathema to free markets and would not be acceptable within that construct. Whether or not one derives economic benefit from slavery, murder, theft, rape etc - each of those acts violates the individual sovereignty of another human and again would be anathema to free markets. There would be an “other authority” controlling the demands/wants of an individual human being.
