Slavery and Free Markets

[heavystarch]

Continuing the discussion from Pope blasts capitalism:

@ActionAbe

What a remarkably narrow and historically inaccurate vision of slavery you have.
[/quote] Really. It was merely an example/illustration of slavery without any historical context whatsoever. Please tell me my vision of slavery and its history…

@ActionAbe

Voluntary slavery is still slavery.

In our narrowly defined example I agree that, yes, slavery is slavery yes. However where I may differ from you is in the the method in which Person A becomes the slave.
Option 1. Person A voluntarily/freely/willingly submits to Person B as a slave.
Option 2. Person B forcibly takes Person A as a slave.

The end result is slavery but the method whereby Person A ends up a slave is vastly different.

[quote=“ActionAbe, post:175, topic:15208”]It does not permit the withdrawal of consent, which is in fact a pivotal aspect of freedom. [/quote] Where is the precondition that voluntary slavery does not permit withdrawl by the voluntary slave? I never provisioned that in my narrow example nor did you until now. That is the main reason why voluntary slavery is different than involuntary slavery - CONSENT. It was given in option 1 but not option 2.

@ActionAbe

Meanwhile you continue to miss the point entirely: Free market ideology does not take into consideration coercion by private actors as a form of regulation. If it did, then free market ideology would acknowledge what it does not: That private actors must be restrained by a higher authority, the precise opposite of what it does argue. You are trying to impose a moral philosophy on free market ideology that has never been a consideration. The Invisible Hand alone is supposed to keep man moral, according to the myth of the free market.

I don’t believe that I am missing the point. “A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority.” By this commonly accepted definition, Free Markets do acknowledge that private actors can in fact be a form of regulation (…“or other authority”). Free Market “ideology” as you put can’t take into consideration or acknowledge anything. It’s merely a framework or philosophy - not a thinking entity that considers anything at all. Humans may consider the framework and its ramifications. My point was that Free Markets can in fact exist without any slavery (going back to the original poster who mentioned that if you want free markets you better like slavery - indicating that you can’t have one without the other). I’m not imposing any moral philosophy upon the free market - I simply stated that slavery is anathema to free markets because, historically speaking, slavery was the action that forcibly took the life of Person A without their consenting to being a slave.

Why must Free Market “ideology” take into consideration private actors being regulators that must be restrained by some higher authority? Free Market principles merely express a system of trade in which supply/demand are not governed or regulated by a government or other authority. An economic system where voluntary exchange occurs without coercion or force from a party outside the transaction. Economists, historians, philosophers all recognize that a system as simple as this almost can’t exist on earth because men are not Angels. Therefore some humans have established Laws and agencies to uphold said laws.

There is no place that states the “invisible hand” should keep men moral. It merely states that transactions among men may occur without coercion whereby both parties are enriched. The invisible hand is a simple metaphor to describe what occurs billions of times per day on this planet - people doing business with one another voluntarily/consensually without need of government intervention.

[quote=“ActionAbe, post:175, topic:15208”]It’s funny that you mention the Invisible Hand though. Since the person who coined the term also said,
> “Men may live together in society with some tolerable degree of security, though there is no civil magistrate to protect them from the injustice of those passions. But avarice and ambition in the rich, in the poor the hatred of labour and the love of present ease and enjoyment, are the passions which prompt to invade property, passions much more steady in their operation, and much more universal in their influence. Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security.”

I mentioned the Invisible Hand because we have been discussing regulation and free markets. The Invisible Hand principle indicates that men are self regulating in their transactions with others. Therefore the Free Market is in fact a highly regulated market at the micro level as every translation is regulated by the participants themselves.

Irony.

Your quote of Smith illustrates the point I made previously; men are not angles which is why many civilizations have consented to form rules/laws and agencies/governments to support/enforce the laws. This is why a perfect free market may not exist on this planet - men are far from angelic.

[Ignatius]

@heavystarch

Option 1. Person A voluntarily/freely/willingly submits to Person B as a slave.Option 2. Person B forcibly takes Person A as a slave.

The end result is slavery but the method whereby Person A ends up a slave is vastly different.

The question is what kind of economic situation would lead anyone to voluntarily give up all of their autonomy in trade for the barest security? In a system where any substantial number of people would choose that, can you truly consider them free? Because I don’t. Whipping boys for capitalism love to talk about economic freedom, but if you are in a system where people would choose slavery, you don’t have freedom. Can’t you recognize that?

@heavystarch

Where is the precondition that voluntary slavery does not permit withdrawl by the voluntary slave? I never provisioned that in my narrow example nor did you until now. That is the main reason why voluntary slavery is different than involuntary slavery - CONSENT. It was given in option 1 but not option 2.

It’s not fucking slavery if you can leave when you want. I can’t believe I had to type that sentence. This is ridiculous.

@heavystarch

There is no place that states the “invisible hand” should keep men moral. It merely states that transactions among men may occur without coercion whereby both parties are enriched.

Capitalism isn’t simply amoral. It’s immoral. In order for capitalism to thrive, it requires that a vast number of people under it be exploited. Yes, exploitation. What is profit? Profit is the extra value derived from the work of workers. Where does that profit go? Not the workers. It goes to business owners and bankers.

Capitalists love to talk about the risk that entrepreneurs take and how it justifies them taking all the profit. What about the risks that workers take? We take jobs we don’t want because we need money and the jobs we do want aren’t available. When we as workers find ourselves in a job where we’re underpaid and abused by our bosses, we have to make a choice. A choice that’s not even a choice: stick around and ruin our health or leave and ruin our health trying to find a new place that’s just as likely to be abusive as the place we left.

Even those who are exceptional in the “Atlas Shrugged” fantasy scenario find themselves strung along with a series of lies and broken promises. No one’s happy, no one’s healthy, no one can thrive … except the capitalists.

How is this freedom?

P.S. To keep this relatively brief, I’ve left out the mass indentured servitude caused by skyrocketing healthcare, housing, education, and debt costs. I’ve only alluded to the extent of the exploitation necessary. I also left out an explanation of the fact that the rich nations only thrive to the extent they do because of its colonialism and exploitation of poorer nations.

[GilbertWham]

Christ on a crutch, again?

No, really, arguments started by obstinate libertarians are, like, the best thing about the internet. Please, start more threads about it. I was worried in case there’d be a fucking shortage of them, or something.