Comments | fpb: How some think

fpb

How some think

Jan 13, 2010 09:52

This was actually published today, by a conservative commentator, as something worth saying in a discussion:

The truth is that we don't have a free market -- government regulation and management are pervasive -- so it's misleading to say that "capitalism" caused today's problems. The free market is innocent.The amount of non sequiturs, false ( Read more... )

adam smith, conservative movement, free market, human folly

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

expectare January 13 2010, 10:17:29 UTC

This is seriously the first time you've seen this? Heh. That the United States has a "mixed" market economy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Modern_U.S._economy ), not a free market economy, should be widely known.

fpb January 13 2010, 10:53:55 UTC

That there is no such thing as a "free" market economy in the sense this man has it should be universally known. No state intrusion means no obligation to respect contracts, no obligation to deal ethically with customers, indeed no obligation not to do murder. These are all things that are not done because the State regulates against them, and provides formidable incentives not to pursue them. Were there no 'state regulation" (which is another word for "law"), mankind would have become extinct under the push of conflicting selfishness.

expectare January 13 2010, 11:48:52 UTC

If it doesn't exist, then he can't be called stupid for saying that the US doesn't have one and that it can't be blamed for imminent depression.

fpb January 13 2010, 12:00:15 UTC

No, sorry, you are being illogical. If it does not exist, it cannot be called innocent, since that is an attribute of things that exist. The stupidity is the assumption that such things could and should exist, and it reminds me of nothing so much as a Communist true believer. "Communism/The Free Market has not failed, comrades! It has just never been tried properly!" But by raising and settling (to his own satisfaction if nobody else's) a false problem, this man shifts attention away from real problems and above all prevents us from thinking in constructive and sensible ways about law and intervention.

expectare January 13 2010, 12:36:41 UTC

By that token, if it doesn't exist, then it cannot be guilty: guilt is also an attribute of things that exist. There are as many people who are running around saying "the free market" is guilty--including the President--as there are running around saying "the free market" is innocent. In fact, the latter are responding to the former. They have the power, and they are attempting to correct a problem that, as you say, cannot exist. That is dangerous.

stigandnasty919 January 13 2010, 12:47:20 UTC

The real issue for me is that he seems to be trying to equate capitalism with a free-market. They are not the same thing.

When he says "The truth is that we don't have a free market.... so it's misleading to say that "capitalism" caused today's problems. The free market is innocent."

The truth is that we don't have apples... so it's misleading to say that oranges caused today's problems. Apples are innocent.

He's either stupid or hoping that people won't notice his sleight of hand.

fpb January 13 2010, 12:52:56 UTC

Probably both

expectare January 13 2010, 14:06:36 UTC

In this context, they are the same thing. The fact is most Americans use capitalism and free market to refer to the same thing, and the two are interchangeable in popular discourse. Assuming he's acting in good faith (difficult to tell for a political pundit), he just thinks they're synonyms and isn't trying a sleight of hand.

fpb January 13 2010, 14:42:59 UTC

But a pundit is not supposed to echo and refine the worst of popular discourse, but to raise its level and content. While there is no point for him/her in antagonizing his/her readers, the proper use of punditry is to sharpen and enlarge the terms of debate. If, instead of doint so, the pundit just repeats and hardens ill-grounded prejudices, s/he is betraying his/her position.

stigandnasty919 January 13 2010, 15:21:04 UTC

So why use both terms? Why not say

"The truth is that we don't have a free market.... so it's misleading to say that the free market caused today's problems. The free market is innocent."

Do you think he is seriously saying that because the US does not have an unfettered free market, that it doesn't have a capitalist ecconomic system?

expectare January 14 2010, 08:07:37 UTC

Yep. It might be hard for you to believe, but there is a substantial that believes that, say, the PRC has a more capitalist system than the US does.

expectare January 14 2010, 08:07:44 UTC

substantial *population

expectare January 13 2010, 11:59:46 UTC

And this comment isn't a debate, I'm genuinely curious. Do you really think that "there is no obligation not to do murder" unless there is a government to say otherwise?

fpb January 13 2010, 14:38:56 UTC

There is no enforceable obligation, and therefore the pressure in the other direction is nearly irresistible. In a collapsed society, people will resort to the biggest bandit in the neighbourhood for justice, even if they know that he is a bandit (that is how the Frankish kingdom rose among the ruins of the Western Roman Empire), because justice without power simply does not exist. People instinctively demand that power should do justice; it is one of the two oldest functions of any power (the other is war). And at the same time, power itself arises largely from the consensus, the recognition, of the whole population. At its most degraded level, the recognition of a whole population that one bandit has risen above all others turns that bandit into a king. And this consensus is not only an essential part of power, but also of social intercourse of every kind. If people want to talk, they have to have agreed means of communications. If people want to trade at all, they have to have an agreement as to contracts, conditions and ( ... )

cerebresque January 13 2010, 14:51:28 UTC

On the contrary, sir, that I and others historically do in fact respect contracts (and non-binding promises, i.e., keep our word), refrain from defrauding customers, and, well, don't kill people even with no guns to our heads, policemen at our shoulders, or plausible possibility of lawsuits clearly demonstrates that the obligation to do these things does exist in the absence of an enforcement body ( ... )

fpb January 13 2010, 14:58:47 UTC

Yes, you are such a virtuous person. I do not doubt that. But I know that I am not virtuous, and I have little confidence in most others. The point is not that virtuous people will keep their obligations, the point is that everyone must - the good, the bad and the so-so. And that will not happen because they are all so pleased and happy and satisfied with their own righteousness. And that is not even mentioning problems with perception, memory and understanding. No two people will interpret a contract in exactly the same way. I have a little experience in the commercial world in what is beginning to be a longish life, and my experience is that there is no contract so fair, and no two partners so just, that they would not find a reason to quarrel if they were not restrained by fear.

Back to all threads