CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are Libertarian values compatible with free market capitalism?
From an American perspective, unrestricted free markets are compatible with libertarian tenets, as voluntary transactions between individuals are said to lead an uncoercive system of voluntary association. Some minarchists advocate a welfare state. From a European perspective, libertarianism is associated with minarchist or anarchist socialist movements. They argue that free markets fail to fulfil the basic tenants of libertarianism. Due to the nature of this debate, seeing as it is about the nature of libertarianism and rights, I would ask people to hold back on utilitarian arguments on all sides.
Free market Capitalism is compatible with libertarian values, and praxeological science is not normative, basically, capitalism doesn't force or suggest people to be capitalist. Rather, capitalism says here are the rules that determine the social outcomes when people behave this way or that way. This has nothing to do with whether we ought to have capitalism or not or whether it is compatible with these ideals or others. It's like saying if you shoot a rocket at the right speed and angle, it will orbit the earth. That doesn't tell you whether you ought to launch such a rocket, only what will happen if you do.
The only rule is the right to life, liberty and property, so it doesnt limit anyone opportinuty or freedom. Free market capitalism is the essrnce of opporubity. I been over this before as well.
Who protects the right to life in free market capitalism, if basic needs can be provided by companies to whom the right to life is an externality in the goal of making profit?
The safety network (whichever private institutions, however operated) that protects the right to life by fulfilling the basic needs of people would be based on economic or societal position and life choices. The system which is provided to a child would depend on the parents. This is unjust, as the child has not chosen their parents or their life choices and economic or societal positions.
People seem to put a lot of views into Free markets that simply aren't there.
Free Market Capitalism is merely the idea that government has no business in telling a man what he can do with his own business, body, and property. As well, the man has no business in telling any other man what they can do with their own business, body, and property.
In the end, haters are gonna hate. They will take it to so many different extremes and then say they're not compatible. but consider me vs. prayerfails, whom hold very similar views compared to many statists out there, but hold very different views when we get deep into libertarian philosophy.
Is this why you down vote everyone who puts in long, well thought out explanations?
It's not about uber independence or uber freedom. It's about freedom from the state when it comes to personal decisions and private property. Not freedom from the ego or freedom from having to work for their own needs.
Free Market Capitalism is merely the idea that government has no business in telling a man what he can do with his own business, body, and property.
Even so, the definition of free market capitalism is quite narrow and simple. Therefore as a system it does not require extreme arguments to refute. For example:
Buying a car to roll with is all good for the dealer and the customer, but even that has effects for everyone such as global warming. The buyer has used financially legitimated power on others. Whether or not the legitimation is correct is subject to petition in a democratically arranged society.
In a true free market individuals don't always have a say in how financially legitimated power is used upon them. But in a libertarian society, no power should be used in a manner that violates of the rights of others. That calls for democratic arrangements that are incompatible with a truly free market.
In a true free market individuals don't always have a say in how financially legitimated power is used upon them.
Under the assumption that free markets are interpreted by computers that can certify a free market.
A Free Market is an economic stand-point. It opts out of social issues, such as murder and rape. If a business is created that kills people, like an assassin company or something, that would be illegal under murder laws. This is not going against the Free Market if we interpret a Free Market as what you quoted me on "own business, body, and property."
Global Warming hasn't been proven to be harmful to individuals or even society. Global Warming has shown to effect our weather, yet how many things don't effect our weather? Most Libertarians believe that issues of Global Warming can be handled through voluntary association. A green market is rising, and in the interest of profit, businesses have pushed for more green initiatives. Now, the private sector has made deals with government, and that is against Libertarian values, for that is crony capitalism. This is where you see millions of dollars being invested in businesses that build wind turbines or methods of switching to green technology.
In general, though, issues like Global Warming or pollution do not conflict with Libertarian values. Libertarians generally believe that these issues are best left to the private citizenship instead of an authority figure that could have devastating consequences.
The right to own land stems from the aggression of the military, who has eighter conquered or defended it. Property itself is enforced by the monopoly of violence of the state. As you claim special rights on a piece of land with financial power you might not engage in aggression yourself, but by merit of your tax paying citizenship the state will do it for you.
It does not matter if it's a war of defense or a war of aggression, both are inherently illegitimate forms of power under the non-aggression principle. The question is about the compatibility of libertarian ideology with the free market. I argue it is incompatible, because this inherently illegitimate form of power will limit the rights of the individuals.
As the state you propose does not provide the basic needs of its citizens, a portion of them will have no choice but to rent themselves as labour to fill their basic needs. The vice versa is true aswell: those individuals are owned by those who have special rights to basic necessities.
The individuals might have the opportunity to rent themselves to themselves every once in a while (you know, by not working all the time or not working at all for time it takes to die of thirst), but self-ownership is hardly a right in such an economic system. It is taken away with violence.
What I do not understand is: why would any libertarian favor the right to property over the right to life and self-ownership? The marauding bulldozertanks of the state should be used to defend those rights above all.
Help me understand what line of logic leads guitaristdog to believe, for example that murder is justified by economic motives. From your perspectives you might think you already said everything that is nescessary, but I don't think anything is that simple. I used to believe in free market principles myself. The basic view on human nature is questionable however: human nature makes socialism fail, but charity will work and the free market will be fine, as people are kind and fluffy and happy.
P.S. Enjoy the sunny weather under global warming. Remember to move out of coastal areas!
The right to own land stems from the aggression of the military, who has eighter conquered or defended it.
In imperial times you may have more of an argument, but that very aggression has been curbed by the private sector. Not to mention that what we currently have is not a truly free market, so property acquired by means of aggression would not even apply to the goal of libertarians. The goal isn't to correct past evils, it's to eliminate the state from our personal livelihood. The fact that some are fucked is just a basic fact. It's not like imperfections is incompatible with libertarian or free market philosophy. Once again, you're taking these principles into impossible axioms just to prove a point... that libertarians all of a sudden should not condone free markets. That in order to be libertarian, we have to eliminate our support of a free market system (where government does not have the ability to tell you what to do with your personal property or life.)
As the state you propose does not provide the basic needs of its citizens, a portion of them will have no choice but to rent themselves as labour to fill their basic needs.
All subjective on whether they truly have "no choice" or not. Many have choices taken away from them by the state in our current affair. That is not free markets.
why would any libertarian favor the right to property over the right to life and self-ownership?
The right to life and self-ownership includes the right to property. Do not act like being a free man is separate from being able to own your own shit. It's all rights protected, not God given.
human nature makes socialism fail, but charity will work and the free market will be fine, as people are kind and fluffy and happy.
Most libertarian scholars don't believe that the Free market is magic. The idea, versus Socialism, is that instead of having a central planner or group of people who tell us what to do, allow the people to government themselves. Government is not ran by the exceptional human beings who know what's right for us, so why would we give them power as if they were?
I am not supposing all libertarians should condone free markets. I am supposing that in intellectual honesty libertarianism needs to be slightly adapted from what people usually think it implies, in order to properly support a free market, or vice versa, the market to support it.
you're taking these principles into impossible axioms
I hope I'm not taking the non-aggression principle to impossible axioms. It simply states all aggression, including those which I described, are inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on the aggressor, who must legitimate his aggression externally. Most of things I listed can be justified.
The right to life and self-ownership includes the right to property.
I agree, I only disagree on how to best protect all of the above rights.
Protecting your property is fine, as it is self-deafens. Protecting your life is fine, as it also self-defense. A very universal idea that has to do with the nature of rights is that the right to life is needed for people to protect any other rights in a civilized manner and ought not be considered less strong than others.
If this were not the case the right to property of the slaveholder would be stronger than the right to life of the slave. We have to define what we can justify the state protecting as our property and what we can not because this statement about rights is one of the most universal. Murder is always worse than stealing.
A poor person can justify stealing basic necessities as defending ones right to life and property (as a person dies so do his other rights outside of arrangements made before death). What that means is that IF this justification is correct and we ought to protect the right to life and property, the basic needs of the individuals must be fulfilled by an arrangement external from the market. THEN and only then the justification of the poor person is no longer valid. Property and life are legitimated and protected to their fullest extent.
The libertarian theory of justice is a rights-based one. I believe it should not be taken to the extreme axiom that the justification above is incorrect. Libertarianism is about the nature of rights. It should not be distorted to include inherently questionable ideas about the nature of rights, that are in reality derived from crypto-utilitarian or quasi-utilitarian notions. In my opinion libertarians should ponder the nature of rights above all, for society ought to be formulated on them, and not the other way around.
libertarianism needs to be slightly adapted from what people usually think it implies, in order to properly support a free market
Libertarians have been trying to redefine their angle since many people like to play around with the word Capitalism. In all honesty, Marx had a lot to do with bastardizing the term Capitalism, relating it to the Superstructure and government/big business alliance. What Libertarians want is for business to be independent of government for the most part. They believe that government's role is to defend us from citizens who do not respect our individual rights.
The burden of proof is on the aggressor, who must legitimate his aggression externally.
Defending your property is justified. the person who SHOULD be legitimizing their action is the one who tries to deprive this person of their property. The burden of proof is on the initial aggressor, the thief.
If this were not the case the right to property of the slaveholder would be stronger than the right to life of the slave.
Human beings are not property. They must subject themselves to a contract of indentured servitude, but a contract is not legal grounds for putting one in shackles. There is no conflict. If we decided for a century to call heroin fruit juice, that wouldn't change that heroin should not be given to children even though fruit juice is completely safe.
A poor person can justify stealing basic necessities as defending ones right to life and property
He could, but whether he's right or actually justified is subjective. We don't condone thievery just because some people feel that they have a right to steal from someone else.
the basic needs of the individuals must be fulfilled by an arrangement external from the market.
If this arrangement is external of the market, it would not be going against the "free market" which is within the bounds of the market. Libertarians can support "welfare" or a "voucher program" as I do and so does Milton Friedman.
whether he's right or actually justified is subjective
Well I feel as if libertarians do have objective ideas about justice. Murder is inherently wrong no matter how the murderer feels or how he thinks about the world. If there is no obvious external justification like self-defense or consent he must pay for his crimes.
If a person obviously needs to eat and has no other way of getting food, he has the external justification of self-defense. He shouldn't be made to pay for his crimes unless there are exceptional circumstances. Even though this justification may seem shady there is no actual element of subjectivity in this view of justice. The answers are derived from the inherent nature of rights. Objectivity is an inherent quality of justice in this view.
Even though it allows and implies that people follow their own path to a good life it is still an objective statement to say that everyone should just do that and there should be no common rule. It is also objective to claim no ones right to do so should be taken from them. If libertarian justice had the intention of being subjective so would the very "libertarian values" we are debating.
Human beings are not property.
Yes, and you have a reason why.
They must subject themselves to a contract of indentured servitude, but a contract is not legal grounds for putting one in shackles.
Yes, it is because they are sentient and able to bargain (and some other stuff maybe). You can not claim state protected special rights on a human being as it is against their right to self-ownership that stems from them being capable of bargaining. But how about someone under custody who is sentient but unable to properly bargain?
If this arrangement is external of the market, it would not be going against the "free market" which is within the bounds of the market.
Now arises the question, what am I disputing here? Well, since practically no one would decide not to fulfill their needs a handout would not seem impair the market in any significant way. So, on second thoughts I have no basis to say the market is not "free". But wouldn't there have to be a level of centralization that you are against? On what grounds are you fine with that in this case? And what do you think of Friedmans ideas on pollution?
We don't condone thievery just because some people feel that they have a right to steal from someone else.
The thing I hold on to in my argument right now is that libertarian values and justifications are objective, but since a system of vouchers would effectively ruin the thieves day I actually have no ground to stand on for now. Of course I could have argued that vouchers distort the market in some way but that fell flat on its face. I choose honesty over persistence. It has been an interesting debate indeed. I'd be happy to hear your final thoughts.
Murder is inherently wrong no matter how the murderer feels or how he thinks about the world.
With murder defined as the taking of someone's life who is not a threat to you, then yes.
The non-aggression principle says protect yourself, but do no actively harm others.
If a person obviously needs to eat and has no other way of getting food, he has the external justification of self-defense.
You say "obviously" which is misleading. The only one who can be sure this is "obvious" is the individual and maybe loved ones. This is a case of man versus the cruelty of the world. I can not say that he is unjustified in his illegal actions, but I can not blame his victims for seeking retribution.
But how about someone under custody who is sentient but unable to properly bargain?
Once again, an unknowable situation. Are we individuals? Are we dependents?
But wouldn't there have to be a level of centralization that you are against?
A level. Libertarians are not anarchists. Some are, but most believe in some level of government, but the Free Market is no regulation or taxes on income or services.
On what grounds are you fine with that in this case?
For me, state level would be ideal. And this would have to do with police and welfare. I don't believe in State regulations either.
And what do you think of Friedmans ideas on pollution?
Libertarians will sometimes defend the EPA, and while it seems noble to have regulations on pollution, I believe that property rights will usually handle the issues of pollution, including class action lawsuits against companies spewing filth into the air that effects homeowners. To me, it is better than official regulation that often hurts jobs and opportunity for technological development.
but since a system of vouchers would effectively ruin the thieves day I actually have no ground to stand on for now.
We'd also consider the success of charities, as well. They'd be far more flexible with lack of regulations, taxation, and government interference. Of course, I find this theoretical (while someone like PrayerFails would find it to be truth.)
Of course I could have argued that vouchers distort the market in some way but that fell flat on its face. I choose honesty over persistence. It has been an interesting debate indeed. I'd be happy to hear your final thoughts.
I appreciate your honesty. I have found your challenges to help me adapt to criticism, and really, we've both been able to learn something.
How do you define non-aggression? If an electric company decides to shut down the electricity of an occupant who has not paid his bill, but needs the electricity to live. In this case the non-aggression principle is incompatible with capitalist values, that would state the person has to pay for his electricity.
Suppose one person owned a medicine that could cure the life threatening disease of another, and they had no other chance of a cure. How would the resulting bargain be in compliance with self-ownership? Even if you were to say is was voluntary, so would robbery or salvery be, as the person gives money or labour in exchange for his life, and these are things all libertarians are against.
If an electric company decides to shut down the electricity of an occupant who has not paid his bill, but needs the electricity to live. In this case the non-aggression principle is incompatible with capitalist values, that would state the person has to pay for his electricity.
Having to pay for the electricity is not aggression, however, forcing the electric company to give away their electricity for free would be aggression. The deal between customer and the company is this: money in exchange for power. When the customer fails to keep up his/her end of the deal, the company no longer has to keep their end of the deal, forcing one party to continue their end of the deal even though the other party no longer keeps up theirs is aggression.
Suppose one person owned a medicine that could cure the life threatening disease of another, and they had no other chance of a cure. How would the resulting bargain be in compliance with self-ownership?
The cure holder owns him/herself and the cure, the sick person owns him/herself.
Even if you were to say is was voluntary, so would robbery or slavery be, as the person gives money or labor in exchange for his life, and these are things all libertarians are against.
The sick person still owns them self, if they decided that whatever they need to exchange for the cure is worth it, than they are free to make the deal, if they don't, they are free not to. Saying slavery would be the end result is over exaggerating. Also, if you were to force the cure away from the cure holder and give it to the sick person that would be against the non-aggression principle.
We do not want a forceful over throw, we are trying for a peaceful over throw, but if you authoritarians keep up what you are doing we will have no choice but to result to violence and revolution.
And here is how the difference between the sick person and the cure holder rather than forced collectivism. The sick person has the choice and a say in the trade, they do not have to agree with it and no one is holding a gun to their head. The chance of the cure holder "enslaving" (it would actually be an indentured servant because it is to pay off debt) the work is in return for the cure, I would highly doubt that this situation would arise, but if it did, the cure holder saved the sick person's life, don't you think some sort of repayment is in order if the cure holder asks for it?
I'm a communist, I believe the sick should be able to make their own cures. That there should be no devide between capital and labor, and that property rights on information are generally countered to both propertied and anti-propertied philosophies. I am in no way an authoritarian, nor is obama a socialist if that is what your referencing.
The person with the gun to the head also has a choice, and it is the exact same as the sick persons.
The situation is so common you fail to see it, perhaps because it tends to be enslavement to a class rather than to a particular member of it. I'm an american, so i have a modified lockeean view on things, but i'm sure you would agree that people have the right to life and that making life dependent on money makes that right null and void in practice. they deserve the thanks of the community and the esteem that comes with their work, but they shouldn't be doing work because they have to make money, but rather because it is an expression of their nature and interests.
I'm a communist, I believe the sick should be able to make their own cures.
They are allowed to make whatever cure they want, last time I checked vaccines are not that expensive.
That there should be no devide between capital and labor, and that property rights on information are generally countered to both propertied and anti-propertied philosophies. I am in no way an authoritarian, nor is obama a socialist if that is what your referencing.
I was not referencing to Obama, however, Obama is a socialist compared to American standards, however, in Europe where they pretty much consider anything except Communism to be Capitalism, he is not a socialist.
The person with the gun to the head also has a choice, and it is the exact same as the sick persons.
There are two large difference between the government taking your property away by force and a sick person having to sell themselves into slavery over a cure.
1. The scenario of a sick person selling themselves into slavery is an extremely rare and unlikely scenario.
2. If you choose not to submit to the government they will threaten you, beat you, rob you, ruin your reputation and lock you away. The man who wanted the cure could simply walk away.
The situation is so common you fail to see it, perhaps because it tends to be enslavement to a class rather than to a particular member of it. I'm an American, so i have a modified Lockean view on things, but I'm sure you would agree that people have the right to life and that making life dependent on money makes that right null and void in practice.
Life being Dependant on money is a life being Dependant on trade, now unless you are farmer who can grow all his own food, pump fresh water and stay in good shape, you will likely need to trade to survive. Money is a medium for trade and exchange, although over the last 500 years or so paper money has been abused and manipulated by controlled inflation and deflation, money has served its purpose very well and is much better than the barter system. Money makes life simpler and easier for most people who work towards something.
they deserve the thanks of the community and the esteem that comes with their work
They are thanked in their pay, how much they are given for their work is voluntary, however, in a good economy the cost of labor goes up, are you familiar the term "a rising tide raises all ships" because thats what it does, it raises wages and everyone benefits. Forcing the community (again with being an authoritarian, someone would have to use force to do this) to give them whatever amount of pay they decide is equal is not good, especially now that the world operates on a global economy and that the companies would decided that it would be cheaper to just reopen somewhere else.
but they shouldn't be doing work because they have to make money, but rather because it is an expression of their nature and interests.
Not everyone's nature and interests are what need to be done. I mean, if you want to enjoy your job, do something you love, no capitalist, socialist or communist system will just hand you the job of your dreams you have to work towards it, because the people who have the job you want likely worked for it longer and harder than you.
The non-aggression principle states that all forms of agression are inherently illegitimate. The electric company commits aggression in voluntarily taking the life of the occupant. Just because you have no deal with someone doesn't entitle you to take away their life, even if not doing so would cost you money. The right to life applies to everyone. I did not state illegitimate force should be used to do anything. This a case of murder among others.
The deal that is formed between the electric company and the occupant is illegitimate under the non-aggression principle because it would, under the free market, empower the company to use aggression against a customer who has not met their end of the bargain. Agression is inherently illegitimate.
As for the sick person. Every one, including most slaves are free to leave their needs unsatisfied to kill themselves. A person getting robbed is also free to kill themselves. I want to make it clear early on, that I am not trying to take away anyones right to kill themselves by saying that they have a right to live.
I believe that the trouble with today's capitalism is that there is little honest capital left in it. It has been drained away by quackery, debt and fraud. Real capitalism requires solid capital - money you can trust. But real money disappeared nearly 40 years ago. That was when the last traces of gold were removed. Since then, all currencies have been "managed." No longer fixed measures of real wealth, they have become tools...supposedly used by the authorities to promote full employment and growth...but in fact little more than monetary felonies.
Understand that I am taking the term libertarian to mean what it actually means (the maximisation of personal freedom), rather than what it means in American politics (where libertarian means right-libertarian).
I feel that capitalism is counter intuitive to the idea that man is the owner of himself. I advocate the minimisation or elimination of the state, because I feel it is wrong for one person to dictate to another what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and minds. Right-libertarians also want to minimise or eliminate the state, with the same idea that for the most part, the state is a violation of personal liberty. However, in accomplishing this, all right-libertarians will have done is shift the power from the government to private owners.
And that is why most anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be true anarchy, because an authoritarian system still exists. Money is the ultimate in authoritarianism, it dictates your rights to everything, your food, your clothes, your home, your education, even your own life, all depend on money. In a right-libertarian society, your rights are dictated by the amount of money you have, and classic anarchists, as well as minarchist or libertarian leaning lefties, consider that system to be immoral as they would any system which takes away freedom.
If you eliminate the entity which delegates property rights, be it government coercion or violence on the part of the individual, from whence do property rights stem? Property rights stem from someone claiming special rights for themselves over a previously owned piece of land, and using force to prevent others using it. Claiming special rights over land owned by everyone is theft from everyone.
And that is why most anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be true anarchy
Most anarcho-capitalists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be true anarchy. Just ask PrayerFails.
True Anarchy is elimination of any state or rule. There is no value to property. No one HAS to share, but no one is protected either. It is complete voluntarism, and murder and rape are only stopped by cooperation, not by law.
Anarcho-Capitalists believe that private property must still be protected via contracts enforced by privatized security and courts.
Now, I don't agree completely with the system, but if you want to actually know more about Anarcho-Capitalism, ask PrayerFails. he's very well read on the subject.
Or listen to Freedomain Radio.
Money is the ultimate in authoritarianism
Money, in general, is a medium for exchange. Many extreme right-libertarians (myself included) are against a standardized currency. We believe that currency should be determined solely by the private sector instead of by any legislators or leaders. Voluntarism is the key.
Claiming special rights over land owned by everyone is theft from everyone.
This comes from the claim that land is owned by everyone... why?
Although, I believe that the issue of state taxes could be settled by purely a property tax. This would fund the military and police to protect the people in general. But once again, I am not an Anarcho-capitalist.
Adam smith at least recognized the ltv, the nature of capitalism during growth, stagnation, decay, and so on. it is likely that Adam Smith wouldn't be a capitalist today and would ridicule the likes of mises and rand.
Believing in the free market during growth periods is pro-human, but in modern times it's ant-human.
Capitalism should naturally benefit all parties involved, yet when capitalism is ran by corrupted people it tends to be the shittiest system in the universe. The way it is tended in our system I do not agree with, how is it that there are poor folk in America when money is being tossed around like candy, at least for certain percentages (top 1 percent) give or take.
While free market capitalism is a debateable term I must define my percieved conflict between capitalism and libertarian values.
Strict free market capitalism is asking the poor to suffer or starve in situations where they have no product to sell or no charity to support them. Ought implies can. The only reasonable legal demand in this situation is for the rich to give a part of their surplus to the poor.
Pure capitalistism is unable to deal with pollution and issues that affect the livelyhood of everyone. Conflicts of interest and affectd third parties are too hard to trace. Negative liberty can also get trumped by private property for example in the absence of the freedom to roam.
If the freedom to own another person is trumped by human rights then the freedom to own massive amounts of property at the expense of others should also be trumped by equal human rights.
