Monday, December 3, 2012

Three ‘brilliant’ objections to the anarchy of free markets

On the notion that free market advocates assume that free-market anarchy “magically” improves lives:

Could one say that technological progress is likewise ‘magical’? Probably not. But is it nonetheless safe to assume an improvement in technologies over time, all other things being equal?

The point really is to determine what system maximizes utility: limitation, or restriction, of choice, including in choosing how to provide for the less fortunate.

Even if we grant distributional inefficiencies of a free market, how could coercive collection and redistribution, i.e. government, be better, that is, without opportunity cost? It could not, because it is against the principle by which mutual benefit occurs at all (freedom).

On anarchy being merely utopian, what with people being imperfect:

If everyone denied the existence of gravity, would agreement with these deniers be ‘realistic’?

The point, again, is determining the principles by which prosperity and peace thrive, of which the principle of government intervention can never serve the long-term interests of all groups. 

Claims of ‘This government program worked!’ hold no water. Worked for whom? Such positivists ignore the ill effect on overall employment and overall living standards of programs that ‘successfully’ provide direct assistance to certain sectors.

On the need of leaders to guide the ignorant masses, a la philosopher kings:

Why isn’t such ‘guidance,’ that is, inhibition of freedom, imposed on these political saviors as well? 

It is presumed that by such selective freedom as granted to these leaders, that they can act supposedly on behalf of their unfree beneficiary brethren. Why then limit such freedom to these leaders, when it appears to be a good thing after all, or at least, not as bad a thing as coercion? 

All else is institutionalized theft, and perpetuates class conflict where no genuine, lasting system of order can be realized. 

Besides, ignorant, bad people would be just as likely, or more likely, to be elected or to appoint themselves in any coercive/political system.

No comments: