Immorality and the Free Market

This mainly a question for the US people here but anyone who feels they know enough about it can respond. As for me I think that it probably does to some extent in its current state, but it could be much better and the goals of the free market are still to be desired IMHO.

I am a Socialist, you know which one I voted for ;) join the CWI!

http://www.socialistworld.net/

Slartibartfast wrote: The free market doesn't promote immorality as much as it does amorality, which can often take the form of immorality.  The free market is good for some things, but lousy for others and works it's best when well regulated.  There are some things that a society needs to do for the common good and that is where the free market works the least.

My thoughts exactly, though I went for the second option. Unfortunately, I think that, much more than the free market itself, it is human nature than can promote immorality/amorality/selfishness. That said, I think that a healthy, regulated competition can improve the quality of most services and commodities - amongst which, in my warped, 'socialist'  opinion, there should NEVER be things like healthcare and education.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more debating considering the capitalism v. socialism stuff I've seen in other threads. Here's a question for ya: Is it immoral to be amoral?

jimmy_row wrote: you are either predator or prey unless you can manage to eat yourself

Deathrabbit wrote: This mainly a question for the US people here

Why? The US doesn't have a freemarket econonmy, really.

Slartibartfast wrote: The free market is good for some things, but lousy for others and works it's best when well regulated.

By the government? It's not truly a freemarket then, is it.

Ghost Rider wrote: My thoughts exactly, though I went for the second option. Unfortunately, I think that, much more than the free market itself, it is human nature than can promote immorality/amorality/selfishness. That said, I think that a healthy, regulated competition can improve the quality of most services and commodities - amongst which, in my warped, 'socialist' opinion, there should NEVER be things like healthcare and education.

Agreed on the second point. I strongly disagree with your characterisation of "human nature" though. Human nature isn't fixed, it's shaped by the environment. People can do both good and bad things, depending on the circumstances.  This brings me back to my answer to the poll, freemarket capitalism promotes selfish consumerism and cut throat struggles to get as much profit as possible, so yes, it can promote immorality. Furthemore capitalist relationships are hierarchical and lead naturally to exploitation, so free market capitalism itself is immoral in my opinion.

jimmy_row wrote: Look at how we evolved...the business world is no different than Natural Selection, you are either predator or prey (so maybe, it's not even a matter of morality vs. immorality...now I sound like a libertarian).

That's a flawed characterisation of natural selection, IMO. Natural selection is when creatures best suited to their environment survive, while those that aren't don't. Kropotkin put it best in the introduction to his excellent work "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution":

Two aspects of animal life impressed me most during the journeys which I made in my youth in Eastern Siberia and Northern Manchuria. One of them was the extreme severity of the struggle for existence which most species of animals have to carry on against an inclement Nature; the enormous destruction of life which periodically results from natural agencies; and the consequent paucity of life over the vast territory which fell under my observation. And the other was, that even in those few spots where animal life teemed in abundance, I failed to find -- although I was eagerly looking for it -- that bitter struggle for the means of existence, among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant characteristic of struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution.

Forgotten Son wrote: jimmy_row wrote: Look at how we evolved...the business world is no different than Natural Selection, you are either predator or prey (so maybe, it's not even a matter of morality vs. immorality...now I sound like a libertarian). That's a flawed characterisation of natural selection, IMO.   you're right, it is...I grossly simplified it to avoid complicating things, and I'll do it again below....but the basic idea is the same.     Natural selection is when creatures best suited to their environment survive, while those that aren't don't. Kropotkin put it best in the introduction to his excellent work "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution": Two aspects of animal life impressed me most during the journeys which I made in my youth in Eastern Siberia and Northern Manchuria. One of them was the extreme severity of the struggle for existence which most species of animals have to carry on against an inclement Nature; the enormous destruction of life which periodically results from natural agencies; and the consequent paucity of life over the vast territory which fell under my observation. And the other was, that even in those few spots where animal life teemed in abundance, I failed to find -- although I was eagerly looking for it -- that bitter struggle for the means of existence, among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant characteristic of struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution.

exactly, but it happens within a predator - prey relationship much of the time, that's were mechanisms such as competition or the fight or flight response come from:  the organisms best suited to the environment often have developed characteristics that modern humans deem as "immoral" or whatever...I'm sure primitive ape/humans didn't care much about welfare or the future of their planet, etc, they were driven by physiological mechanisms that propelled them to climb the latter...look out for their personal interest...survive.  Of course, most animals look/have looked after their families and close relationships (a tactical advantage), but why should they give a damn about anything else? (I'm not talking about humans here...you could say we've inherited a responsibility to give a damn, because we know better...?) But still, the "selfish" survival mechanisms exist from our ancestors...

Forgotten Son wrote: By the government? It's not truly a freemarket then, is it.

Sometimes you have to restrict freedom in order to preserve it.  That's really in fact what gov't is all about. It's a constant balancing act, which should be reevaluated frequently for effectiveness. In regualting the freemarket you ensure an equal oppurtunity field. Right now I could develop an OS  50 times better than windows, but it'd hardly see the light of day, since the Microsoft industrial maschine can crush it thru advertiement and industry manipulation. I actually thin advertisement over telecommunication (such as TV and the internet) should be banned. It subverts the very idea of capitalism which is that the best products should rise to the top. Now its the best advertised products that rise to the top. Corporate hegemony, a free market does not make. We have to quit looking to stuff like Wealth of Nations to run our economy. There's no wasy the ppl back then could anticipate modernity and now post-modernity.


Edited by Deathrabbit - February 04 2008 at 08:11

Forgotten Son wrote: By the government? It's not truly a freemarket then, is it.

More than capable of rephrasing.  The market works best when it is not completely free but well regulated.  So there. 

Deathrabbit wrote: This mainly a question for the US people here but anyone who feels they know enough about it can respond. As for me I think that it probably does to some extent in its current state, but it could be much better and the goals of the free market are still to be desired IMHO.