Using the Free Market to Fight Discrimination

SS-18 ICBM

Oscillator
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
15,292
Location
Here and there
Under what circumstances does this actually work? Can it replace laws designed to do the same thing? It seems evident that the underlying culture must change first to make it possible. And there probably are essential services that should be legislated to be accessible to all. I suppose the ultimate question is how much social efforts as opposed to legal ones can limit discrimination.
 
Long version:
It works when the majority of consumers are decent and informed people who care as much (or more) about justice as about prices or convenience.

Short version:
It doesn't.
 
When has the free market ever ended discrimination, of any kind?
 
have you been paying attn to the situation in Indiana?
how about the bus boycott resulting from Rosa Parks?
or the boycott of Idaho potatoes over abortion restrictions? MLK day came about in AZ because of threatened boycotts.
 
have you been paying attn to the situation in Indiana?
how about the bus boycott resulting from Rosa Parks?
or the boycott of Idaho potatoes over abortion restrictions? MLK day came about in AZ because of threatened boycotts.

Boycotts are the antithesis of the free market.
 
have you been paying attn to the situation in Indiana?
how about the bus boycott resulting from Rosa Parks?
or the boycott of Idaho potatoes over abortion restrictions? MLK day came about in AZ because of threatened boycotts.

And how is that the result of a free market? Why didn't it correct itself?
 
The free market doesn't do crap, it's the actors acting within this market that are able to enact change, if they so choose to.

Those people boycotting Indiana? They're not doing it because of the free market, they're doing it because they find the law in question abhorrent and immoral. The free market doesn't factor into the equation. If all those people agreed with the law, jack crap would have been done, free market or not.
 
Those people boycotting Indiana? They're not doing it because of the free market, they're doing it because they find the law in question abhorrent and immoral. The free market doesn't factor into the equation. If all those people agreed with the law, jack crap would have been done, free market or not.

Yes it does. People buy products because they think the price is in line with what it has to offer. If buying a product supports a state that is making laws the buyer disagrees with, that may be factor in deciding the product has a net minus to offer.
 
Price is just but one component on which the free market operates.

Agreed. I used the term price as shorthand for the many market forces in play. The point remains that a market driven by an outside agenda is not a free market.
 
Yes it does. People buy products because they think the price is in line with what it has to offer. If buying a product supports a state that is making laws the buyer disagrees with, that may be factor in deciding the product has a net minus to offer.

My point is the people boycotting the state already agree that the act is immoral. The free market does not point them "in the right direction" in that regard.

If they were all bigots and homophobes, they would have not engaged in the boycott.

The actors here are the consumers, not the free market as a whole.
 
The actors here are the consumers, not the free market as a whole.

The response of the market is based on the actors within though.
 
The response of the market is based on the actors within though.
But are they acting from within the market, or just through it? The consumers are acting here as members of civil society rather than as market-actors in a narrow sense, so we can't say that boycotts and the out-come of boycotts are part of the self-correcting system imagined by advocates of the "free market".
 
What would be different if they were acting as members of the market?
 
But are they acting from within the market, or just through it? The consumers are acting here as members of civil society rather than as market-actors in a narrow sense, so we can't say that boycotts and the out-come of boycotts are part of the self-correcting system imagined by advocates of the "free market".

In America though, aren't the free market and civil society intrinsically linked?
 
Let's see how long it will take before another foreign minister criticize the Saudis for medieval methods. Boycotts or threats of them do impact behaviours.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9481542/swedens-feminist-foreign-minister-has-dared-to-tell-the-truth-about-saudi-arabia-what-happens-now-concerns-us-all/

A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia.
..
Wallström went on to condemn the Saudi courts for ordering that Raif Badawi receive ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for setting up a website that championed secularism and free speech. These were ‘mediaeval methods’, she said, and a ‘cruel attempt to silence modern forms of expression’.
..
The backlash followed the pattern set by Rushdie, the Danish cartoons and Hebdo. Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador and stopped issuing visas to Swedish businessmen. The United Arab Emirates joined it. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Muslim-majority states, accused Sweden of failing to respect the world’s ‘rich and varied ethical standards’ — standards so rich and varied, apparently, they include the flogging of bloggers
..
Business leaders and civil servants are also aware that other Muslim-majority countries may follow Saudi Arabia’s lead. During the ‘cartoon crisis’ — a phrase I still can’t write without snorting with incredulity — Danish companies faced global attacks and the French supermarket chain Carrefour took Danish goods off the shelves to appease Muslim customers. A co-ordinated campaign by Muslim nations against Sweden is not a fanciful notion. There is talk that Sweden may lose its chance to gain a seat on the UN Security Council in 2017 because of Wallström.

I think China boycotts Japanese products due to some discriminatory events too.
 
Long version:
It works when the majority of consumers are decent and informed people who care as much (or more) about justice as about prices or convenience.

Short version:
It doesn't.
Pretty much said all that needed to be said to the OP's question on post #2, nice job. :goodjob:

In an ideal world full of rational, unreactive & fully educated consumers the free market would work perfectly. But the real world & real people simply don't work that way as psychological & sociological research shows again & again & again.
 
Back
Top Bottom