insurgent said:
The market is the economic dimension of the belief that each man is an end in himself, that he should work for himself and not be enslaved by anyone else. That man lives best in freedom having the right to act as he sees fit. It is the idea that man exists as an independent entity and should not be made serve some "great purpose" or conform to someone else's view of how a social system should be. It is the idea that man is the master of his own life, not a servant of the will of others.
Well, that is a nice ideal. It's, actually, the anarchist ideal. But I suppose that, even if I respect the principle of the ideal, we would be quite opposed to how make it practical.
That is in my opinion the only morally justifiable attitude, and I resent the collectivist notion that the market is immoral.
In case you hadn't noticed, I didn't say "immoral". I said "amoral". Which is quite different.
What is immoral is the idea that "the strong" should be forced to work for "the weak", that people should be punished for choosing a way of life by higher taxes. What is immoral is taking away economic freedom and ruining incentive to improve your own situation. What is immoral is taking away the economic freedom of people and reducing them to subordinate creatures with no other purpose in life than to obey the bidding of the state which has taken complete control of their lives. What is immoral is spitting and sneering at those who produce, at those who have the will and strength to pay for the machinery of society, those who toil to pay the taxes you are so eager to spend. That is not equality. Just look at the Hayek quote in newfangle's sig.
Now, I can understand why you might disagree. Most people do, I'm used to that. What I can't understand is why you can't accept that I may be an idealist as well.
In other ways, it's immoral to tell you to think to anything but your navel. Seriously, the rant about "taking away the economic freedom", "reducing people to subordinate creatures" and so on is simply ridiculous. Yeah, sure, big corporation CEO are reduced to subordinate creatures, compared to people who work 10 cent an hour in sweatshop, who are simply lazy asses not able to bring themselves to do anything useful
Your ideal is simply a call for a self-centered world, where each one can look at only himself without bothering of others and what might happen to them. It's an ideal of "what do I care if the consequences of my action bring terrible consequences simply because I wield a much bigger power than some more modest folk ? He simply should have worked harder to have more power and as such not be in position to be ruined by mine !".
It's law of the strongest and egoism. It's easy to be egoist. There is no particular quality required for it. There is nothing glorious in being an egoist, every child is quite one until they learn about being able to understand another one's point of view. I also fail to see what is ideal and glorious in the law of the strongest.
I can see, and accept, that you're an ideal about freedom. Freedom is a noble cause. But twisting freedom to promote egocentrism and law of the strongest, is certainly not deserving any "ideal" flag.
It is every man's individual right to what he wants with his property. If he has a lot of money and a lot of power in the economic system, it's simply a measure of how useful he has been to society. That is the standard of the market - if you produce something or perform a service that is important to others, then society will reward you. That is fair and moral. Talking about the power of these people doesn't change anything whatsoever.
That is, of course, false. We already know and have showed that the market is in NO WAY a good way to measure the usefulness of someone. The market show how you are able at manipulating it. Creating better products is a major help to get rich because of the market, but it's in no way required. You can have a crappy product, and still become rich, just because you're better at promoting it/crushing concurrence/exploit your workers/lie and so on.
Which doesn't really show how "useful" you've been to the society. Only how useful you've been to yourself.
This mechanic flood you are talking about is people. Free people who work for themselves. Not at the expense of others or anybody, but simply through voluntary trade - exchange of your services for the services of others. That is not evil.
No. Manipulating this flow to serve your own end, ruining thousands people in the way, thought, IS evil. And happens constantly. It's one more example of the law of the strongest.
Imposing restrictions on this is, on the other hand. Man was made to live for himself, and his purposes are fulfilled not by coercion as is done by government, but by working and toiling for an idea. This idea is not evil, it is his own and should be judged by himself. If you regulate, tax, redistribute, you take away the individual's right to seek his own fortune and happiness, you take away his right to be himself and his right to live. That is inhumane.
Money is not just something impersonal that can be taken and given as you see fit - it is the result of the free endeavours of men.
Well, are you aware that you are simply bashing the idea of laws here ? Replace "economics" with "brute force", and you have a very good claim that people should not be prevented of murder because it impedes their freedom.
It's NORMAL and DESIRABLE that there is regulations and control of someone's economical power, to be sure he doesn't use it in a way that can hurt unjustly others. Just like there is regulation on what you can do with your own body to be sure you don't use it in a way that can hurt unjustly others.
If you feel that you live at the mercy of big corporations, then that's your problem. That's why you will always rely on the help of others instead of your own. That is why nobody will ever live free if you get to call the shots. Freedom is as much an absolute as existence. Your collectivist rhetoric about mechanic floods and the humanity of regulations and redistributions does not change that.
And a free shot at saying people who actually see the power of big corporations, are simply helpless pityful losers that want to drag everyone to their level
May I call you a criminal wanabee murdered then, for your open praise of the law of the strongest ?
What I promote is laws, restrictions and regulations to PROTECT PEOPLE FREEDOM. Because economical power is, just as physical power, able to harm people in its way. But you, while claiming you wish freedom for people, just want unrestricted use of this power, and blame everyone who is crushed by the economical situation by saying it's his fault and he's a pathetic collectivist. Yeah, right...
I don't know what world you're living in, but the one I see is one of envy, one of apologising for the supposed crime of existence, one of suffering for one's ability, one of a state which subordinates hordes of people who have quit trying to improve their lives. I see rising taxes, I see people like you yelling about the evils of selfishness, I see people calling for guns to protect them against the voluntary agreements of others. I see a world degenerating. And it will collapse the day the pillars that keep the crumbling structure up have been strained too much. What's more is that I look forward to that day.
I see a world where peopel are so selfish and greedy that they actually ruin entire nations to increase their bank account, using their "right to economical freedom" to do it (remember the speculators that destroyed the south-east asian economy some years ago ? They drove millions people into poverty. Legally, of course...). And not only they aren't punished, but they are shown as example of successful life by many.
I see a world where some bastards say that if the third-world guy who is breaking his back by working twelve hours a day to gain just enough to live is poor, it's because he's a lazy ass that don't work enough. While the CEO that drive his society to crash and as such force thousands of people out of their job to pay for the deficits, take his retirement with 100 millions $ as a goodbye gift.
I see a world where a few dozens of people from big companies, can affect the lives of a big part of the planet, without having to be accountable in any way of what they do.
I see a world, finally, when you're considered a winner and an example as long as you become rich, regardless of if you get here by being a crook or an exploiter.
That's your ideal ? Well, have it, but don't force it onto me, thanks.
I doubt it, but one can always hope. There is good in everyone, even in you, and I hope that people will cast aside their false morals and face individual freedom and responsibility.
Yes. I hope you can cast aside your false morals and face the REAL responsability and freedom. The ones who tell you just what you can do, but also what you can't.
