Do free-market advocates really want to stop people from being disadvantaged?

[MMMark]

Sun. 12/05/13 10:43 EDT
.post #151
[url=Do free-market advocates really want to stop people from being disadvantaged?]

@John James

[/url]I think this is the most prominent, driving, important, hard-hitting issue with most leftist that makes it difficult for them to be comfortable with free markets. I think their lack of understanding of the market process, and the lack of a “visible direction of good purpose” inclines them to believe that capitalism and freedom is uncaring and uncompassionate.

I think it’s worse than this. Some people think “capitalism” is actually malicious. This belief underlies Max Barry’s book Jennifer Government, as an example. If you can’t read the book, read some of the customer reviews. Many people equate “capitalism” with what I’d call “corporatism.”

For example, this:

…its characters let loose in a world where a hostile takeover involves cyberterrorism and paramilitary action as well as stock market manipulation and the Government stands seemingly powerless against the idea that “free trade == anything goes”. … The book represents a sharp rebuke to the forces of laissez-faire capitalism as both of its protagonists are shown journeying away from the corporate mindset that built this strange, homogenized mess of a world, and also shows a sense of just how strange reality could be.

To some people, “laissez-faire capitalism” means “anything goes” (including murdering your customers). They see consumers as essentially hapless, powerless, shopping-zombies, and corporations as all-powerful entities capable of committing almost any abuse without the threat of suffering any consequences, while commanding an unceasing flow of money from the consumer’s wallet. They think that without well-intended government to impose responsibility on corporations, they’d be answerable to no one. As you say:

This to me seems to be the biggest hurdle to reaching Leftists. They don’t understand how the market works, so they are inclined to favor things that are “visibly directed to a good purpose”, that is, they care about and are largely focused on intentions…even to the neglect of results.

Another problem is what I’d call “the failure to discriminate.” Some people don’t discriminate between conservativism and libertarianism. Here are two examples from an online discussion with such a person Sieben and I got involved in a few years ago:

me: Perhaps, but libertarianism as a proposed political system is a relatively new idea.

him: No it isn’t. Conservatives have been arguing for it.

and

me: I’m not arguing for the status quo. I’m proposing we try libertarianism.

him: It is implemented. We live in a representative democracy that has developed a government controlled by special interests, business interests.

So, “conservatives have been arguing for” libertarianism, and libertarianism “is implemented,” according to the guy with whom I’m engaged. He thinks libertarianism is what we’ve got now: “a representative democracy that has developed a government controlled by special interests, business interests.” He thinks I’m an advocate of the status quo, even though I explicitly deny that. He thinks I’m failing to see how they’re the same, whereas I think he’s failing to see how they’re different.

Here is another exchange from the same thread, as an example of the esteem with which some people hold the competence of “others”:

me: And neither, apparently, are the wishes of the lowly consumer, who has to pay for it all and take what his masters in their supreme wisdom decide he must have.

him: Most consumers haven’t a clue.

What he seems to be saying here is that he doesn’t trust most consumers to make “correct” decisions (i.e. the decisions he’d make). It’s an arrogant and disdainful attitude towards “others.” It’s paternalism. Consumers are seen as clueless, destructive children who must be protected from their own stupidity by wise, daddy government.

So, how to change this attitude? I don’t know if it’s possible. Instead, I would try to expose the attitude to those “clueless” others when the attitude is presented as “compassion.” Try to expose the arrogance and elitism behind the smiling statist face. So, while the discussion might not change the mind of your statist opponent, your exposure of the true nature of his ideas might influence those watching the discussion.