7 ms·

Perhaps there is an association between strongly supporting principles of free markets and problematic ethics.

by evanlivingston 6y ago

ur-whale 6y ago
Aka, I'll hitch my political wagon to any passing train as long as it gets me there.
- basch 6y ago
  Or freedoms to be bad. Freedoms to say bad things, freedoms to lie, freedoms to pollute the environment, freedoms to sell harmful things. They all share a "for my benefit, the collateral damage inflicted on others be damned" element.
sparkie 6y ago
There is a strong association between free market principles and the principle of non-aggression. Others advocate that it is acceptable to use violent aggressive force against people who do not conform to your opinion of how things should be governed. Tell me where the problematic ethics are again? (FWIW, I don't watch any of the people mentioned above and have only heard of the first, so I am not here to defend them or what they may have said. I'm only defending the Non-aggression principle, which implies that markets are free.)
- evanlivingston 6y ago
  non-aggression is not the same as non-oppression. I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. I believe the problem lies in the trust placed in the free market to take the place of empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality.
  - sparkie 6y ago
    > empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality. "empathy," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share my empathy. "social unity," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share our opinions. The non-aggression principle is the only ethically consistent one. As soon as you advocate for violence to be used, your other opinions mean shit. A free market is implied by the non-aggression principle, because the only way you can stop people trading freely if they don't agree with you is to use violence. Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others. As for "equality", I really could not give a shit. Me and my immediate family come first. My extended family come second. My community comes third. The rest are dead last. It doesn't matter what sex, color, orientation or other perceived victimization they have - if they attempt or advocate for violence to be used against those I care about, they are the problem. I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and will interact with anybody on good terms unless they are in violation of it. Also, regarding trust in free markets: What is a democratic vote? Why does this free market opinion have a free pass but other free market opinions are not allowed?
    - evanlivingston 6y ago
      This is just depressing, man. > Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others. Some people are are not in positions to "assert" their rights. Furthermore, by claiming they have a duty to not use violence in order to reclaim the rights being denied you further give power to a group of individuals to are systematically denying people rights. Again, arguments that the free market works this sort of shit it out is just philosophical thinking not founded in reality and obviously coming from a lack of experience with systematic oppression. > As for "equality", I really could not give a shit. That's where we're just going to disagree and you reveal your values. There isn't room in the future for people who think this way. You're going to become further polarized as it becomes increasingly clear that the global community is increasingly concerned with equality and you're standing on the sidelines.
  - vageli 6y ago
    > I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. How would you accomplish this non-aggressively, especially if the disenfranchised group resists?
    - evanlivingston 6y ago
      I don't understand, can you clarify?
      - vageli 6y ago
        How can you non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people? Further, how can you maintain non-aggression if the group you are attempting to disenfranchise resists your attempts to disenfranchise them (which would make clear that your attempt to do so is counter to their wishes, and thus aggressive). If you try to do something to someone, and they tell you to stop or try to get you to stop, continuing to do the thing is an act of aggression.
        evanlivingston 6y ago
        Ah, got it. Point taken. I believe what you say is true, but I think the aggression can often be so obscured as to not be visible. Systematically hiring 10% less people of of color, or passing over a resume with a funny sounding name isn't overtly aggressive, but over the course of centuries it becomes quite oppressive. Combine a nuanced action like that with a thousand other nuanced behaviors and you end up with a group of people who are disenfranchised, yet any specific claim they make sounds trite, any specific protest they makes seems out of line with an individual nuanced behavior.
        vageli 6y ago
        That makes a lot of sense. If each (and every) of the actions is nuanced, I can see a group being oppressed without violence and possibly even without aggression if the oppressors believe they are helping the oppressed with their policies. Though of course the nature of the actions is such that there is plausible deniability should motive come into question. Goodness.
alentist 6y ago
Interesting speculation. On the other hand, there is an association between strongly opposing principles of free markets and problematic ethics.
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  Ok, so having more empty houses than homeless people and someone dying because they're unable to afford insulin are NOT examples of problematic ethics. Got it.
baddox 6y ago
Just to be clear, Molyneux had long been an anarcho-capitalist, which is already an extreme take on free market economics. I wouldn’t look too far into it, and I certainly wouldn’t conclude that white nationalism is the logical conclusion of thinking that free markets have their place in society.
smnthermes 6y ago
Or perhaps the far-right just has the habit to coopt members of others groups. Not only free market supporters, e.g. Sara Winter and Carla Zambelli were from the feminist group FEMEN, and nowadays are Bolsonaro supporters.

Perhaps there is an association between strongly supporting principles of free markets and problematic ethics.

ur-whale 6y ago

Aka, I'll hitch my political wagon to any passing train as long as it gets me there.

basch 6y ago
Or freedoms to be bad. Freedoms to say bad things, freedoms to lie, freedoms to pollute the environment, freedoms to sell harmful things. They all share a "for my benefit, the collateral damage inflicted on others be damned" element.

sparkie 6y ago

There is a strong association between free market principles and the principle of non-aggression. Others advocate that it is acceptable to use violent aggressive force against people who do not conform to your opinion of how things should be governed. Tell me where the problematic ethics are again? (FWIW, I don't watch any of the people mentioned above and have only heard of the first, so I am not here to defend them or what they may have said. I'm only defending the Non-aggression principle, which implies that markets are free.)

evanlivingston 6y ago
non-aggression is not the same as non-oppression. I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. I believe the problem lies in the trust placed in the free market to take the place of empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality.
- sparkie 6y ago
  > empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality. "empathy," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share my empathy. "social unity," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share our opinions. The non-aggression principle is the only ethically consistent one. As soon as you advocate for violence to be used, your other opinions mean shit. A free market is implied by the non-aggression principle, because the only way you can stop people trading freely if they don't agree with you is to use violence. Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others. As for "equality", I really could not give a shit. Me and my immediate family come first. My extended family come second. My community comes third. The rest are dead last. It doesn't matter what sex, color, orientation or other perceived victimization they have - if they attempt or advocate for violence to be used against those I care about, they are the problem. I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and will interact with anybody on good terms unless they are in violation of it. Also, regarding trust in free markets: What is a democratic vote? Why does this free market opinion have a free pass but other free market opinions are not allowed?
  - evanlivingston 6y ago
    This is just depressing, man. > Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others. Some people are are not in positions to "assert" their rights. Furthermore, by claiming they have a duty to not use violence in order to reclaim the rights being denied you further give power to a group of individuals to are systematically denying people rights. Again, arguments that the free market works this sort of shit it out is just philosophical thinking not founded in reality and obviously coming from a lack of experience with systematic oppression. > As for "equality", I really could not give a shit. That's where we're just going to disagree and you reveal your values. There isn't room in the future for people who think this way. You're going to become further polarized as it becomes increasingly clear that the global community is increasingly concerned with equality and you're standing on the sidelines.
- vageli 6y ago
  > I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. How would you accomplish this non-aggressively, especially if the disenfranchised group resists?
  - evanlivingston 6y ago
    I don't understand, can you clarify?
    - vageli 6y ago
      How can you non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people? Further, how can you maintain non-aggression if the group you are attempting to disenfranchise resists your attempts to disenfranchise them (which would make clear that your attempt to do so is counter to their wishes, and thus aggressive). If you try to do something to someone, and they tell you to stop or try to get you to stop, continuing to do the thing is an act of aggression.
      - evanlivingston 6y ago
        Ah, got it. Point taken. I believe what you say is true, but I think the aggression can often be so obscured as to not be visible. Systematically hiring 10% less people of of color, or passing over a resume with a funny sounding name isn't overtly aggressive, but over the course of centuries it becomes quite oppressive. Combine a nuanced action like that with a thousand other nuanced behaviors and you end up with a group of people who are disenfranchised, yet any specific claim they make sounds trite, any specific protest they makes seems out of line with an individual nuanced behavior.
        vageli 6y ago
        That makes a lot of sense. If each (and every) of the actions is nuanced, I can see a group being oppressed without violence and possibly even without aggression if the oppressors believe they are helping the oppressed with their policies. Though of course the nature of the actions is such that there is plausible deniability should motive come into question. Goodness.

alentist 6y ago

Interesting speculation. On the other hand, there is an association between strongly opposing principles of free markets and problematic ethics.

toiletfuneral 6y ago
Ok, so having more empty houses than homeless people and someone dying because they're unable to afford insulin are NOT examples of problematic ethics. Got it.

baddox 6y ago

Just to be clear, Molyneux had long been an anarcho-capitalist, which is already an extreme take on free market economics. I wouldn’t look too far into it, and I certainly wouldn’t conclude that white nationalism is the logical conclusion of thinking that free markets have their place in society.

smnthermes 6y ago

Or perhaps the far-right just has the habit to coopt members of others groups. Not only free market supporters, e.g. Sara Winter and Carla Zambelli were from the feminist group FEMEN, and nowadays are Bolsonaro supporters.