Free market: rights-based or policy-based?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The arguments advanced by capitalists in favour of the free market seem to me to fall into two distinct categories.

The first is the category of rights-based arguments, where basically the argument is that humans have the right, for whatever reason, to own, trade and use property, and to contract with any other consenting party on whatever terms and for whatever purpose (property rights and freedom of contract, respectively). These rights may be restricted, but what is essential is that they are there.

The second category of argument is that of policy-based arguments, which basically entails an argument that, for whatever reason, the free market is the most practical and convenient system of exchange, distribution etc. One of the most well-known policy-based arguments is the "incentive" argument; that the free market provides an incentive for people to work hard and improve their lives, whereas communism doesn't. There are many more such arguments, however.

What I want to discuss is this: which one of these categories captures the essence of the system? Which one is more important? Would a leftist have to effectively debunk both kinds of argument in order to prove his case against capitalism, or is one enough (and which one)?

One thing I have noticed is that advocates of the free market will put forward one of the two kinds of argument mentioned above, and once that is refuted by an opponent the advocate will then attempt to "defend" his original argument by making the other kind of argument. This is not logical, and instead the necessary inference is that the advocate has conceded his first ground of argument.

I'm sure a similar analysis can be made of leftist arguments, but as leftists don't seem to subscribe to any conventional view of rights this may be more difficult.

[OneNamedNameLess]

For me the second argument is more crucial and captures the essence of the system. Why?

Well, the incentive argument is used by capitalists a lot. I believe it is a method of exploitation. Individuals are under the impression that they can achieve better and bigger things and generally improve their life. This is not the case as achieving such goals can be difficult as they are determined by one's class, race, gender and so on. The free market is not the most practical system as it benefits a tiny minority of individuals. People therefore work harder for the capitalist system due to the incentives offered by it.

As for the first apparent argument presented by capitalists, it is difficult to undermine. This contention is consensually agreed upon as correct by the majority of people in my opinion. Most people are unaware of arguments and alternatives to the free market system and therefore couldn't imagine life without this rights based approach. It is accepted and embraced as it is a big feature of our societies. As a result, highlighting inequalities which serve as a block to one's ambitions can instantly weaken a capitalists argument. Consequently, the policy based argument is more significant for me.

Do you know what i'm trying to convey by that? Lol, I know it's a simple answer and there's more to it but i'm still trying tediously to learn.

I think that if free market capitalism was so effective, it would have more success globally. Lets face it, who does it really benefit but a rich and wealthy minority in the developed world and an even lesser number in the developing world? Is communism a superior solution for the world on a global scale? I think it is but we don't know yet. Hopefully we get the opportunity to find out ;)

[Demogorgon]

It is the latter that matters out in the real world.

On the internet though, you often see people more inclined to argue the former.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It is the latter that matters out in the real world.

On the internet though, you often see people more inclined to argue the former.
I'm not too sure, I see the latter argued a lot.

However, I think what you describe may come down to te fact that the former would be focussed on more by academics and "intellectuals" than laypersons. This is because rights, and property rights in particular, are either something we take for granted (as in the first world), or something we have rarely experienced and therefore do not attach much importance to (as in the third world). However, rights are very important.

[RGacky3]

The first is 100% dependant on the concept of property rights, which if valid, the free market would make sense as far as rights go. But its not valid, thus the free market makes no sense.

Now the second, really is also dependant on property rights, because the incentives are based on accumulating wealth and capital, which is based on property rights.

The most common defense of the free market is that it is considered the best way to guage value and assign it, which is determined by supply and demand (mainly), and that with the free market, the right thing will be produced for the right price.

The problem is the unequal distribution of wealth that is inherent in Capitalism and thus distorts the market in radical favor of the wealthy, in fact so much favor that millions starve when there is plenty of food for everyone.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The first does, as John Locke is often considered the godfather of the modern idea of property rights is a human right long before there could be much proof of the benefits this might have, other than freedom.

Of course, that's all theoretical and doesn't really mean much out here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good question. Keep in mind, though, that the second argument fails to note that capitalism has *three* markets: consumer goods and services, labour, and capital. The crutch of the second argument is the consumer goods and services market which, let's face it, existed LONG before capitalism ever came into existence.

Once somebody points out the problems with the labour and capital markets (the very basis of capitalism), however, opponents will resort to the first argument. :)

[Guerrilla22]

The concept of the free market as a right was something concieved by advocates of the system. There is nothing natural about the idea of free and uninterupted commerce, nor is it comparable to personal freedoms like human rights.