Is the free market the best democratic system?
For the purpose of this question, I assume that democracy has a spectrum, in which the ideal democratic system is the one in which everyone can (but not necessarily does) take part in the political process and everyone bear the responsibility of their decisions.
I take as a premise that there are no ideal democratic systems currently in place. For me, most are oligarchies with democratic elements. A have a few reasons to believe that. First, the organization of political forces in parties (we all saw what happened to Bernie). Second, because decisions that affect everyone are subject to the rule of the majority. To prevent the tyranny of the majority, most countries adopt a constitution (written or not) that limits and distributes power. By doing so, the constitution impose restrictions on the rule of the majority. Surely, the majority can restrict itself if it wishes, recognizing fundamental rights that can not be subtracted. The problem is, the moment that this rights stop being a guideline (a suggestion/a cultural imposition) and start being an legal imposition on the majority, we stop having a democratic system. That is because we have restrictions made from few (the majority of the past) to the many. That is without saying that most constitutions in place today where enacted by monarchs or full blown oligarchies.
This premise is totally up for debate and I appreciate if you take your time on it.
Free markets, however, work in a very distinct fashion. If you agree with something (I like this product, I like the company that makes it, I like their policy, etc.), you vote for it in the form of consumption (I buy it). You are the only responsible for your decisions and the only one who will suffer its consequences.
Yes, I do bear in mind the environmental problem, and that is why I can not yet commit to the idea of absence of the State. But, overall, it does seem more democratic.
Anarcho-capitalists have long defended that the consumer should make his decision considering even the laws, the controversy solving system (Judiciary or arbitration), the environmental footprint and the work policies of the company. The idea is that, if you do not like the way the company handles its business, you simply stop buying from it. While it certainly would be a challenge in monopoly prone areas (such as energy, long distance transportation, etc), it would probably work well in most.
So, the questions I pose you are:
1) Do you agree with the objections made to current democratic systems? If not, why? Do you have any other?
2) Do you think the free market is democratic? If yes, is it the most democratic system? If not, why? Is it fixable?
I take as a premise that there are no ideal democratic systems currently in place. For me, most are oligarchies with democratic elements. A have a few reasons to believe that. First, the organization of political forces in parties (we all saw what happened to Bernie). Second, because decisions that affect everyone are subject to the rule of the majority. To prevent the tyranny of the majority, most countries adopt a constitution (written or not) that limits and distributes power. By doing so, the constitution impose restrictions on the rule of the majority. Surely, the majority can restrict itself if it wishes, recognizing fundamental rights that can not be subtracted. The problem is, the moment that this rights stop being a guideline (a suggestion/a cultural imposition) and start being an legal imposition on the majority, we stop having a democratic system. That is because we have restrictions made from few (the majority of the past) to the many. That is without saying that most constitutions in place today where enacted by monarchs or full blown oligarchies.
This premise is totally up for debate and I appreciate if you take your time on it.
Free markets, however, work in a very distinct fashion. If you agree with something (I like this product, I like the company that makes it, I like their policy, etc.), you vote for it in the form of consumption (I buy it). You are the only responsible for your decisions and the only one who will suffer its consequences.
Yes, I do bear in mind the environmental problem, and that is why I can not yet commit to the idea of absence of the State. But, overall, it does seem more democratic.
Anarcho-capitalists have long defended that the consumer should make his decision considering even the laws, the controversy solving system (Judiciary or arbitration), the environmental footprint and the work policies of the company. The idea is that, if you do not like the way the company handles its business, you simply stop buying from it. While it certainly would be a challenge in monopoly prone areas (such as energy, long distance transportation, etc), it would probably work well in most.
So, the questions I pose you are:
1) Do you agree with the objections made to current democratic systems? If not, why? Do you have any other?
2) Do you think the free market is democratic? If yes, is it the most democratic system? If not, why? Is it fixable?
Comments (41)
Unfortunately, or perhaps, fortunately, our purchases affect the whole world. People in a democracy must understand the power of their decisions and the responsibility that goes with them. It is a mistake to think our decisions affect only ourselves.
If capitalism is the best depends on how well educated the citizens are, and this includes education in higher order thinking skills and making moral judgments. If the citizens are not well educated there needs to be authority over them.
So "I" can stop giving money to certain owners but that doesn't, by itself, provide any leverage over how things are made and for what reason.
Capitalism is not going to sort out that limit through itself. That can be observed without promoting any particular solution to the problem.
For what its worth, even hard core free marketeers like Hayek have noted that it cannot replace the civic life, per se.
At the very least, I think the argument should be on the other foot. The burden of proof is on those who claim a system of exchange can replace all other methods of deciding what happens next.
Being told to freely select what has been offered doesn't sound like an alternative to much. How is it separable from: "we had choices during the process of conditioning and that made us feel free."
This might be obvious, but "democracy" is a political system and markets are economic systems. they don't have to go together, though they usually do. China has some elements of a free market, but is not a democracy by any stretch. The US has some elements of a free market and is more like your oligarchy with democratic decor.
One could have an industrial democracy (workers own it all) and a free market where workers are also consumers. (Almost everyone in any society either is a worker or was a worker before they retired.) By buying Coca Cola instead of Shasta cola, consumers vote for Coke. By buying bacon and pork chops they vote for swine and red meat. Let them eat tofu if they must.
There are inherent limits to the amount of power a democracy confers.
Democracy is based on popular sovereignty ie all power is vested in the people.
If power is vested in the people, then they must be free, as only a free people can have power.
If they have power, then they must have inalienable rights that ensure that they remain free.
A non-exhaustive list is:
Freedom of expression
Presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial
Freedom of association
Right to live without discrimination
These restrictions are what make it democratic. Rule by the majority without restriction is mob rule.
You are 100% correct. I would be honoured if you read the first post in the following thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4501/you-cannot-have-an-electoral-democracy-without-an-effective-none-of-the-above-nota-option
The problems of a free market are discussed in detail by Adam Smith in Year 1777 when he published his now famous Wealth Of Nations. If you have not read that then you need to.
Seems like you are asking us here questions that you need to research yourself.
Hopefully much more will be said about the democratic model for industry. The US adopted England's autocratic model for industry and this is dreadful, especially today with international corporations and the power of Microsoft and Walmart.
I want a revolution that means education for democracy and using the democratic model for industry. The enemy of democracy is autocracy and the place to challenge the enemy is within the boundaries of the US.
Freedom of expression is a terrible idea because it is far too inclusive. In your list of what we must have to have freedom, you did not include education for good moral judgment, and liberty is not possible without that. Uneducated people can be like children whose freedom of expression can be as an undisciplined three-year-old. Our dignity, honor, and ability to govern ourselves begins with education.
:grin: Look at all those jobs! Inefficiency may be good for keeping people employed. :lol:
On second thought, might all those jobs be done by a computer? :gasp: Oh dear, then what would we do? When I was in school, and the dinosaurs walked the earth, a teacher warned us we should be thinking of how we to live our lives when machines and computers do all the work. Perhaps we need a revolution of thinking to better manage our present reality?
I'm a fan of industry specific taxation rates. Most countries do this to a degree but it could be widened to include:
- Higher taxes for confectionary, cosmetics, luxury items
- Lower taxes for internet, education related, biotech
I don't feel that comfortable with government deciding what I should or should not consume.
Quoting Athena
The problem that I see here is: who decides what will be taught?
Quoting romanv
Read it and I do agree with you that a NOTA option is a requisite for any electoral system that intends to be democratic. Whoever, it really only makes practical sense in a political system that does not allow candidates who are not with any party. If anyone can run - no barriers imposed -, than someone must please your taste, even if it has to be yourself.
In Brasil, my country, we had a really smart rule. If more than 50% of the voters (especially for the executive branch) annulled their votes, the election would have to be held again. Unfortunately, our Electoral Court (yes, we do have a different court for each matter) gave it a twisted interpretation, making it only effective when the votes are judicially annulled (like when the candidate that got more than 50% is ousted from the race for cheating).
We better think about what you said because it could be a total nightmare and we do not want to walk into that blindly. At the beginning of the industrial age, and with a strong Protestant work ethic, it was thought the best way to maintain social order is to keep people working. Fear of the masses was handled with long working days, 7 days a week and low wages holding people in such insecurity they remained hard-working Protestants who accepted low wages. Now we speak of decay and occasionally of revolution meaning a violent revolution. I do not think we want to leave humans with too many idle hours unless we prepare them for liberty.
I will support the idea that all harmful substances should be taxed as we now tax cigarettes to discourage their consumption, The tax should pay for all expenses caused by the use of the substance covering recovery from addiction and all medical cost.
To answer your question about who should make education decisions. Traditionally, the people in each community are by law responsible for providing education without charge to all children, and they hold the responsibility of determining what that education will be. Only in times of war did the federal government get involved in education and then the purpose was to use the institution of education to mobilize for war. Earlier though, the North did make an effort to avoid a war with the South through education, but the South caught on to cultural attack and began publishing their own textbooks defending slavery and their way of life in the South.
Our federal government did not get strongly involved in education decisions until the 1958 National Defense Education, and just a few years ago it was believed our constitution prevented the federal government from getting involved in our education decisions. I think Bush's "No Child Behind Act" ended the question of the federal government controlling education? There are some good reasons for centralizing the control of public education but it sure is a threat to our liberty and perhaps we need to increase our awareness of the issues and the change? One of the first things the Prussians did when they took control of Germany was centralize education and focus it on technology for military and industrial purpose. We might want to be aware of the social, economic and political ramifications of this change in education?
Its my opinion that no-one possesses the skill or knowledge to restrict what can or cannot be said spoken of, or expressed. Its a power that no-one should have another.
I think there are clear limits, when you think of freedom of expression as one of a number of rights that each individual should have to ensure their freedom.
Hopefully then it is self evident that calling for physical harm or threatening the safety of other people is not covered under freedom of expression, nor is lying.
I agree with your sentiment on education, but again, who decides on that what is good moral judgement and what isn't?
I disagree vehemently! :)
What you are doing is re-stating 'lead, follow or get out of the way'. This is THE enormous flaw we aim to fix!
If you want voters to be more directly involved in governing, then there should be more referendums.
Why should they be forced out of the way? An electoral democracy has been created for the voters, voters don't serve the electoral democracy. The reason why we have an electoral democracy is because we, as voters, don't have the expertise to govern ourselves, so we delegate governing to others.
Our job is to tell those who wish to govern whether the options on the ballot will guarantee the majority adequate representation. We are not doing our job, if we accept bad representation.
Saying 'No' when you believe an election cannot represent you adequately is a dereliction of your duty as voter, how else can those who wish to govern know whether they are doing a good job or not? This our job as the boss, to give or withhold consent. This is our sole duty as a voter.
To not allow a voter to do so, and then tell him he should run himself is preposterous, its gas-lighting on a massive scale, and for some reason we buy into this nonsense.
Is there any other situation where we will not allow an adult to say 'No'? Should a boss not be able to decide what he wants freely? Its your country, why voluntarily restrict your voting power? This makes everything worse, not better.
I couldn't possibly run a country, so what now, I get out of the way, and pay for people who don't have the consent of the majority to rule me?
If you google the 'iron law of oligarchy' you can see why ruling elites inevitably become self serving cliques that are out of the control of their voters. (This is also in our white paper)
Do you want to be ruled or represented? If the latter, then you have to be able to say 'No' from time to time.
Its a matter of logic that if we allowed voters to say 'No' then they will, over time, choose candidates and policies that maximise the common good, and discard those that have a bad effect as it is them (by that I mean all of us) who live with the consequences of the decisions made by those who are elected.
Not allowing us to say 'No' can send a country into a never ending series of disasters, or allow a situation where voters turn to an extremist candidate or party.
Perhaps on a theoretical level anyone can run, but its easy enough for the unscrupulous to make politics a gutter that puts off, or destroys, good people who could have done a better job.
In a real democracy, almost by definition, those who are elected would be the most respected members of society, not the least respected. There is a good reason why politicians are generally despised, and that reason is because we don't have a binding NOTA on the ballot.
If we could run the country ourselves then we wouldn't need an electoral system in the first place.
Our white paper includes Brazil as a case study. As I understand it you have a non-binding NOTA option, and in a recent election this option was widely used, even though it had no effect.
It would be very interesting for me to send you what we have written and get your feedback, on whether we have reported accurately on it or not. And you could tell me more about NOTA and politics in your country.
I would be delighted to read your paper.
Quoting romanv
I have to agree with most of your statements, but I am not sure if direct democracy is a good solution. Too many problems. We can’t have a referendum without rules. Someone must decide (1) who votes?; (2) how the voting process works?; (3) what are the options that will be voted?, etc.
There always seems to be an element of authoritarianism involved.
In my country, we had a severily restrictive firearms regulation a few years ago. To the point that, basically, only rich people and criminals have guns nowadays. To “legitimize” the ban, we had a referendum about firearms commerce. The permissive option won by a large margin.
The problem is that the question was not about gun ownership, but gun commercialization. The result is that nothing changed. To this day people argue over the redaction of the question asked, the referendum’s effects, if it is time to do it again, etc.
But this is just a criticism of mine, with no solutions proposed.
"I agree with your sentiment on education, but again, who decides on what is good moral judgment and what isn't?"
Thank you so much for your question because it is the most vital question that could be asked. We have a democracy because of the Age of Enlightenment and a belief that educated people can have liberty and be self-governing. Education for good moral judgment is training in logic. This education does not teach the young what to think, but how to think.
We used to read our children moral stories. "The Little Red Hen" and "The Fox and the Grapes" or "The Little Engine that Could" are moral stories. After reading the story to the children we ask, "what is the moral of that story?" The answer is a matter of cause and effect. Cicero, a Roman Statesman who was essential reading to our forefathers, claimed doing wrong is a problem of ignorance, and well-informed people will not make bad choices. So the generation that is now dead, thought doing wrong is a matter of ignorance because that is what education taught. They were also taught we defend our liberty by obeying our laws and we are responsible for those laws.
It was understood with rights come duties. Liberty is not the right to do anything we please, but the right to decide for ourselves what is right, and this right comes with education for good moral judgment. Science is vitally important to this right. Religion tells us of life manifested by a God. Science tells us how God makes things work, and with this knowledge, we have overcome disease and feminine and doubled our life expectancy. This is awesome because those who spend a lifetime learning, gain wisdom, and in the past, their wisdom befitted society. That was before we got so technologically smart and instead of respecting our elders, decided they are outdated and should be ignored. But I hold out hope that there are enough of us to regain the respected position elders once had and that with the internet we will rescue our liberal democracy.
As for the question about our free market system- is it good for the world, for the US to sell weapons to the likes of the prince of Saudi Arabia, a country that kills citizens to defend the power of the royal family and wages a long war with an undeveloped African country causing the deaths of children? Our European allies have ended the sale of weapons to Suadi Arabia. Like the moral stories, might this freedom of the market have bad consequences? Is selling soda pop to underdeveloped nations causing an epidemic in diabetes and good thing? Without morals how can our free market system be a good thing? Are we being responsible? In a democracy who is responsible?
When the OP asks "Is the free market the best democratic system?" the first impression to many is to think about the current economic market and compare it to a democratic system. And the current global economy is dominated by those oligopolies. Of course, if the term free market is taken on a more theoretical view as like a 'free market of ideas' and what is meant is that you can enter the market with new ideas and ideologies, that there's a lot political freedom, then it's a bit different. But likely the question is seen as if plutocracy is the better choice than democracy. Hardly anyone will choose plutocracy.
Its heartening to hear that my arguments are cogent enough for you to agree. I was not really suggesting direct democracy as a solution, but pointing out that if you want citizen participation in running a country, then referendums are the medium where that can occur.
As you point out, they have their drawbacks and are subject to manipulation.
However it is interesting to note that the 2 countries in the world that practice direct democracy on a regular basis, Switzerland and Chile, are comparatively very successful. Chile is obviously not yet a developed nation, but in comparison to its neighbours, it is less corrupt and is better run that most, if not all countries, in central and south america.
However my knowledge of both countries is superficial and perhaps I am not fully aware of the whole situation.
I think we are somewhat on the same page. I don't disagree with most of what you say. I guess the answer to the question is that the parents must instill values in their children. I think overall people do try and do so. I have a little one, and we spend a lot of time trying to make sure he understands what is right and what is wrong.
However, as he gets older, he will see that being a good person, doesn't necessarily get rewarded, and the rewards are there for those who cheat, then he will have to navigate those waters on his own. The world is a tough place.
The “free market” is open to all. Democracy is the rule of the people.
This seems more a question of economic competiton than of democracy. What did I miss?
imo the free market and democracy are based on the same principles. People themselves decide what succeeds and what fails.
The difference between the 2 is that the free market seeks to maximise profit, democracy, if properly implemented will seek to to maximise the common good.
That does hold up. Who buys the products? People vote with their money. Those that provide a better service/product than others profit and are then able to create more.
It is no more faulty than democracy itself. I could just as easily say “if properly implemented.” Making a profit isn’t all that bad, no more than persuading people to vote this way or that. The democratic principle in this sense is about the “better” idea winning through.
I don't mean to imply that making money is bad, but it is a free market's sole function, everything else that it provides is a by-product of that function.
What I mean by democracy 'properly implemented' is that our so-called democratic system is anything but, which is why it is failing to maximise the common good.
The opening post in the thread linked below outlines how a formal and binding NOTA option is the reform that is required to fix the flawed 'lead, follow, or get out of the way' electoral model that is so prevalent around the world.
It is this poor electoral model that prevents 'real democracy', and so the maximisation of the common good.
A well implemented and binding NOTA option would indeed allow democracy to fulfil its natural function of the maximisation of the common good.
You can read about it here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4501/you-cannot-have-an-electoral-democracy-without-an-effective-none-of-the-above-nota-option/p1
It is not it’s sole function at all. It is a means by which good ideas are more readily available and open to exchange. Inhibiting the free market too much and you’ll risk inhibiting creativity and human expression.
No system is perfect. People had the chance to change the voting system in the UK and they turned it down - true enough the main parties in power seem to have done what they could to influence the public vote, but were they doing it for some common good? Who knows?
I think we would be arguing semantics. The free market is supposed to ensure the most efficient use of resources, and that happens by allocating resources to where profit is maximised.
If you would do me the honour of reading the first post of the linked thread, I think it would be easier to understand what I meant.
Political parties' interests are not aligned with voters, unless you have a formal and binding NOTA option whose choice has democratically valid consequences.
I can guarantee you that political parties do not work for the common good any more than strictly necessary, they work to consolidate their own power.
Their aim is to gain power and keep it. What else does a political party aim to do?
However, in their quest for power, they should be offering policies that benefit the public with candidates that are most effective in implementing these policies. Yet often they fail to reach that standard.
And its not just me who thinks so. Why are politicians the most despised profession, outside journalism?
In a real democracy, almost by definition, politicians would be the most respected members of society, as they would be engaged in the maximisation of the public good.
What can a political party accomplish if it has no power? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Power is the ability to wield force (not just crude physical force). Power is the ability to silence opposition (again, not be crude force -- maybe with a cloture vote to end debate). Power is the ability to establish policy and enforce it.
How do two parties in the United States manage to maintain power if they don't represent or serve the common good? The maintain power because there are two -- only two -- parties that matter. Most of the time the two parties represent the same opinion: Democrats and Republicans must continue to monopolize politics and maintain the socio-politico-economic status quo.
If their raison d'être is staying in power, what difference does the public good make to them? The public be damned! (That phrase is usually put in the mouth of a utility company, but if the shoe fits...)
Ok, that's fairly cynical on my part. Some politicians actually do try to benefit the public good. Sometimes EVEN the political party in power may not only wish to further public good, they may actually do it. This desirable but aberrant behavior would probably be rewarded with the loyalty of the people who voted for that party.
You’ve got no argument here.
The UK is not the same as the US. Different system of democracy. I don’t know a great deal about the US system having never visited or lived there.
I did say “only,” which I appear to have guessed right according to romanv’s response.
Government on the state level, and then the federal level, forced communities to provide education for all children regardless of their parents' ability to pay for that education, because those who understand democracy know the importance of education that transmits a culture for making us a strong and united Republic. And they know parents may not be capable of educating their children for citizenship in a democracy. We are in crisis now because since 1958 we have not educated our young to understand democracy and the requirements of liberty and not even the teachers educated since 1958 are prepared to prepare our young for democracy. It is really stupid today to expect parents who lack the necessary education to prepare their children for citizenship.
In the book of the 1917 National Education Association Conference, it is very clear education had nothing to do with vocational training or preparing the young for jobs that required technological training. Actually, we were seriously unprepared for modern warfare because our young were not prepared to build bridges, use or repair- cars, planes, tanks or even use a typewriter, or do anything else that required education for all the technology we take for granted today. Very clearly we did not expect parents to prepare their children for citizenship, especially not immigrant parents, not even were Christian parents well versed in the Bible prepared to prepare their children for life in a democracy. Lessons for democracy come from the pagans (Greek and Roman and classics) not the Christians.
I seriously hope everyone rethinks the idea that we can rely on parents or today's teachers, to prepare the young for citizenship. If you think you are ready to prepare the young for democracy, can you list 10 principles of democracy or 5 events in history that bring us to democracy? I will be surprised if you are not as angry with me as everyone else is when I ask them to list the principles of democracy. Like Socrates, I tend to piss people off, but if we do not realize the error of thinking parents and not schools hold the responsibility of preparing our young for citizenship, our democracy will fail and indeed appears to have all the symptoms of failure now.
"If their raison d'être is staying in power, what difference does the public good make to them? The public be damned!"
:strong: Absolutely! President Carter was right about our need to conserve oil and Reagan lied to us about us having plenty of oil and not needing to conserve it, but Reagan won the election and he became one of our favorite presidents despite the fact that his term resulted in a huge shift of money and power that is not in the best interest of citizens. He slashed domestic budgets when an economic recession meant a very high unemployment rate and the young could not be assimilated because there were no jobs for them. In this time of great need, we cut two parent families off welfare forcing young fathers to abandon their families so their families could get help and this prevented young people from marrying, causing a surge in unwed mothers. We threw our young and poor overboard and pour all our national resources into a military buildup because our abundance of oil depended on control of mid east and ever since then we have been taxed to maintain a war ready state and despite the high taxes our national debt continues to spin out of control because of the military spending.
Today Trump wants us to know we need to accept lower wages so we are competitive on the world market, and he wants to cut all domestic programs. He will do anything to sell weapons to boost our economy. Like arming Saudi Arabia is in the world's best interest? People who think decisions have been made in our favor might need to rethink our reality. Supporting the Military Industrial Complex is not what our democracy used to be about. The MIlitary Industrial Complex doesn't so much need our sons and daughters, but this high tech military force needs our tax dollars, and we must have control of global oil because all industrial economies depend on oil and he who controls oil controls the world.
You raise some very interesting points. I hope you don't mind that I drag the discussion back to my particular bugbear: having a 'real democracy'.
For me, everything starts and ends there. Others may not see it that way, but its the way I envision the world. The root of all evil is being ruled, as rulers don't have to endure the consequences of their decisions. The solution is self governance, as we all have to live with the consequences of our choices.
My assertion, and it is no more than an assertion, but much of what have said echoes my own thoughts, is that education that is imparted by public schools today, do not prepare citizens for democracy. The reason for that is we don't have one, they prepare students for being ruled by an elite that 'knows better'.
Weak and powerless drones who don't question authority and don't learn to think for themselves. To turn, what I hope is a pithy phrase, political correctness, which is what is elevated in schools now, makes the trivial, important, and the important, racist.
The way to steer education back on track is by ensuring that citizens have self governance to the fullest extent possible, once that happens educational standards will change, as they have to, to ensure citizens are prepared to have real power in their hands. That requires moving away from political correctness, as its main function is to shut down discussion on anything the elite ruling class don't want questioned, or serve as a distraction from real issues, to concentrate on imparting the skills to think for yourself and helping young people find their path in life.