Natural tendency towards less freedom

[labmath2]

I am curious if there is an explanation for why historically more free markets almost always produces less freedom in the long run. If a free market were to emerge today, how can we know it will not eventually produce less freedom in the long run?

[WasatchMan]

Bad philosophy is the best answer.  People throughout history axiomatically assumed that organizations with a monopoly on the use of force (aka "the state") are required for civilized society.  As free markets pump in excess resources into the economy, the state uses its monopoly to steal the resources and get bigger and bigger and more and more tyrannical.

 

How we stop this cycle is to convince people that the state is not required, and introduce them to philosophy that is true.

[Wuzzums]

Can you give us an example of free markets producing less freedom?

[Jack]

I've heard Stef talk about this phenomenon before. Examples include Rome the republic becoming Rome the empire (why people still think republics will work 2000 years later is beyond me), The English empire that started out as constitutionally limited then collapsed after WW1 and WW2. And right now, the constitutionally bound United States of America that has become the nation with the most laws, the most prisoners, and the most occupied foreign countries in history. 

 

I as understand it, when a nation gets out of the way of it's economy, the economy grows faster than the rest of the world. The state leaching off that economy gets bigger and bolder than any of it's competing states. It takes over larger sections of it's economy and oppresses it's people, but does so slowly enough that the majority do not realize it. Since the state also grew more powerful than it's neighbors through the host economy's growth, it can leverage it's power to take what it wants from foreign powers as well as it's own people. 

 

Although, any state that can dominate others and it's own populace will, as is evident by empires that never had much freedom such as communist Russia. The reason for this is the very nature of the state itself, which must use violence to accomplish it's ends. Those ends are never for the good of the people. State's began with "Do what I say or I'll kill you," and that's what they'll always will be. 

[J. D. Stembal]

The worst aspect of government regulating the free market is that it is always done in the name of protecting the consumer. Why was the Federal Reserve created? To protect investors from losing their money during banking and financial crashes. How well has that worked in the last 100 years? The very act of government intervention is a bald-faced lie from the start.

[apples and grapes]

The more free-market a statist system is, the wealthier it can be.
The wealthier it can be, the greater the amount of parasitism from the statists.

The greater the parasitism of the statists, the greater growth rate of the state.

The state is the opposite of freedom, therefore the greater the growth of the state, the greater the reduction of freedom. 

 

So more free-market Statism is, the greater the long-term reduction of freedom.

 

Or something like that

[ParaSait]

If there's a spore of mold on any fruit, the mold will thrive depending on how large the fruit is. So larger fruit creates more and nastier mold. The key is to not have any spores on your fruit at all.

[Pepin]

Pretty much what people said here. To rephrase it in my own way...

 

Market economies produce more wealth than alternatives, so when there is a market economy, the government gets a huge boost in wealth due to taxes. As the unowned pool of money grows, people attempt to claim part of it.

 

The government will up its military force and so on to deter invaders. Granting special privileges and using laws to reduce competition becomes more frequent because there are the resources to do so, and because the military force needs to do something.

 

A lot of these problems arise because of the nature of democracy. It isn't so much an issue with monarchy because the monarch owns the wealth as opposed to nobody.

[luxfelix]

I'm aware of some of the historical examples for freedom fueling the feudal furnace, and since previous comments have already addressed the meat of the topic question, I'd like to hypothesize the following:

 

A stateless society/free market with the prerequisite understanding for internal stability (philosophy, virtues, etc.) could still defend against the remaining states, both from military invasion and potential global embargoes.

 

In the case of a military invasion, provided contemporary states could concoct propaganda to persuade public opinion to support invading a peaceful society successfully, there's an absence of centralized targets for an effective attack, and a blockade by land, sea, air, and/or web will produce economic incentives for their own defeat (methinks piracy, matey!  ).

 

In the case of a global embargo, we encounter a prisoner's dilemma similar to what cartels face in the incentive to cheat; in addition, leaders of states would likely not risk political suicide by challenging a center of commerce and banking valuable to both their constituents and themselves.

[packmule]

In my reply to the topic "The Disease of Patriarchal Capitalism", I wrote: 

 

"During most of modern human existence going back more than 100,000 years, patriarchal polygamous tribalism was the norm, and the best and most coveted position for a woman in such a society, was being a wife of the patriarch.  This was the position most likely to ensure not only passing on her genes, but improving her genes by mating with the dominant male of the tribe, who on average would have earned his position through demonstrated intelligence (negotiating ability and decision-making), physical skills (hunting, fighting, and resource gathering ability), and other characteristics of value to the happiness and preservation of the tribe.  Therefore, women are hard-wired to deify successful males, and thus provide the motive force for religions and all authoritarian structures.  The average man just follows to gain attractiveness in women's eyes, and would never "worship" another man of natural volition."

 

Therefore, the increased influence of women in modern life brings with it an increase in authoritarian structures.

[PGP]

I think it has to do with how people deal with uncertainty. There is risk in trusting other people in a free market. It requires a common frame of reference for the world, perhaps abundance, and where there is a disagreement, this is dealt with through negotiation rather than tyranny or slavery. The driving force to secure and tame our environment to raise the probability of successful reproduction necessarily places women at the centre. This is the imperative and the different hierarchies of dominance developed to best meet this imperative in the different conditions of the time. I think attempts at a free market will revert to type of fear and an absence of an agreed moral framework exists. I think we are getting to the point in history where the risk is, that any enforced (through violence and threat) moral structure will consume itself and devolve to tyranny/slavery once again. It will come down, I think, to who wants it the most. That, or fear will totally dominate, and the snake of Communism will promise the elimination of all risk.

[AccuTron]

If there's a spore of mold on any fruit, the mold will thrive depending on how large the fruit is. So larger fruit creates more and nastier mold. The key is to not have any spores on your fruit at all.

So no humans at all, eh?     A case is made for an android takeover....

[Frosty]

Economic markets becoming less free is just a specific example of a more general problem which is EVERYTHING tends become less free. The expansion of government to regulate more things and control more things seems to be a social issue we are unable to stop, I think it's largely down to lack of education, philosophy and discussions of morals and ethics do not take place in any educational systems in the UK that I'm aware of, so how can we possibly expect people to know any better, a small few seek out philosophy and these ideas typically much later in life when opinions are harder to change on things like ethics.

 

I think eventually the moral arguments will win out but only when people are educated enough to understand them, I got a bit irate watching Sam Harris talk about libertarianism being something way off in the future that we're not ready for but the more I think about it the more I'm coming around to his position. Especially with regards to capitalism, one of the problems is that a huge number of people don't always act even in their own rational best interest, especially with regards to short sacrifice and long term gain. One thing sticks in my mind from many years ago now with the petrol (gas/fuel) protests in the UK where the flow of fuel to a large part of the country was blockaded in protest, most people when they couldn't operate their car were screaming to give into the demands of the people causing it, where as the government held out knowing that giving in would have adverse long term consequences for the use of these kinds of tactics. Same I guess with the more general "we don't negotiate with terrorists" even if it means people die, because it would invite more death in future. The rational thing to do is endure short term and reap the rewards of the benefits in the long run, but so many people would emotionally recoil at these tactics and give in the moment someone comes to harm. We're not mature enough on average to protect ourself against these kind of issues. We will be one day, but not in our lifetimes, not without people with higher IQs moving to the same self protected area and dominating the local populace enough to defend it.

[Susana]

When there are lots of resources (freedom creates a lot of wealth) then the R gene set flourishes and they just want free sex and resources and then it becomes less free because the surplus allows society to move to collectivists and being parasites off the producers.

 

"Adversity creates men, prosperity creates monsters."

This is because under prosperity you can free-load off of the producers or past wealth. and/or becuase then the women or primary caregiver is distracted with frivolity or working and does not give their children the attention and care they need.

[Guest Gee]

If it is natural for free markets to produce less freedom, then why does socialism always fail?

[Alan C.]

Succinctly put, socialism fails because of the economic calculation problem. Without signaling from market prices (arrived at through exchange), coordination of production and division of labor breaks down.

 

Free markets don't fail or produce less freedom over time. Ignorant, superstitous, envious, self-indugent, hedonistic, narcissistic, mentally-unbalanced people do.

 

Free markets impose onerous costs on irrationality, imprudence, short-sightedness, recklessness, and irresponsibility.