The Morality of Markets

[tm37]

by Walter E. Williams

My recent column "From Whence Comes Income" sparked considerable favorable reader response, not to mention thoughtful reader correction of my grammar error in the title: "From Whence" is redundant. Quite a few readers were a bit confused about my assertion that market allocation of goods and services are infinitely more moral than the alternative.

The first principle of a free society is that each person owns himself. You are your private property and I am mine. Most Americans probably accept that first principle. Those who disagree are obliged to inform the rest of us just who owns us, at least here on earth. This vision of self-ownership is one of those "self-evident" truths to which the Founders referred to in the Declaration of Independence that "All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Like John Locke and other philosophers who influenced them, the Founders saw these rights as preceding government and they said, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted." The Framers of the Constitution recognized that while government was necessary to secure liberty it was also liberty's greatest threat. Having this deep suspicion of government, they loaded our Constitution with a host of anti-congressional phrases such as: "Congress shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated".

Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral; they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say, "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple no matter what Congress says or does!"

If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and as such immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: it's legal and participants aren't jailed.

Market allocation of goods and services depends upon peaceable, voluntary exchange. Under such exchanges the essence of our proposition to our fellow man is: If you do something I like, I'll do something you like. When such a deal is struck, both parties are better off in their own estimation. Billions of these propositions are routinely made and carried out each day. For example, take my trip to the grocery store. My proposition to the grocer is essentially: "If you make me feel good by giving me that gallon of milk you own, I'll make you feel good by giving you three dollars that I own." If my proposition is accepted, the grocer is better off since he values the $3 more than the milk and I'm better off since I value the milk more than the $3.

Contrast the morality of market exchange with its alternative. I might go to my grocer with a pistol and propose: give me a gallon of milk or I'll shoot you. Or, I might lobby Congress to take his milk and give it to me. Either way I'm better off but the grocer is worse off.

Less there's misunderstanding there are legitimate and moral functions of government, namely that of preventing the initiation of force, fraud and intimidation and we're all duty-bound to cough up our share of the cost. All other matters in our lives should be left to civil society and its institutions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

Ebenezer Scrooge

 

[Kadarin]

OK.. so what's your point? Do you agree with this position or disagree? Did you want to spark some discussion? If so, why not start it off with the points you agree or disagree with, and explain why? How about relating it to your personal experience, or even perhaps shed some enlightenment on the Human Condition? Explain why you're interested; is this for a school paper or just something you read for fun?

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
OK.. so what's your point? Do you agree with this position or disagree? Did you want to spark some discussion? If so, why not start it off with the points you agree or disagree with, and explain why? How about relating it to your personal experience, or even perhaps shed some enlightenment on the Human Condition? Explain why you're interested; is this for a school paper or just something you read for fun?

I read Dr. WIlliams Every week. I check his site every few days to see if there is anything new. I read it for enjoyment. I agree with most of what he says and enjoy his writing style.

The fact is that the level of taxation and government handouts in this country is reaching epic proportions. The government continues to hand out BILLIONS of OUR dolars yet many people don't see it that way.

California's current budget crisis has been widely blamed on the electricity issues yet it was increased spending in other areas that drove CA into a huge deficit. The surplus that Davis inherited would have covered the elctricty bill.

I left Cali a few years back to live in MN. We too are seeing a budget shortfall. This shortfall is being blamed on Jesse's tax cuts. These tax cuts accounted for about 2-3% of the state budget. Yet while he was in office spending grew by over 25%. This increased spending is what caused the shortfall. Just lie California.


My goal in posting this was mearly to give other an opportunity to read this, I found it very good.
Perhaps they will look at taxation a little differently when they next check.

 

[Moonbeam]

Clearly the notion of private property is a false one, a usurpation via a false emancipation proclamation. Locke and ilk fundamentally erred when they claimed that we own ourselves, that we have inalienable, God given, rights. If we were created by God we are the property of God. Islam understands this. Our purpose is to surrender to the will of God, not to pretend that the purpose of our free will is to self emancipate. The Western world has lost the notion that the self, the appetite of man his sickness. It has forgotten that the true self is the will of God. The true self needs no law because it can do no evil. Since the true man is nothing but a gift, a giver, what need has he for property laws. You cannot own a house, a piece of ground, the sky. All these things are on loan from God. The true man is content with nothing because in surrender he has acquired all. Oh my beloved. wherever I look it appears to be thou.

If not than give the US back to the Indians whence it was stolen.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Clearly the notion of private property is a false one, a usurpation via a false emancipation proclamation. Locke and ilk fundamentally erred when they claimed that we own ourselves, that we have inalienable, God given, rights. If we were created by God we are the property of God. Islam understands this. Our purpose is to surrender to the will of God, not to pretend that the purpose of our free will is to self emancipate. The Western world has lost the notion that the self, the appetite of man his sickness. It has forgotten that the true self is the will of God. The true self needs no law because it can do no evil. Since the true man is nothing but a gift, a giver, what need has he for property laws. You cannot own a house, a piece of ground, the sky. All these things are on loan from God. The true man is content with nothing because in surrender he has acquired all. Oh my beloved. wherever I look it appears to be thou.

If not than give the US back to the Indians whence it was stolen.

pipe down hippie!

 

[tcsenter]

If not than give the US back to the Indians whence it was stolen.

You first, I'll be right behind you.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Clearly the notion of private property is a false one, a usurpation via a false emancipation proclamation. Locke and ilk fundamentally erred when they claimed that we own ourselves, that we have inalienable, God given, rights. If we were created by God we are the property of God. Islam understands this. Our purpose is to surrender to the will of God, not to pretend that the purpose of our free will is to self emancipate. The Western world has lost the notion that the self, the appetite of man his sickness. It has forgotten that the true self is the will of God. The true self needs no law because it can do no evil. Since the true man is nothing but a gift, a giver, what need has he for property laws. You cannot own a house, a piece of ground, the sky. All these things are on loan from God. The true man is content with nothing because in surrender he has acquired all. Oh my beloved. wherever I look it appears to be thou.

If not than give the US back to the Indians whence it was stolen.

Your assumption, Moonbeam, is that God created us and, having done so, gives a flying fork what we do with our lives. The concept of "ownership" is a cultural invention.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your assumption, Moonbeam, is that God created us and, having done so, gives a flying fork what we do with our lives. The concept of "ownership" is a cultural invention.
-----------------

"If we were created by God we are the property of God"

I distinguish between a postulate and an assumption. I was just following a chain of reasoning based on a hypothetical,, I didn't say I believed it if by assumption that's waht you mean. Implicit in what I said, also, I thing, is that ownership is indeed a cultural invention. It's honor among thieves.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your assumption, Moonbeam, is that God created us and, having done so, gives a flying fork what we do with our lives. The concept of "ownership" is a cultural invention.
-----------------

"If we were created by God we are the property of God"

I distinguish between a postulate and an assumption. I was just following a chain of reasoning based on a hypothetical,, I didn't say I believed it if by assumption that's waht you mean. Implicit in what I said, also, I thing, is that ownership is indeed a cultural invention. It's honor among thieves.

"I distinguish between a postulate and an assumption."

Dictionary.com definition of postulate:

1. To make claim for; demand.
2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume.

It would appear that, within the present context at the very least, there is no distinction between an assumption and a postulate.

There are actually several assumptions you are making in pursuing your chain of reasoning, and that makes the chain rather tenuous: That God exists, that God created Man, that God somehow "owns" Man by virtue of that creation, that Man's "purpose" is to surrender to the will of God.

Given enough assumptions, one can construct a house of cards of infinite size.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If not than give the US back to the Indians whence it was stolen.

Got news for ya, boyo -- we bought most of the US, piece by piece, or won it in war -- just becuase the deals were shady, or unfair, they were still often binding contracts. Later on, during the indian wars, we did steal the land, but I would be willing to vote that we give the land back, if the individuals who actually owned it before we did can be found and can bring a case into court, I would contend that we should give it back to them, at the cost of the labor we've put into it over the past century and a half.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If not than give the US back to the Indians whence it was stolen.

Got news for ya, boyo -- we bought most of the US, piece by piece, or won it in war -- just becuase the deals were shady, or unfair, they were still often binding contracts. Later on, during the indian wars, we did steal the land, but I would be willing to vote that we give the land back, if the individuals who actually owned it before we did can be found and can bring a case into court, I would contend that we should give it back to them, at the cost of the labor we've put into it over the past century and a half.

i think the price would go down some once you factor in the costs of the people our forefathers killed.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If not than give the US back to the Indians whence it was stolen.

Got news for ya, boyo -- we bought most of the US, piece by piece, or won it in war -- just becuase the deals were shady, or unfair, they were still often binding contracts. Later on, during the indian wars, we did steal the land, but I would be willing to vote that we give the land back, if the individuals who actually owned it before we did can be found and can bring a case into court, I would contend that we should give it back to them, at the cost of the labor we've put into it over the past century and a half.

i think the price would go down some once you factor in the costs of the people our forefathers killed.

Since my ancestors only came to this country in the last century and were treated like pieces of Irish crap, does that make me exempt from any tax burden of said possibility?

 

[sygyzy]

I think the problem with his argument against taxation is the fact that without taxation and government, nothing would get done. Similar to the last man standing theory in property rights, why would anyone voluntarily pay to fix potholes or light the streets? If we were not taxed, each person would say "Well I don't drive much, let the next guy pay it."

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If not than give the US back to the Indians whence it was stolen.

Got news for ya, boyo -- we bought most of the US, piece by piece, or won it in war -- just becuase the deals were shady, or unfair, they were still often binding contracts. Later on, during the indian wars, we did steal the land, but I would be willing to vote that we give the land back, if the individuals who actually owned it before we did can be found and can bring a case into court, I would contend that we should give it back to them, at the cost of the labor we've put into it over the past century and a half.

i think the price would go down some once you factor in the costs of the people our forefathers killed.

Since my ancestors only came to this country in the last century and were treated like pieces of Irish crap, does that make me exempt from any tax burden of said possibility?

I think the entire idea is preposterous, i was just making a jab. I think the idea that a human is "property" in any sense of the word is preposterous. I'd hate to have the option of selling myself into slavery if my credit card debt gets too bad. The best things in life can't be owned. Im going to sleep

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I think the problem with his argument against taxation is the fact that without taxation and government, nothing would get done. Similar to the last man standing theory in property rights, why would anyone voluntarily pay to fix potholes or light the streets? If we were not taxed, each person would say "Well I don't drive much, let the next guy pay it."

This is true, but corruption will happen if you give too much power to either side. Give the people all the power and they won't want to pay for anything. Give the government too much power and they'll end up taking all your money. A delicate balance must be acheived. That's why you devise a system with checks and balances.

But I'm afraid that the current trend is to give in to government propaganda and hand over power to them. Let them take your money, take your guns, let them monitor you... and remember- "It's for your safety"

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I think the problem with his argument against taxation is the fact that without taxation and government, nothing would get done. Similar to the last man standing theory in property rights, why would anyone voluntarily pay to fix potholes or light the streets? If we were not taxed, each person would say "Well I don't drive much, let the next guy pay it."

The problem doesn't fall within Taxation itself but overtaxation when the money is driven to areas that the constitution doesn't give the federal governement the right to do. The income redistribution that occurs in washington is accepted yet wrong.

The government should protect us from enemies forien and domestic. they should not give money to thoose who choose not to work. WHen I look at my yearly tax bill it stirs my blood to think that most of this money is being wasted. I have little say in the way that it is spent and most of our leaders continue to spend my money on welfare, farm programs, tobacco subsidies, and the like. At somepoint one must relieze that you are your own person. If you want to help the poor give to charity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Astaroth:

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your assumption, Moonbeam, is that God created us and, having done so, gives a flying fork what we do with our lives. The concept of "ownership" is a cultural invention.
-----------------

"If we were created by God we are the property of God"

I distinguish between a postulate and an assumption. I was just following a chain of reasoning based on a hypothetical,, I didn't say I believed it if by assumption that's waht you mean. Implicit in what I said, also, I thing, is that ownership is indeed a cultural invention. It's honor among thieves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"I distinguish between a postulate and an assumption."

Dictionary.com definition of postulate:

1. To make claim for; demand.
2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume.

It would appear that, within the present context at the very least, there is no distinction between an assumption and a postulate.

(M: But of course there is a difference in that a postulate is a conscious act whereas an assumption implies that one is unaware that one is doing it. That's why you delited in showing me the several unmentioned other assumprions you mention in the next following sentence, I was actually quite aware I made.)

There are actually several assumptions you are making in pursuing your chain of reasoning, and that makes the chain rather tenuous: That God exists, that God created Man, that God somehow "owns" Man by virtue of that creation, that Man's "purpose" is to surrender to the will of God.

Given enough assumptions, one can construct a house of cards of infinite size. (Well yes. That was the point, but you applied that knowledge imporperly. I had intended that you examine the assumptions of the Williams essay and those of Locke. Given enough assumptions you can go anywhere. 😀 The question, then, is what is truth? ....particularly here is there a right of private property or is that not, as I suggested, honor among thieves?

 

[Moonbeam]

tm37:

The government should protect us from enemies forien and domestic. they should not give money to thoose who choose not to work. WHen I look at my yearly tax bill it stirs my blood to think that most of this money is being wasted. I have little say in the way that it is spent and most of our leaders continue to spend my money on welfare, farm programs, tobacco subsidies, and the like. At somepoint one must relieze that you are your own person. If you want to help the poor give to charity.
---------------------------
I do give to charity. I consistently vote for socialists and leftist candidates who believe in community charity. I only stirs my blood, throws me into apoplectic seizures, makes me moan and groan and whine, that my one vote is so ineffective in seizing even more from you in taxes. Might makes right, no, and when the majority awakens to the class war perpetrated against them in its denial, they will take what is theirs to take, no?, just like we did with the Indians.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So the US government will provide reparations for Native Americans displaced or otherwise persecuted through government action AND reparations to descendants of slaves since their labor/lives were appropriated without compensation or consent. Of course, some Native Americans would be due a double payment b/c they were part of the original American slave experience.

Market allocation of goods and services depends upon peaceable, voluntary exchange. Under such exchanges the essence of our proposition to our fellow man is: If you do something I like, I'll do something you like. When such a deal is struck, both parties are better off in their own estimation.

Total BS . . . much of American commerce is founded on false ownership. If you want potable water in America you typically have to pay whatever they demand. Here's the proposition, "you like water, you need water, I've got all the water you can use . . . for a price." Outside of natural contaminents it would be possible for everyone to use wells if not for the fact that agribusiness, industry, (and often munincipalities) have made well water nonpotable.

If Cheney's Energy Task Force had been successful land throughout America would have been taken for the benefit of energy producers (and a few traders like Enron, Williams). You can argue it would be for the greater good but alas that violates the basic principle being advanced by Walter Williams.

Markets are amoral. People like Williams embrace the fantasy of the benevolent capitalist enterprise while ignoring anything which smacks of ugly reality. There are plenty of immoral people in business/markets which make them appear to be unfair. The same is true for government.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
tm37:

The government should protect us from enemies forien and domestic. they should not give money to thoose who choose not to work. WHen I look at my yearly tax bill it stirs my blood to think that most of this money is being wasted. I have little say in the way that it is spent and most of our leaders continue to spend my money on welfare, farm programs, tobacco subsidies, and the like. At somepoint one must relieze that you are your own person. If you want to help the poor give to charity.
---------------------------
I do give to charity. I consistently vote for socialists and leftist candidates who believe in community charity. I only stirs my blood, throws me into apoplectic seizures, makes me moan and groan and whine, that my one vote is so ineffective in seizing even more from you in taxes. Might makes right, no, and when the majority awakens to the class war perpetrated against them in its denial, they will take what is theirs to take, no?, just like we did with the Indians.

Leftists and socialists do not believe in community charity, they believe in mandated government-regulated charity.

And for the Indians, I have no sympathy. Their destruction was the evolution of societies. It has happened many times before, and will happen many times in the future. The radical Muslim's war on Christianity and Christianity's attempt to indoctrinate the "heathens" are two current on-going examples. The strong survive, basic human instinct.

Now as Ameesh so elequently put it: Pipe down, hippie!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And for the Indians, I have no sympathy.

Thnx a lot . . . well if you have no remorse for destroying the pre-existing culture and despoiling the land . . . could you at least do us the favor of not calling us Indians?!

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

And for the Indians, I have no sympathy.

Thnx a lot . . . well if you have no remorse for destroying the pre-existing culture and despoiling the land . . . could you at least do us the favor of not calling us Indians?!

oh, I'm sorry, I forgot I live in a PC world - Native Americans, is that better or is there something else you prefer?

BTW, I didn't destroy any pre-existing culture in America, neither did my ancestors, nor do I think we have despoiled the land. But if I'm going to feel sorry for them, does that mean I need to feel sorry for all societies that have been vanquished throughout the history of man?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I apologize if you cannot muster the human decency to feel sympathy for those left in the wake of progress but feel insulted when someone highlights how you've benefited from another cultures destruction. My bad.

Sympathy is the ability to feel for those less fortunate. Empathy is to understand how they feel. Why you happen to lack the capacity for either would require an appointment and pre-approval by your HMO.

As for PC . . . let me guess you are an American . . . the United States of America . . . named for an explorer who sailed to the New World coasts in the 15th century. Of course, he came several years after another explorer who thought he was in India. Why don't I just call you Indian then?

 

[Amused]

Every culture on Earth has destroyed another culture if one goes far anough back in time. They wouldn't be here if they hadn't.

None can claim moral superiority.