Economic liberalism and the reasons for a laissez-faire economy. (1 Viewer)

[Herophant]

During my time on this forum I have seen been given many reason for economic liberalism. Some opinions are based on the ability of laissez-faire economies to produce economic growth. Others are based on morality and the belief that one person has no responsibility to feed another.

Based on my curiosity to learn other people’s opinion I ask what you count as the ultimate reason for having a laissez-faire economy

Is it based on utilitarianism and the belief that mankind will be happier in such a society? Or do you defend your beliefs on a your notion of what’s “right”

Sadly I can’t deny people to give their reasons on why economic liberalism supposedly is wrong, but nevertheless I ask everyone to not start of huge debate. Simply explain how you base your belief that Economic liberalism is right or wrong.

Please be civil and use rationalism over rhetoric.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Overall, having a free market society under capitalism is afairly Utilitarian system more than any other pure system, because overall, in the nation, it provides the most happiness and material well-being. This, however, is not universal nor doe sit completely fit reality, because quantity isn't the only thing that goes on in Utilitarianism. You cannot have massive groups of people who are significantly screwed as the result of it and suffering, because that heavily pollutes the pool of happiness when the scales are being balanced. It is better to have some regulation in order to raise the bar, significantly reducing suffering. This does not destroy the happiness of the majority, but it takes into consideration quality

ONce the masses, who're fairly happy, are at a specific level and have crossed a specific point, the affect on hapiness is not the same with added utils, and giviing them more will have diminishing return. When you have gone beyond that point, it's better to take some from them and give to those who really need it, because you can get much, much more hapiness and reduce much, much more suffering from that.

Giving a rich man 1000 dollars does not produce as much happiness as it woul by giving that same cash to someone who is hardworking, but poor. Will he miss the money? Yes, but not as much as the poor, equally hard-working man will like it.

Is economic liberalism generally good? Yes. SHould there be lots of suffering to act as a huge belemish on it? No. Sometimes decreasing overall happiness slightly and replacing it with a lot of eliminated suffering is a fair utility trade. Maximizing hapiness isn't the only concern.

 

[Kandahar]

During my time on this forum I have seen been given many reason for economic liberalism. Some opinions are based on the ability of laissez-faire economies to produce economic growth. Others are based on morality and the belief that one person has no responsibility to feed another.

Based on my curiosity to learn other people’s opinion I ask what you count as the ultimate reason for having a laissez-faire economy

Is it based on utilitarianism and the belief that mankind will be happier in such a society? Or do you defend your beliefs on a your notion of what’s “right”

Sadly I can’t deny people to give their reasons on why economic liberalism supposedly is wrong, but nevertheless I ask everyone to not start of huge debate. Simply explain how you base your belief that Economic liberalism is right or wrong.

Please be civil and use rationalism over rhetoric.

I think it's both. I'm a firm believer in the rights to life, liberty, and property, and I don't think the government should be allowed to take them away from people who have committed no crime.

But even if I didn't believe in those things, it's also an economic reality. Capitalism simply produces a higher standard of living than socialism, and this has been proven throughout history time and time again.

 

[Kandahar]

My one goal in my lifetime as an economist is to find a potential social program to opperate within a free market economy that can make us able to feed the hungry with minimal, if any deadweight loss. Unfortunately, I doubt I'm that smart. But yeah, it'd be cool though if I could.

One idea that has been floated around libertarian circles is the concept of "voluntary taxes." Instead of forcing people to pay for social programs, they'd be able to allocate most of their tax money however they chose (after mandatory allocations for military/justice/infrastructure), or they'd be able to keep the money for themselves.

The theory is that if most people truly believe in taxes to help the poor as they claim they do, they can vote with their wallets rather than force others to contribute.

 

[128shot]

One idea that has been floated around libertarian circles is the concept of "voluntary taxes." Instead of forcing people to pay for social programs, they'd be able to allocate most of their tax money however they chose (after mandatory allocations for military/justice/infrastructure), or they'd be able to keep the money for themselves.

The theory is that if most people truly believe in taxes to help the poor as they claim they do, they can vote with their wallets rather than force others to contribute.

I heard of this, I also got one here for yeah.


The forced charity movement.


Its this simple.


I'll tax 70% fo your income unless you donate to charity once a month.



I bet it'd eliminate taxes by threat of taxes.

 

[Comrade Brian]

I heard of this, I also got one here for yeah.


The forced charity movement.


Its this simple.


I'll tax 70% fo your income unless you donate to charity once a month.



I bet it'd eliminate taxes by threat of taxes.

If things would go that way you just said, I think it'd suck.

What if one has absolutely no money to donate, then they get taxed heavily, and their problems will worsen.

And really, a billionaire could donate only slightly and not get taxed.

 

[Herophant]

I think it's both. I'm a firm believer in the rights to life, liberty, and property, and I don't think the government should be allowed to take them away from people who have committed no crime.

But even if I didn't believe in those things, it's also an economic reality. Capitalism simply produces a higher standard of living than socialism, and this has been proven throughout history time and time again.

Nevertheless what’s ultimately most important? There are nations that use both capitalistic and socialistic solutions: The prime example would perhaps be Norway, which keep getting ranked as the best place to live in the world. Regardless of the opinion that that’s based mainly upon their rich natural resources, they do have high taxes and government control over key resources that’s being used to fund extensive social programs. Therefore the social capitalism blend can’t be said to “hurt” the standard of living on average, but only for the really rich. The question remains then; do the “unfairness” of socialistic institutions make it a negative society by your view?


.

 

[Herophant]

Well, but there is one thing. As a nation, the idea behind it was allowing indviduality (although no one really seems to give a **** about that now anyways), that if you work hard enough you can prosper here, but if you don't that's on you.
I agree on the importance of these social programs, but you do have to adress that they are somewhat contradictory to what this nation was initially founded to be

Well personally I think a nation should serve the need of the ones that live in it. Not founders who are all dead now. That said I only mentioned Norway to illustrate that laissez-fare doesn’t always mean that most people are richer. My personal views aside I’m interested if people want that kind of economic liberty because people will be better of, or because they believe it’s morally right.

Of topic, do you feel that the Norwegian government limits your individuality? If so please elaborate.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

lol, mine personally? Not at all.
Like, if all social programs are funded by taxes, that takes away any goodness coming from it, since everyone is forced into doing it, but if it was left solely to the funding coming out of the goodness of people's hearts, unfortunately a lot of people would starve, and thus the actual practical purpose would not be served.
I think the most important steps are outside of the government, and must be made within the social relm. I don't know this for sure, but I assume that in Norway they have more of a culture of social welfare, where people honestly care if people are starving or poor or just can't make ends meet, because I've noticed that in places where welfare is more or less successful that is the type of attitude that prevails. Thus a social welfare program similar to Norway's couldn't work in the US because that attitude is less prevelent, cause, let's be honest, there are a lot of rich assholes out there.

Sorry most just make a stupid example from you text. That you with your logic can argue that why people mostly are not killing, raping or stealing eacheter is not because there are good but because there are forced by it by society. So the goodness of not stealing from your fellow man is taking away by all civilized goverment.

No my basic points can be that solidarity can be showed by forced goodness just as basic concept of human rights. That the people can come together and decide that it both bad stealing as it is letting your fellow man starve to death. So that it is both right for the goverments to see that the needs of the people is met as it is there duty to see that people are not killing eatchoter, if people have decided that from election.

This above was maybee just stupid, so don't have to answer. But that is intersting is the concept welfare state. There I think welfare state lays the foundation of support for welfare state and that more capitalistic state lays the foundation for more capitalistic state. Because in a welfare state you know that you have a safety net and you are not in the same way forced to fend for yourself, therefor you can afford to show more solidarity to your fellow man. But in a more capitalistic state you have to fend more for yourself and are probably more afraid of ending up poor leading to less will to show solidarity for you fellow man. Like for example if the raise the taxes you afraid that you can't afford university studies for your children or your healthcare insurance. So therefore if you had a freemarket society people would probably couldn't as much afford to show solidarity.