Since libertarians are motivated by the non-aggression principle, it’s easy to understand why they support the capitalist system of voluntary exchange rather than alternative systems based on government coercion.
But there are some who think markets are immoral, and that’s the topic of this book and this related video.
Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Seung Choi are the authors of Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals, and the Mercatus Center explains the book’s core message.
…people in market societies are wealthier, healthier, happier and better connected than those in societies where markets are more restricted. More provocatively, they explain that successful markets require and produce virtuous participants. Markets serve as moral spaces that both rely on and reward their participants for being virtuous. Rather than harming individuals morally, the market is an arena where individuals are encouraged to be their best moral selves.
And Professor Michael Munger from Duke University explores the implications in his review.
The useful thing about this book…is that it considers a more dynamic problem than the classical literature on the morality of markets. …doesn’t “commodification” and the pursuit of gain for its own sake distort, and ultimately corrupt, the human impulses of altruism and mutual aid on which society depends? …Their answer is “perhaps, but not necessarily.” And, compared to other actual systems that might be used to organize large scale human activity, they argue that markets are actually more likely to nurture moral spaces in which people can find ways to cooperate and help each other.
He identifies the main arguments about the putative shortcomings of markets.
…there are three central charges commonly leveled against the morality of markets. One is the claim that markets exploit workers and turn them into brutes; the second is that the commodification of things and the use of prices to direct allocation decisions corrupts the moral sense humans naturally possess and would otherwise use to motivate cooperation; and the third is that a common consequence of markets, extreme inequality, is corrosive to collective institutions of community and democracy.
And here’s Munger’s summary of the answers to those three questions.
Markets, in the Storr and Choi view, actually improve the lives of workers, rather than making them brutes. …it quickly becomes cheaper to “pay” workers with better and more comfortable conditions, safer working spaces, and more interesting activities…higher pay and the improvements in access to desirable consumer products that come with a market economy mean that workers have leisure time and the resources to enjoy it.
…commodification and division of labor foster a dramatic increase in scope and variety of new communities for humans to join and be part of. Further, the relation among workers in a firm, or the relation between a seller and a repeat customer, create new and important “moral spaces” in which the importance of character and personal familiarity produce both legitimately warm comradery and an increase in the efficiency of contracts and cooperation because of improvements in trust and personal commitment.
…market systems can in fact be associated with high levels of inequality, but it appears that increased inequality may often be the price a society pays for reducing poverty, a trade-off that very poor citizens are likely to embrace. Further, Storr and Choi show that (a) market societies generally have lower inequality than non-market societies, and (b) market societies show a great deal more social mobility, or a capacity for the very poor to become much more wealthy than their parents, than non-market systems.
In other words, markets generate higher income, better lives, and upward mobility.
Not a bad result.
My two cents on this debate is to expand on Munger’s point about capitalism when “compared to other actual systems.” In my humble option, this is what really matters.
Yes, markets can be cold and impersonal. And, yes, “creative destruction” is no fun when you’re part of the “destruction” (even if it results in your children and grandchildren living better lives).
But if our goal is prosperity, there’s no alternative that comes close.
Especially since every alternative empowers politicians and their cronies. Indeed, my readings on this topic reminded me of this passage in Atlas Shrugged when one of the anti-market interventionists said it was time to replace the “aristocracy of money” and one of the book’s good guys noted that this meant an “aristocracy of pull.”
And when an economy is based on political influence and power, P.J. O’Rourke warns that there’s an inevitable consequence.
P.S. Here’s David Burton’s bullet-point comparison of the morality of capitalism and socialism.
P.P.S. And Walter Williams has a great video on the morality of markets.
[…] third item shows the difference between voluntary exchange (which produces a growing pie) and government coercion (which is a zero-sum […]
[…] is a great system, both because it’s moral and it delivers superior results compared to any […]
[…] obvious, libertarians want a society with the smallest-possible government. Limiting coercion (the non-aggression principle) is the main […]
[…] obvious, libertarians want a society with the smallest-possible government. Limiting coercion (the non-aggression principle) is the main […]
[…] obvious, libertarians want a society with the smallest-possible government. Limiting coercion (the non-aggression principle) is the main […]
[…] makes capitalism a moral system is that there’s no ability to use coercion to turn our preferences into […]
[…] like capitalism, both because it’s moral and it delivers superior results compared to any […]
[…] like capitalism, both because it’s moral and it delivers superior results compared to any […]
[…] Indeed, half of the main message to young people (and everyone else) should be that honestly earned wealth is great, because that means (as Walter Williams sagely observed) someone accumulated lots of money by serving the needs of others. […]
[…] Indeed, half of the main message to young people (and everyone else) should be that honestly earned wealth is great, because that means (as Walter Williams sagely observed) someone accumulated lots of money by serving the needs of others. […]
[…] me crazy, but I’ll pick capitalism. It’s an ethical system that delivers prosperity and reduces […]
[…] me crazy, but I’ll pick capitalism. It’s an ethical system that delivers prosperity and reduces […]
A lot of noise was made in recent election campaigns about the morality of socialism. The free market side of the argument made practical and economic arguments, while the socialist side made the argument for compassion and morality. We would do well to examine that claim. I assert that socialists do not have a moral leg to stand on.
First, a look at free markets. As a free market based doctor, I only take direct payment from my patients. In effect, when Dell comes in asking for my service, I am asking him what he has done to serve his fellow man. He says, “I welded Dennis’ combine, so he could get in his grain, to feed people.” I say, “Prove it,” whereupon Dell produces those certificates of service that we call dollars. “Look, he gave me these,” says Dell. I provide him my service in exchange for those certificates of service, which I then use to procure the services of others for me and my family.
Contrast that with a socialist system. Somebody could go to a doctor who participates with a socialist medical program. If asked what he has done to serve his fellow man, he can just respond, “Nothing. And I don’t plan to. Now give me what I want and shut your mouth. Stop judging me.”
Which is the more moral way of doing things? A free market is a system of mutual cooperation and service. Everybody benefits. It is the reason we have such a high standard of living in the United States of America.
Socialism, by contrast, is a system of people forcing others to work for them. It is based on greed and selfishness. It is highly immoral. Even if it was the more practical system, which it is not, it would still not be right. It is fundamentally immoral for somebody to force other people to work for him or her. It was wrong for southern plantation owners in the 1860s, and it is still wrong today. We just use a different word for it now. We call it “compassion.” I do not see how that word fits.
Freedom advocates should relentlessly hammer away on the morality argument. We do not use force, or the threat of it, to conduct our business. When a business owner gets wealthy, it is usually because he or she has figured out how to offer a better product for a lower cost. People are free to choose whether or not to buy the product. That is why the USA has the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. It is not only the most practical, but also the only moral way of conducting business. Advocates of freedom, do not be shy. We own the moral argument.
We don’t. Libertarians do not support religious monarchic colonial mercantilism, which is what the other looters coined “capitalism” to denote. In any debate, the communist will convince the audience that this “libertarian” is a mystical prohibitionist who wants your kid to be shot in Afghanistan, rot in prison over plant leaves, be impoverished in an asset-forfeiture crash or be shot by some redneck cop who “smelt cannibal saliva.” That Ayn Rand was suckered into this and many other errors only shows how bad the mistake really is. Richard Nixon claimed to defend “capitalism…” ’nuff said?
markets require limited oversight… if the Chinese government so chose… they could cut off the flow of pharmaceuticals to the American market… the result would be the death of thousands of our Citizens… this situation occurred because the Federal government (the same government that will spend 738 billion on defense this year)… neglected it’s primary responsibility to keep the American people safe… they haven’t done an adequate job of protecting our strategic interests… as a matter of practicality… there absolutely has to be strategic oversight of markets… our government has to make decisions that protect our people… and our national interests… otherwise… we can expect to be blackmailed at best… or subjected military conflict at worst… it’s a critical moral issue… one which can’t be neglected…
“Yes, markets can be cold and impersonal.”
Why would we concede this, as markets are the results of human valuing?