On Reifying ‘The Market’

There is common problem amongst those who proselytize the ideas of ‘freedom’ and more specifically those who support ‘anarcho-capitalism’ that has to do with the conception of ‘the market’ as an absolute and its reification in much of the discourse. There are two aspects to this issue:

Firstly, when presented with issues that might arise in a hypothetical situation under conditions of ‘anarcho-capitalism’, many seem content to answer that ‘the market’ will ‘sort it out’, if allowed to be ‘free’. This tendency is not only a sign of intellectual laziness, but also conflicts with a key element of anarcho-capitalist theory – that of ‘methodological individualism’. When in use, methodological individualism denotes an approach that considers the actions of individuals, and their desires and motivations in relation to others. This places the methodology in contrast to – for example – structuralist economics, which focuses on the investigation of economic ‘structures’. Methodological individualism is thus a theory committed to the investigation of referent individuals, rather than abstractions. By using what I call the ‘market absolutist’ argument therefore, the people who otherwise claim adherence to methodological individualism are actually missing out on one of the key elements of the theory; they are dropping context completely, and are no longer referring to referent individuals but instead an abstraction.

Secondly, it is naive to think that the introduction of mass voluntary association is enough to establish a freedom-supporting paradigm. Questions such as ‘what are they trading?’ and even more importantly, ‘why?’ are vitally important in such an investigation.  Of course, I do not advocate forced monitoring of trades nor forcing anyone to stop trading particular commodities (other than slaves/murderous services etc.). Indeed, such things are none of my concern since they lay outside of my own sphere of activity. I do not, however, think that a society that endorses cultural heteronomy – even in a voluntary paradigm – may necessarily be the kind of society that those of us who value not only their freedom but also their autonomy, would wish to live in. Think of how many people in the world buy things, not because they need them or really want them for themselves, but obtain them because others have them. They are ultimately concerned with what others think of them, becoming slaves to the thoughts and values of other people. A culture that awards copying and conformity has just as much potential to exist in a voluntary paradigm as it does in the coerced associations we currently find ourselves in. Thus, beyond voluntary association, it is important to understand and investigate culture. It is absolutely essential to have not only the free ability to act and make decisions for ourselves, but also a free, autonomous mind that operates outside of the chains of cultural heteronomy.

It would be a wonderful thing to freely choose how to live one’s life, but if one’s mind is filled with all manner of spooks and psychoses that derived from other sub-rational people, then what use is freedom? Freedom alone cannot ensure real autonomy.

This entry was posted in Commentary, Philosophy and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to On Reifying ‘The Market’

  1. consentient says:

    Yes, this is why my conception of ‘consentient philosophy’ includes reference to ‘communities of choice’, or ‘enclaves’, since this would allow for greater filtering (and if desired, comparison) of social norms.

    I genuinely believe that one of the main barriers holding back the majority of people in the present civilisation is the widespread acceptance of that particular norm that says “In the interest of social cohesion, we shall have a greater tolerance for one another’s delusions and ignorance (and the further social norms that are based on these)”.

    Strip that away and you’d have a norm that encouraged far more honest and direct communication, and the burden would rightly be on those participants in societal relations that used their delusions as excuses to demand that others bear them in mind when interacting with them. Gone would be such examples as “Please take down your Christmas decorations, they are offending me because of my beliefs”, and “I’m offended when you use ‘swear’ words”.

    Of course, my decision not to have any ‘tolerance’ for other people’s neuroses makes me extremely unpopular in the incumbent paradigm, but I believe in living by one’s principles as much as possible, and since I would like it if more people were to behave in a similar fashion, I do not refrain from this insistence on truly rational discourse.

    Ultimately, I do not want to be a part of any ‘society’ that is populated mostly with people that exhibit all the traits I despise – stupidity, delusions, and the mindless copying you speak of.

    ‘Hell’ is worse than the absence of reason: it is a bland, arbitrary world of mindless adherence to ‘popular’ culture, vacuous entertainment, puerile symbolism and dubstep; in other words, the world I currently live in.

    Beam me up Scotty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s