Michael Walzer: The Free Market and Morality

[@quickthunder86]

"Love of money is quite as strong a motive, and quite as great a source of injustice, as love of power. This must be obvious to any unbiased student of politics." Bertrand Russell - "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism", part 2, chapter 3.

[@BillyMcBride]

It is still a good idea to find inventive ways to help the less-fortunate, which this great kind of thinking does. Imaginative poverty is equally as awful as physical poverty and to eliminate the amount of cruelty in our world by helping others learn how to read and enjoy the best books ever written is a value which can help. Virgina Woolf said that a single song by Shakespeare did more for the poor of this world than all of its philanthropy. Thank you for sharing your video.

[@psgrenier]

Quelle coincidence! The absence of everything Walzer is calling for here is precisely what makes me want to leave the U.S. for ... well, France. Unfortunately, it is not so easy for an American to get permanent resident status in a European country. But my American friends who have managed to pull it off are so happy to be out of this dysfunctional society, which has no even vague inkling that a community can act in its own interest AS a community.

[@skarcrow1991]

i have no words to say ,but amazing and true

[@gabsave]

He has so much common sense or reason for a social scientist which seems uncommon among modern day economists.

[@psgrenier]

FACT: Walzer is one of the pre-eminent U.S. social scientists of the 20th century. Obviously in a few minutes on video he cannot provide all sorts of nuance and caveats. Why not read one of his books, or at least a journal article, and then add your (informed, well argued) critical comments?

[@jacklagriffe]

My God! "People should not be able to buy expensive medical care that is not available to everyone"!? How oppressive can a person be and still be considered a good-doer by the masses?

[@MillionthUsername]

Collectivism is by definition at odds with individualism. Since it is not possible to reconcile two conflicting claims, it is therefore not possible to "break out of" the dichotomy. You cannot do away with reason and logic with a wave of the hand.

[@mikewtp]

@LogicalFlawDetector List me the works by Michael Walzer that you've actually read. His "spheres of justice" argument is an admirable attempt to rectify some of the systemic problems states encounter when large accumulated wealth allows the individual to seek power in areas that are ultimately unrelated to his financial gain. For example, Bush Jr. attending Yale even though he did not have the credentials meant he could further pursue political positions in the interest of the few..

[@TheRacistsMustDie]

I do not even consider that the least bit interesting, but 2 minutes at wikipedia made me aware that Hitchens in fact referred to himself as a Marxist as late as 2009. I was more concerned with baffling statements such as "Nazi's were capitalists with government regulation", "Jewish people breed with other jewish people - this is pure racism" or "intellectuals are never left wing, they are always centrists". It seems unlikely too me that any person right in his mind could really believe that.

[@sraybigtymer]

Great ideas, and great video.

[@jrcowles86]

The question is absurdly subjective. Every economic system, capitalism included, is supported by its own culture and its own popular morality. I see it as undeniable that capitalist societies produce fundementally different human beings than, say, societies with more holistic cultural understandings of the self and human nature. People in capitalist cultures develop different needs as well as different theretical approaches to concepts like rights and freedoms.

[@-Aurumn-]

What does he mean by, "set limits on the extent of wealth"? How do you do that without forceful extortion?

[@RobertWard3000]

Did you edit out the examples he gave of limits to income? He gives examples for his other points. There is clearly an edit where elaboration should be.

[@marcovanheugten1387]

one of the books i've read in life i'm glad of, to understand just and unjust war.. is 'god is red' one of the interesting books in native american literature, this one by the awake vine deloria

[@28g34ajbsd]

@Hashishin13 Quoting myself again: "The notion that there is such thing as a "public good" just sounds like Stalinism to them, so either you're a laissez-faire dogmatic tea-party pseudo-libertarian or you're a communist." Dude, thanks for proving my point for me. Keep on truckin'. I'm off to make a hedgefund with my pal Martin Luther King Jr.

[@clydrobe]

if you give the power to regulate the economy to the state, as in the visible hand, (paraphrasing Karl Marx I might add) What regulates the state? A visible left hand?

[@michaelsvoboda1024]

@@Barklord the 'public demand' is an alterable cultural condition

[@kubaniski]

wtf is this guy on? limits on wealth? this is the kind of bullshit i left france for.

[@jasonmcphee]

Walzer is completely misguided even it his intentions are noble. Walzer says, "If all money could buy were rare books and gourmet dinners it would be harmless and that is the way money should be...". Money is just an expression of promises we make to each other over goods and services we exchange, no more no less. In that way, money is a moral expression of trust we share. I worry over those who think we are not moral enough to trust each other and that the world will be better it they can set the limits on our interactions to their standards.

[@Chasee445]

Yeah actually there is quite a lot of immorality in exchange. That's just an obvious fact. His worry is legitimate.

[@PHDnHorribleness]

I think idealism is wonderful, but to ignore reality for the sake of idealism is not a good idea. Many laws we have today were created in the defense of people and to prevent others from taking advantage. To say that this arbitrary moment in time is when we should stop doing so seems arrogant. I don't mind this point of view if you're confident that society has really hit a moral high ground and we can not improve the safety of the public any further, but this is objectively false. Just because a system is based on trust does not mean protections aren't necessary. Another example of this is murder. We trust each other every single day to not kill each other, yet we still have legal protections against it, and even then, it still happens regularly. Trust is healthy, but acknowledging our faults is also healthy.

[@Crazylalalalala]

@munkyusm not really, for free markets to truly work total competition needs to be in place. for total competition to be in place there needs to be tons of business that offer pretty much the same product. thus prices are controlled to the minimum and everyone is getting a fair share and no one is really more prosperous then anyone else. That is pure free market. "progress" most people who call for communism or socialism believe that they are progressing human society.

[@28g34ajbsd]

There's a collectivism-individualism dichotomy most Americans (and all of Ron Paul supporters, who I happen to have a lot of respect for, btw) can not break out of. The notion that there is such thing as a "public good" just sounds like Stalinism to them, so either you're a laissez-faire dogmatic tea-party pseudo-libertarian or you're a communist. The first signifies freedom, for some reason, and the other dictatorship. NONE of the human rights they espouse have been gained by market forces.

[@TheRacistsMustDie]

Oh God the all comments I could write just providing a critique of your first sentence. But luckily the simplistic statement "extremely intelligent people are not political" can simply be debunked empirically by providing 1 example of an extremely intelligent person who was political. We will pick a natural scientist: Linus Pauling, unashamedly pro-Soviet & a giant in the field of chemistry. I have proven you wrong. Don't even try arguing your way out of this one, I'm ending this conversation.

[@brasilianoreo]

@kidonlyle being confused and sounding confusing are two different things. Should I clarify myself?

[@TheRacistsMustDie]

As the infamous meme goes: not sure if serious or just trolling.

[@RenovatedJon]

What limits on the powers of the government? The bailout and the Iraq war are proof enough that these limits will be sidestepped, with the citizens best interests in mind, of course.

[@Hashishin13]

@psgrenier Maybe they just realize that a community should act for itself, not be forced to act through theft, threats and handouts made by governments?

[@D0g63rt]

He wants to limit power yet expand power to tell people how they can use money/power? What?

[@Crazylalalalala]

@munkyusm there are different ways to progress... it all depends on what is your final goal.

[@pleb_tech]

Looting is looting, by any name.

[@mikewtp]

@clydrobe Democratic principles/ social contract etc.. The state (in the democratic West at least) is a manifestation of the political will of the people. Obviously this does not apply everywhere.

[@MillionthUsername]

"I would set limits on what people can do in the pursuit of wealth." Ok. Let me just say that I would set limits on what people can teach. Now we have a just society.

[@CC3GROUNDZERO]

_"Boo-hoo, someone says something I don't like, let's abolish the First Amendment STAT!!!"_

[@brasilianoreo]

I think this man is confused on this subject. He speaks well of man's ambition to a finer style of living, but he also says he would limit the amount of wealth a man should keep. If anything, that is contradictory, but to say that a man has enough, is actually immoral. Who's to say one may or may not continue his passion for more, not because of money, but for a continuous exercise of what became an integral part of one's own instinct and constitution.

[@waterpartnership]

Dear Professor Walzer, What do you think now about the limits of power with the rise of Trumpism?

[@marcovanheugten1387]

'the span of control' seems permanently overchallenged.. stressed, the numbers too high. people can not rule themselves nor can be ruled (doesn't matter at all, in the first place..) in nations of so many people. the peoples disappear, and they are the ones able to.. our base is nature and small communities, the rest (connections with more human people(s)..) should be nice and even more voluntary.. history has proven for 10ths of 1000ths of years to prefer this for a balanced green loving exist.

[@TheRacistsMustDie]

Yeah nice way to avoid the point. Oh and b.t.w. you also said he's "a communist without realizing it". Well let me say that Michael Walzer - who, unlike you, actually knows something about the communist tradition - happens to have co-founded Dissent Magazine which became to be associated with a clique of left-wing intellectuals who are known for their...anti-communism.

[@marcovanheugten1387]

sovereign small nations in voluntary federations in case of an agressive neighbouring small nation's boundary keeper(s), directing towards jus post bellum, and so splitting of the federation (so always own money: unification should be for defensive war, to end fast, so never unification of coin is needed. of course usa states should seperate all and have own sovereignity in selfdefense and own coin.. generals only in war, shortly, after which voluntary exile, right thinking postwarmen, now peace

[@Crazylalalalala]

@munkyusm how can we accept you opinion has valid when it is obvious that you neither understood what he said nor bothered to look up any information on him before making that statement? also free market is a utopian ideal equally absurd as communism.

[@Hashishin13]

@28g34ajbsd "NONE of the human rights they espouse have been gained by market forces." That is a meaningless claim, how is a market going to secure liberties? "The first signifies freedom, for some reason, and the other dictatorship." "for some reason"? Are you kidding? Under free market capitalism the government tells you that you can't take other people's stuff or hurt them, under communism the government tells you damn near everything, is that not clear enough for you?

[@cubkthomas]

Wow! A wonderful example of deluded postmodernism. "People are good unless you put them into bad circumstances"? What planet have you been living on?

[@JWilko75]

Nice spealing. Hahahah

[@traccan]

@28g34ajbsd I think SOME of the human rights and our system of justice stem from free-market capitalism, and so did one of the great 'communists', Karl Marx. He saw that there had to be more than coincidence to explain the convergence of wealthy societies that developed free trading and the emergence of individual freedoms. The problem is excess and I don't know whether it's inherent or just tempting, but we need to realize the next step toward freedom is a reduction of the work week in half.

[@pleb_tech]

Huh? Make up your mind man.

[@munkyusm]

They always say "The brighter the mind, the darker the shadows." If it isn't obvious to anyone watching this video that this guy has not existed in reality (aka not surrounded by books, but rather functioning in the actual economy_,then you're probably in the same category as Mr. Walzer. It's obvious that this guy has ZERO, i repeat ZERO understanding of how a free market economy actually works. With that being said, how can we actually accept his opinion as valid?

[@gorecassady1632]

Daniel Key you okay?

[@michaelsvoboda1024]

Why on Earth shouldn't people be able to buy medical care that is unavailabe to anybody else? Precisely these first investments are what makes the miraculous technology possible - but more importantly - it's their life!