Private property Argument
Capitalism promotes the growth and development of private property by ensuring the exercise of the right of the property by the owner. It is worth noting that capitalism focuses on enhancing economic freedom in trading. It believes that that a free market should be able to present the investors with a freedom that satisfies their desires. Freedom, as purported by capitalism, plays a gives a private owner of the property the right to trade his or her property as per will. There is not pressing constraints that downplay such freedom. Thus, a private owner enjoys the right of freedom over his property.
In fact, capitalism is much applicable to private property ownership. For instance, an owner of property has the moral right to use the property in his or her discretion. This is to imply that if someone has a property, then the others should refrain from dictating to him or her how he or she should use the property. The owner has the authority to set the terms of trade or use of the property without any influence from others. The property rights owned by the owner of a given property are the ones that act as the preconditions for free trade. The growth and development of free trade is a key player in ensuring a free market (Ingham, 2008).
The private argument, as it regards to capitalism, brings the sense of belonging where no other persons intervention to the owner of the property. Thus, it promotes efficiency in all matters pertaining the property. Capitalism supports this through the argument that a free market allocates resources efficiently to all investors. Ideally, this argument means that the supply and exchange of goods in a free market follows the demand and supply provisions.
Finally, the private ownership leads to monopoly power to the owners of the property in the market. It thus makes most of the firms that operate in the free market to be monopolistic. Such firms enjoy the economies of scale of controlling the entire market since competition is very low. For instance, the owners of private property enjoy economic growth that arises due to the profitability that arises from the monopoly power.
Libertarian Argument
Libertarians believe that determinism can never match with freedom since freedom requires less strictness than that offered by determinism. It also tries to explain the idea that an individual’s actions cannot be supported by anything prior to decision. Thus one’s best decision arises when one follows his character, feelings and desires. In fact, libertarian reveals that there is a need for coming up with a policy limiting the government invention is a good way of enhancing people lot. Besides, they believe that respecting others liberty and encouraging market growth and development is the key to the success of individuals and the society at large (Maandag, 2012).
Besides, libertarian supports high levels of personal and economic freedom. Just like the private property argument provides, libertarian argument give individuals to enjoy their freedom in all what they possess and whatever they perform. Still, they are able to enjoy the economic freedom whereby the free to trade with minimal restrictions from the government. Thus, individuals stand a better chance of enhancing their living standards something that lead to growth and development of individuals and the society where they live.
Furthermore, it gives people the freedom to make their own choices under all circumstances. However, such a choice is subject to one’s feelings and desires. This is a clear indication that when one makes a choice he or she should be ready to stand with that choice to the later. If the choice leads to success of the individual it is well and good. However, if the choice is detrimental to the growth and development of the person then it becomes his or her problem. Therefore, the choices people make according to libertarian is the final and individuals should be ready to die with such choices. The most important point to note is to that people need to take care of is being responsible in whatever they do.
Argument whether free market is morally acceptable
A free market economy to a small extent is morally acceptable and to the larger extent, it is not acceptable. A free market is a market without restriction. The government does not intervene such market implying that it is very efficient. The investors and buyers interact freely, and they use demand and supply provisions to guide them in making the transaction. They both enjoy the rights of ownership of their products. The owner of the property is the controller of that property and no interventions from any other person.
However, it is worth noting that a free market to a larger extent is not morally acceptable. Firstly, such a market concentrates on enhancing private ownership of a property. Although private ownership of a property is a benefit to the owner of no interventions, it leads to monopoly in the market. Monopoly does not consider the social values of a society thus making it to be morally unacceptable. Firms with monopoly power take advantage of product and labor markets. In one way or the other they lead to the exploitation of the society.
A monopolistic firm has the control of the market since no other competing firm. Consequently, this may make such a firm to fail to consider the social values like delivering quality products and services. Since there is no push from any other firm, the quality of the firm’s products and services may fail to match with those required by the society. In such a case, a free market becomes morally unacceptable by the society.
Brayman (1956) reveals that a free market does not consider the social benefit. In fact, such a market may consider profitability so much thus forgetting the social benefits required by the society. For instance, the firms in a free market may fail to adhere to environmental provisions that prohibit pollution. Clean environment is one of the important social responsibilities that a firm may provide to the society. However, with a free market, many firms fail to adhere to these provisions thus affecting the environment negatively due to excessive pollution from their production. As a result, they fail to deliver social benefit to the society which promotes good morals in the society. It then follows that free market is not morally acceptable in the society.
Moreover, free market promotes the issue of wealth gap between the poor and the rich in the society. Since the market encourages private ownership of a property, it opens ways for the pass of the same wealth from one generation to another. This implies that the rich will continue to be rich while the poor rot in poverty. There is no sharing of the available resources equally since the wealthy have the private ownership of their property and no interventions that may prevent them from enjoy such benefit. Widening of the wealth gap in a society is causes disasters since it is the rich who can afford the available resources and the poor cannot. It is through this argument which makes free market to be morally unacceptable in the society.
Finally, free market economy is subject to boom and bust cycles. Boom cycle brings wealth to the people of the society something that helps them to improve their standards of living. On the other hand, the bust cycle is subject to recessions that harm the economy. In fact, they reduce the purchasing power of the society members since products and services become very expensive to them. Besides, they lead to increased levels of unemployment since many firms concentrate on retrenching employees rather than employing more. The main factor that many firms consider is the need to reduce the costs of operation. As a consequence, the standards of living deteriorate making live unbearable for the society members. Such an argument clearly shows that a free market can never be morally acceptable by the members of the society (Brayman, 1956).
In conclusion, it worth noting that free market presents fewer benefits to the society than the disadvantages. The issue of monopoly of individuals and firms in a free market present the society with many problems that are very hard to solve. Free market leads to environmental pollution, low quality products and services and wealth inequality among others. Therefore, it is true to argue that free market is morally unacceptable.
References
Brayman, H. (1956). "The free market economy"; a talk as part of a panel discussion before the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, D.C., May 1, 1956. Place of publication not identified.
Ingham, G. K. (2008). Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Maandag, N. (2012). The Libertarian. Canada: Nick Maandag.
