Should the just society contain a free market?

Why it might be thought that a just society should contain a free market? Is there something about the intrinsic nature of a free market such that a just society cannot do without one (e.g. it might be argued that only in a free market can people get what they deserve)? Or is the connection more contingent? A society without a free market might not be as prosperous as one with it, so Rawlsian justice requires a (modified?) free market? On the other hand are there significant elements of injustice in a free market? Inequality or exploitation, for example.

Does the free market enhance liberty or restrict it? Would any other economic system enhance it more?

Friedman and Nozick on the way the free market allows people to do what they want to do. Cohen, on how, in the capitalist market, lack of money equals lack of freedom. Marx on the market as a realm in which we are playthings of alien forces. Will the planned economy improve on any of this in any respect. Also the idea that positive freedoms (living an autonomous life) may, for many people, be more available outside the formal economy than within it.

‘The question whether capitalism or socialism is more “efficient” may interest economists, but is of no concern to a political philosopher.’ Discuss.

A difficult but interesting question. What does it mean to say that one form of economy is more efficient than another? Is there some sense in which this is related to the sort of things that philosophers think about? Well-being, for example. Is an efficient economy always better than an inefficient one, or are there other factors that can be more important? If there are such other factors, does this mean that philosophers shouldn’t be interested in questions of efficiency, or is it rather that this is just one factor to take into account alongside others.

‘Regulating the free market is a mistake from the point of view both of economic efficiency and of individual liberty’. Discuss.

Two different issues here, and both need discussing. On efficiency, the claim is made that any intervention in the market makes it less effective as an information spreading and incentive giving device. The counter claim is that intervention aids efficiency both to deal with externalities and to avoid monopolies. On liberty, see above.

EITHER (a) ‘In the free market the price of every factor of production —including labour— reflects its contribution to production. Therefore in the free market exploitation is impossible.’ Discuss.

A somewhat technical question. It presupposes that exploitation consists in the fact that labourers get paid less than they contribute to production. However the theory of the free market suggests that this cannot happen beyond the very short term, as the laws of supply and demand regulate prices in such a way that everything is paid according to its marginal contribution. Marx answers that the laws of supply and demand work in a different way concerning labour. When wages are higher, capitalists will start to invest in labour saving machines, and so wages will fall back again. This way excess profits can be made by employing (exploiting) labour. Your task would be to explain all of this clearly, and assess both sides of the argument.

OR (b) Can utilitarian arguments be used to defend the free market?

A relatively straightforward question. Should a utilitarian endorse an unmodified, unregulated free market, or something else (maybe a modified, regulated one?) You need to think about monopolies, externalities and the plight of the poor. Utilitarianism may recommend that some areas of life are not ‘contaminated’ by the market.

‘In the free market everyone gets what they deserve. This is why interventions in the market lead to injustice.’ Discuss.

What is desert? Is there a sense in which the free market rewards desert? Does it always do this? Can regulations make rewards more in line with desert in some cases? How important to justice is the notion of desert in any case?

How should we understand the notion of ‘exploitation’? Is exploitation, so understood, inevitable in the capitalist free market?

What is exploitation? Can it be defined? What is the free market? What is the capitalist free market? Given your definitions, is there any way of operating the capitalist free market so that there is no exploitation? Think of the defence of the free market that it only involves voluntary exchange. Is this enough to show that there is no exploitation, or is exploitation consistent with voluntary exchange. Is capitalism compatible with the idea of fair exchange between worker and capitalist.

‘The economic market transforms and distorts human values.’ Discuss.

Marx on money. Radin, Anderson on ‘commodification’. The idea of blocked exchanges, and what happens when they become unblocked.