Gregory Velazco Y Trianosky Phil 305 Business Ethics Spring

Gregory Velazco Y Trianoskyphil 305 Business Ethicsspring 2014take

Explain the two types of free market philosophies, as we have defined them in class: the laissez-faire philosophy and the competitive philosophy. What is the goal of competitive philosophy? Give some real-world examples of government strategies that might promote the goal of competitive philosophy. Does laissez-faire philosophy have a goal? Explain. Give some real-world examples of programs presently funded by the government that would no longer exist in a laissez-faire society. Given the choice between these two philosophies, which one do you think makes more sense, considered as a philosophy of social justice? Why?

Paper For Above instruction

The concepts of free market philosophies—namely laissez-faire and competitive philosophies—serve as foundational ideas in understanding economic and social organization within a capitalist framework. Both philosophies aim at approaching the ideal of free and fair competition in markets; however, they differ significantly in their principles, objectives, and the roles attributed to government intervention. This essay explores these two philosophies, their respective goals, and their implications for social justice, providing real-world examples to contextualize these theoretical perspectives.

Understanding the Laissez-Faire Philosophy

The laissez-faire philosophy advocates for minimal government interference in economic affairs, emphasizing the primacy of individual liberty, private property rights, and voluntary transactions. Deriving from classical liberal thought, it posits that free markets, when left to their own devices, organically tend toward efficiency, innovation, and wealth creation. According to this view, the role of government should be restricted to safeguarding citizens from physical force, theft, fraud, and breaking of contracts, thus establishing a secure environment for free enterprise (Gwartney & Stroup, 2017).

The goal of laissez-faire is to foster a self-regulating market where prices, production, and distribution are determined solely by supply and demand forces. Advocates argue that such a system maximizes individual freedom, encourages entrepreneurship, and results in optimal resource allocation without distortions from government interventions (Mankiw, 2014). For example, in a pure laissez-faire society, government-funded programs like public healthcare, social security, or welfare services would be abolished or significantly limited, leading to a landscape where only private enterprises operate. This would mark a radical departure from current mixed economies that combine market mechanisms with social safety nets.

The Competitive Philosophy and Its Objectives

In contrast, the competitive philosophy recognizes that markets often fall short of the ideal perfect competition due to externalities, monopolies, and information asymmetries. Consequently, it advocates for government intervention through regulations, antitrust laws, and policies designed to promote competition, prevent monopolies, and protect consumers. Its central goal is to create a level playing field where myriad firms can compete fairly, ensuring efficiency, innovation, and consumer choice (Stiglitz, 2012).

Government strategies that align with competitive philosophy include enforcing antitrust laws to break up monopolies, regulating monopolistic practices, subsidizing innovation, and ensuring transparency in markets. For instance, the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911 exemplifies efforts to dismantle monopolistic dominance and restore competitive dynamics (U.S. Supreme Court, 1911). Similarly, modern policies against predatory pricing or exclusive contracts further serve to promote a competitive environment. These interventions aim at maintaining consumer sovereignty and preventing market failures that could undermine social justice.

Goals of the Two Philosophies: Social Justice Perspectives

The laissez-faire philosophy, by emphasizing individual responsibility and minimal state intervention, often aligns with a view of social justice rooted in economic freedom and autonomy. It posits that a free market is the most just mechanism for ensuring equitable distribution of resources because it allows individuals to pursue their interests without undue restraint (Nozick, 1974). However, critics argue that unregulated markets tend to produce inequalities, neglecting social disparities and vulnerabilities that need collective redress.

The competitive philosophy, with its emphasis on regulating market power to prevent exploitation and monopolies, aims to promote social justice by ensuring fair access to resources and opportunities. For example, antitrust laws and social programs are mechanisms embedded in this philosophy to correct market failures and alleviate poverty (Sen, 2009). By advocating for government intervention to foster competition, this approach seeks to rectify social injustices arising from market concentrations of power and economic disparities.

Analysis and Personal Perspective

Considering the principles and implications of both philosophies, I argue that the competitive philosophy offers a more comprehensive framework for social justice. While laissez-faire promotes individual liberty, its neglect of market failures and inequalities often projects social disparities and injustices (Piketty, 2014). Conversely, the competitive approach acknowledges the imperfections inherent in markets and seeks to mitigate their adverse effects through targeted public policies. For example, social safety nets, anti-monopoly regulations, and consumer protections serve as instruments to promote equitable growth and fairness (Stiglitz, 2012).

In a modern context, where information asymmetries, monopolistic practices, and income inequalities are prevalent, reliance solely on laissez-faire policies could exacerbate social injustices. Conversely, a balanced application of the competitive philosophy can leverage market efficiencies while ensuring that collective efforts address social inequities, fostering a more just society (Rawls, 1971).

Conclusion

In conclusion, both the laissez-faire and competitive philosophies seek to promote efficiency and freedom within markets, but they diverge in their approach to social justice. The laissez-faire philosophy emphasizes minimal constraints, trusting market forces to allocate resources efficiently, whereas the competitive philosophy advocates for regulatory measures to ensure fair competition and protect vulnerable groups. Given the complexities of modern economies and the persistent presence of social inequalities, the competitive philosophy appears more aligned with contemporary notions of social justice, as it actively seeks to balance economic efficiency with fairness.

References

  • Gwartney, J., & Stroup, R. (2017). Economics, Private and Public Choice: An Introduction. Cengage Learning.
  • Mankiw, N. G. (2014). Principles of Economics. Cengage Learning.
  • Naomi Klein. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Metropolitan Books.
  • Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.
  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
  • Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W. W. Norton & Company.
  • U.S. Supreme Court. (1911). Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States. 221 U.S. 1.
  • Wikipedia contributors. (2023). Perfect competition. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
  • Wikipedia contributors. (2023). OPEC. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
  • Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.

Related Assignments