Existentialism and Free Markets: A Perfect Match?

MarcMadness Tue, 01/05/2016 - 18:03
Forums: 

In the inaugural episode of 2016, host Marc Clair welcomes in philosophy professor and author of “The Free Market Existentialist: Capitalism without Consumerism”, Bill Irwin! Bill describes his early philosophical influences, and how he came into the ideas of individual liberty and free markets later in life through the fictional work of Ayn Rand. Marc and Bill discuss the concept of existentialism, why Bill doesn’t believe in natural rights, and just how an existentialist philosophy can lead one to embrace free markets and individual liberty.

 

 

For full show notes head over to Lions of Liberty!

What is the category of this post? (choose up to 2): 
MarcMadness's picture
About the author
Live long...and live free Lionsofliberty.com
MarcMadness's picture

Hey man, long time no type!

I don't know if they are the "same thing" per se, but I think you are spot on to make the connection between why,humans contrast for institutions to,protect rights; and that's because they are an inherent part of our nature. I don't hold Bill's view on this at all, but I really enjoyed the conversation.

Thanks for listening!

Live long...and live free

Lionsofliberty.com

mwstroberg's picture

you mentioned on the show that there was someone you felt had a good argument in defense of the existence of natural rights. I don't remember his name. Could you point me to his article outlining such a defense?

Thanks.

.

MarcMadness's picture

Not an article but a book "Reason and Liberty" by Shayne Wissler. The book is linked to in the show notes page. 

http://lionsofliberty.com/2016/01/04/172/

I believe you can also find it on LeanPub. 

https://leanpub.com/reasonandliberty

 

Live long...and live free

Lionsofliberty.com

mwstroberg's picture

to C2P.

Pardon me for being a moron here, but I do not see any morphological difference between "rights are a human construct we contract for," and "rights are tangible things which are inherent in our nature." Don't most natural rights theorists approve of these rights because they are "good for us," i.e. they are consistent with our nature? Is this not saying the same thing as "we contract for these protections," because, in our view, "they are good for us," i.e they are consistent with our nature?

Your guest seems to think that there is a describable human nature. If this is true, then, it seems to me, that property rights are inherent, at the very least, in most people's nature, as most people would desire to live in an ordered world.

Please explain to me how these concepts are, at their root, of a different nature. Perhaps I just don't have the necessary conceptual capacity to see the delineation.

The only way I can see rights not existing in a tangible fashion, is that protection of rights, certainly, is NOT guaranteed, even if in some fashion rights are guaranteed by our nature. But they are no less real because they are simply human constructs which benefit us, because of our nature.

.

MarcMadness's picture

See my comment elsewhere on the thread, for some reason it came in as a new comment instead of a reply.

Live long...and live free

Lionsofliberty.com