https://www.reddit.com/r/Objectivism/comments/1inip4s/responding_to_a_tired_capitalism_critique/
created by twozero5 on 12/02/2025 at 04:24 UTC
8 upvotes, 4 top-level comments (showing 4)
I have not seen many other objectivists, capitalists, or even libertarians, raise this point, but it’s the critique that is often phrased like such, “a hungry man isn’t free”
this phrase is usually used as some nail in the coffin critique of capitalism, and to clearly spell it out, this is trying to illustrate a “work or die” dichotomy as immoral.
this response will be twofold, one biological & the other philosophical.
to take the most straight forward approach, let us turn to biology. if one does not meet/exceed the requirements for life, one will die. in the simplest form possible, death can be considered non action. goal oriented action is all ultimately aimed at sustaining and furthering an organisms life. as objectivists, we understand that life is the standard of value, or phrased another way, it is the ultimate value. value is that which one acts to gain or keep. forget capitalism or a market based system for a moment, taking no life sustaining action will result in death. ultimately, this critique of capitalism amounts to a complaint launched against man’s nature as a certain kind of being that must take definite action to further their survival. it is an attack on man’s nature.
to turn in a slightly more philosophical direction, let us examine this. a hungry man is not free? if a man is not free, why is this? the inhibition of man’s freedom comes at the hands of force. the concept of force presupposes at least one other individual. to clarify this point, take person A. alone on an island, person A cannot coerce themselves. if we have another person enter the island, person B, we can conceive of coercive situations now. with that point being identified, let us think of capitalism again. capitalism is the social, economic, and political system predicated upon the recognition of individual rights. a system that leaves man free to act as they see fit, along with a proper government that extracts force from the market, cannot be considered coercive. if no one is enacting force upon you to violate your rights, you are free. there is a fallacy of false equivalence taking place in the hungry man argument. the equivalence comes from taking freedom to mean that your needs are maintained by others parasitically, instead of the individual being free from force to produce the necessary content to further their own life. in one case, you are forcing others to maintain your life due to your non action. in the other case, you are free from the force of men to pursue those values which further your life.
the socialist/communist/liberal is engaged in a brutal battle with man’s metaphysical nature, and they’re spitting in the face of reality. the crops are not coercing you when they fail to yield a harvest. because you’re choosing to exist, and you��re certain type of being, you must take such action to further and sustain your life; this is the moral life.
a quick thank you to everyone who engages with my work and leaves constructive comments or compliments. i appreciate all the feedback, and i have a few other small pieces in the works, with many others planned in the future. thank you!
Comment by jarmzet at 12/02/2025 at 16:58 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
He might or might not be politically free. He isn't free of hunger. The argument is equivocating on what freedom is. Also, it is possible that a person finds themselves in such dire straights that they are outside of morality and politics. A person in a real emergency situation is not constrained by normal morality or politics. The argument is related to that. This is one reason it's a good idea to help people who are good people and need it. People like that can be dangerous. They might do things to survive that put other people and their property in danger.
Comment by RobinReborn at 12/02/2025 at 23:12 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Let's just accept the premise and see where it takes us.
A hungry man isn't free. So somebody else must feed him. But then that person isn't free either - because in addition to feeding themself they need to feed someone else. So how to we find this freedom? Well it exists in semi-capitalist countries. Hunger is not a significant issue in those countries. Obesity is the issue in those countries.
Comment by tkyjonathan at 13/02/2025 at 10:41 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
You can just reply that capitalism is associated more with obesity than it is with hunger.
But to reply directly a hungry is free, he is just hungry. Freedom means political freedom which the hungry man has. Having more choices has nothing to do with political freedom.
Comment by Mav-Killed-Goose at 12/02/2025 at 04:57 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
goal oriented action is all ultimately aimed at sustaining and furthering an organisms life. as objectivists, we understand that life is the standard of value, or phrased another way, it is the ultimate value.
This is itself at odds with biology -- and a serious misunderstanding of "man's nature." Inasmuch as organisms have a goal, reproduction is prioritized above survival.
the inhibition of man’s freedom comes at the hands of force. the concept of force presupposes at least one other individual.
This leads to incoherence. It also helps elucidate the limits of "negative liberty." Suppose a wealthy man is forced to crash land on a deserted island. He's completely free because no one is interfering in his life. Nobody has ever been so "free." Granted, he has no meaningful relationships (hopefully he finds a volleyball). He's also free to starve and struggle to survive. Meanwhile, people back in civilization get to play the game of life in easy mode, but they must pay taxes. It's instructive what the vast majority of humanity prefers.
Hungry people face a background of coercion; others are all too happy to take advantage of those circumstances. However, "free to choose" entails having meaningful options. I have heard self-identified socialists complain that capitalism is a "struggle," but as you suggest above, life itself is a struggle. The struggle is not necessarily inherent to capitalism. Prior to market economies, people were much hungrier and poorer.
Under relatively generous welfare capitalism (say, the homogenous Northern European countries -- the gold standard), it's not really the desperately poor who are forcing others to maintain their standard of living. Poor, marginalized people are not voting and fighting for robust social safety nets; it's mostly the sharp elbows of the middle-class. As societies get wealthier (and less religious), there's more government-backed social insurance as a hedge against poverty. Maybe people SHOULD not vote this way, but they do, likely because they see themselves in the poor.