Liberalism and free market are utter nonsense

Good morning, I first want to extend my thanks to the opponent for having accepted this debate: liberalism and free market are utterly nonsense.

Starting off with the major core point: what is liberalism?

Liberalism is a political and philosophical ideology centered on the values of individual freedom, equality, and limited government. Rooted in Enlightenment thought, liberalism emphasizes the protection of individual rights, the rule of law, and democratic governance. It has significantly shaped modern Western political institutions and continues to influence debates on policy, justice, and economics.

At its core, liberalism promotes the idea that individuals are autonomous agents with inherent rights to life, liberty, and property. Governments, according to liberal theory, should exist primarily to protect these rights. The legitimacy of political authority is derived from the consent of the governed, typically expressed through representative democratic institutions.

Economically, liberalism traditionally advocates for free markets, private property, and minimal state intervention—principles associated with classical liberalism. However, in the 20th century, social liberalism emerged, supporting a more active role for the state in ensuring social welfare and equal opportunities, while still upholding individual liberties.

Liberalism operates through systems such as:

‌Constitutionalism: Legal frameworks that limit government power.

‌Separation of powers: Dividing government authority among branches to prevent tyranny.

‌Checks and balances: Mechanisms to ensure accountability within governance.

‌Civil rights and liberties: Legal protections for free speech, religion, and association.

Overall, liberalism seeks to balance individual freedom with social order, aiming to create a society in which people can pursue their own goals while coexisting peacefully under shared democratic principles.

Just to make sense: I'm going to analyse every point of liberalism and why I think it isn't good for everyone.

As I mentioned before, liberalism promotes the peivatization of the means of production, the free markets and the minimal state intervention that needs to prevent the "basic rights": life, property and freedom.

Let's move on for the moment on another core point of liberalism: the free market.

A free market is an economic system characterized by the unrestricted interaction of supply and demand, where the prices of goods and services are determined through voluntary transactions between individuals and firms without significant government control or regulation. In this framework, market participants—producers, consumers, and investors—make decisions based on their own interests, with minimal interference from external authorities such as the state.

The theoretical foundation of the free market lies in classical liberal and neoclassical economic theories, notably those developed by Adam Smith, who introduced the concept of the "invisible hand" to describe the self-regulating nature of market economies. According to this view, when individuals act in pursuit of their own gain, they unintentionally contribute to the economic well-being of society as a whole.

Key features of a free market include: 

‌Private property rights, allowing individuals to own and control resources

‌Competition, which encourages efficiency, innovation, and fair pricing.

‌Decentralized decision-making, where prices serve as signals to coordinate economic activity.

‌Freedom of choice, enabling consumers and producers to decide what to buy, sell, or produce.

Although pure free markets rarely exist in practice, many modern economies incorporate free market principles to various degrees, often moderated by regulations designed to address issues such as externalities, monopolies, and income inequality. Thus, in applied contexts, free markets are typically part of a mixed economy, where market forces operate alongside governmental oversight to ensure social and economic stability.

Refocusing another time on liberalism, what is the real problem?

The real issues of liberalism, capitalism and the free market are basically the categorical violation that are done against the workers, the working class.

Let's be clear, the theoretical prevention of the basic civil rights and the liberties that belongs to the workers is, the most of the time, completely absent.

The core problem of the liberal system and the free market is the capitalist rule that should be universal, equal for everyone, but practically it is a selectively applicable rule.

Another thing of liberalism that is nonsense is the prevention and "universal protection" for the civil rights: how can you prevent for everyone the same rights if you don't change the system that literally enslaves the working class with low wages, grueling working shifts

and very questionable and poor hygiene and safety conditions?

The liberals called this supposed prevention of rights -for them are civil rights, but having free healthcare and not working as a slave are common sense, also known as social rights- "welfare".

What is really a welfare?

Welfare systems are often justified within liberal democratic societies as necessary tools to ensure individual well-being and promote social stability. Traditionally, liberal philosophy views welfare as a mechanism to guarantee a minimum standard of living, allowing individuals to participate meaningfully in society while preserving market dynamics and personal freedom. However, this approach reflects certain assumptions about the nature of inequality, the role of the state, and the structure of economic life that warrant critical examination.

At the heart of liberal thought is a commitment to individual rights, limited government, and private property. Welfare, in this context, is seen as a corrective to the failures of the market—offered selectively, often conditionally, to those unable to meet their needs through labor or personal enterprise. While this framework appears to promote fairness, it ultimately reinforces the very structures that produce economic vulnerability in the first place.

This perspective fails to interrogate the systemic roots of inequality, treating poverty as an individual misfortune rather than a predictable outcome of economic arrangements. By focusing on redistribution rather than transformation, liberal welfare policies often function to stabilize social tensions without altering the balance of power between labor and capital. The emphasis on means-testing, minimal support, and the moral distinction between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor reveals an underlying concern with preserving economic hierarchies rather than dismantling them.

Historically, welfare emerged not purely from liberal benevolence but from sustained pressure by workers' movements, mutual aid associations, and broader demands for social protection. These origins suggest that welfare is not simply a top-down concession, but the result of conflict and negotiation. Seen in this light, welfare should not merely cushion the effects of inequality, but challenge the systems that reproduce it.

In sum, while liberalism provides the language and institutional form for many welfare systems, its philosophical foundations limit how deeply welfare can address structural injustice. A more radical vision would view welfare not as compensation, but as a step toward genuine social and economic transformation.

This is a great thing thing about liberalism, isn't it? No, practically no.

Let me explain and even show you some examples of slavery and abuses done by liberalist economies.

Welfare-based economies, while committed to ensuring social protection and reducing inequality, often face significant structural and fiscal challenges. One major issue is the sustainability of public finances, as generous welfare programs require high levels of taxation, which can burden both citizens and businesses; for instance, Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Denmark maintain income tax rates above 50% to support their social systems. Additionally, welfare provisions can sometimes create disincentives to work, particularly when benefit levels are close to low-wage earnings, as seen in past debates in the United Kingdom regarding long-term unemployment and benefit dependency. Ageing populations further strain welfare states, with countries such as Germany and Italy confronting rising healthcare and pension costs amid declining birth rates and shrinking labor forces. Bureaucratic inefficiencies also weaken the impact of welfare, as illustrated by France’s complex and overlapping social support agencies, which can lead to delays, mismanagement, and increased administrative costs. Moreover, high labor costs and strict employment regulations may reduce global competitiveness, discouraging investment and innovation compared to more market-liberal economies. These challenges suggest that while welfare systems play a vital role in promoting social cohesion, they must constantly adapt to economic pressures, demographic shifts, and the demands of an increasingly globalized world.

In addition to this, going back to liberalism is the massive production and consumption done by wealth economies, which, as we can see right now, leads to massive pollution, but that's another topic that I think deserves an in-depth analysis.

So I'm losing track here my bad, we were talking about the slavery done by liberalist countries and the welfare problems.

As I mentioned before, a big issue due capitalism, liberalism and globalization is the massive production.

The massive production is a real problem that affects us, especially nowadays, because it literally promotes the slavery of the population of poor countries. 

Massive production is often based in poorer countries because it allows multinational companies to minimize costs and maximize profits through several interrelated economic and political factors. First, labor in developing countries is significantly cheaper due to lower wages, weaker labor protections, and limited unionization, making it cost-effective to relocate manufacturing there. Second, many poorer nations have fewer environmental regulations and workplace safety standards, reducing compliance costs for industries that would otherwise face stricter rules in wealthier countries. Third, these countries often offer tax incentives, subsidies, and special economic zones to attract foreign investment, creating favorable conditions for large-scale production. Additionally, global trade liberalization and supply chain networks have made it easier for companies to offshore production while still accessing global markets. For example, countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Ethiopia have become hubs for textile and electronics manufacturing due to their low production costs and large labor forces, even though workers often receive minimal wages and work in poor conditions. This model reflects the logic of liberal capitalist economies, where profit maximization frequently overrides ethical concerns about labor rights and sustainability.

A big example of massive production are fast fashion businesses.

Fast fashion refers to the rapid production of low-cost, trend-based clothing designed to move quickly from the catwalk to consumers. This business model prioritizes speed, volume, and low price, encouraging frequent purchasing and short-lived garment use. Major brands such as Zara, H&M, and Shein are known for producing new styles weekly, pressuring suppliers to manufacture at record speeds and minimal cost.

The system relies heavily on outsourced labor in developing countries, where wages are low and labor protections are often weak. For instance, in Bangladesh, garment workers earn as little as $0.33 per hour (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2023), and safety conditions remain dangerous, as demonstrated by the Rana Plaza collapse in 2013, which killed over 1,100 workers (Human Rights Watch, 2015). Despite global outcry, many brands continue to operate under similar conditions due to cost advantages.

Fast fashion also has major environmental impacts. According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the fashion industry is responsible for 8–10% of global carbon emissions, more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. It also produces 92 million tonnes of textile waste per year (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Clothing is often made from synthetic fibers like polyester, which are petroleum-based and non-biodegradable, further contributing to microplastic pollution in oceans (IUCN, 2017).

In addition to labor and environmental issues, fast fashion promotes a culture of overconsumption, where clothing is treated as disposable. Studies show that garments are now worn 36% fewer times than 15 years ago (McKinsey & Company, 2016), leading to overflowing landfills and a growing waste crisis.

Fast fashion isn't really a type of clothes, it is more like a business model that relies on poorer people, often, if not every time, enslaving them.

This is my case for now, let me know what you think about it and if you want to add something I missed I will be happy for the advices.

Hi Pierree, thanks for the debate.

I though I was debating in favor of "liberalism" but the political ideology you described is "Libertarianism," two distinctly different ideologies. I'm happy to shift though. I'll refer to libertarian free market ideology as capitalism. 

The important and undefined term here is "utter nonsense." 

As defined by Merriam Webster:

So "utter nonsense" means to be absolutely absurd and completely devoid of sensibility.

I must prove that capitalism possess at least some sense or rationality, not that it's perfect. I argue capitalism is rational because it fulfills its purpose of distributing resources through voluntary exchange. 

Meet Bob. Bob has a collection of pretty rocks, but Bob wants a flower. Steve has flowers, but he wants a pretty rock. 

Is it even just a little bit sensible for them to exchange items? 

If the answer is yes, does not the same apply on a larger scale? 

This is the free market at its core. Both parties give up something they are are willing to sacrifice and gain what they wanted. If it’s rational for Bob and Steve to trade items they both value, the system is rational. It only gets better when competition is introduced, both sides need to make their product as appealing as possible as efficiently as possible to compete. Money is simply a medium of exchange. 

Capitalism is riddled with issues, that I do not dispute. Despite it's inequality, it's not completely absurd, it fulfills its purpose of distributing resource, even if not perfectly. There is logic to the free market, which means it is not "utter nonsense." 

First of all, I want to apologize again for the previous misunderstanding due to language-related issues. Thank you for your patience and for the opportunity to return to the discussion. Let’s now address the core of your argument, specifically your claim that capitalism is rational because it fulfills its purpose of distributing resources through voluntary exchange. I must respectfully disagree with this assertion.

The current global economic situation demonstrates that capitalism, in practice, fails to achieve this ideal. Rather than distributing resources fairly or voluntarily, the system perpetuates profound inequalities across and within nations. For instance, garment workers in Bangladesh and China are paid as little as three pence per item, often working up to 18-hour days in unsafe conditions—situations not chosen freely, but forced by economic necessity. Similarly, the British ferry operator P&O employs international seafarers at £4.87 per hour, well below the UK minimum wage, by exploiting offshore labor loopholes. On a broader scale, global trade continues to reflect unequal exchange: raw materials from low-income countries are exported at low prices, while finished products in wealthy nations command vastly higher value. These structural imbalances expose the myth of voluntariness in market exchanges, revealing instead a system shaped by asymmetrical power, legal arbitrage, and systemic inequality.

You also referenced the free market using a simplified analogy—Bob trades a pretty rock with Steve for a flower, both want what the other has, so they exchange voluntarily. While that works in theory or at a small scale, it is not how the global free market functions in reality. On a large scale, the free market is theoretically based on decentralized coordination through supply and demand, price mechanisms, and competition without state intervention. In this view, producers respond to consumer preferences, innovation is encouraged, and resources are allocated efficiently. However, in practice, global markets are dominated by multinational corporations and wealthy states, which possess disproportionate influence over trade rules, labor conditions, and financial systems. Countries and workers do not compete on equal footing: disparities in labor standards, infrastructure, and political leverage make the playing field inherently skewed.

The consequence of this is a race to the bottom in wages and protections, where corporate profits are prioritized over human well-being. The so-called “decentralized coordination” often translates into exploitative labor systems, enabled by global supply chains that extract value through ethical compromises. Overconsumption, driven by capitalist imperatives, requires cheap labor and raw materials, which in turn leads powerful actors to restrict the freedoms of others—particularly in poorer nations—in order to maintain profit margins. This contradiction reveals how a system that preaches liberty often depends on the erosion of liberty elsewhere. What we are witnessing is not the natural functioning of a free market, but the unraveling of a system built on unsustainable extraction and inequality.

This logic extends to the role of money itself. Contrary to the classical view of money as a neutral medium of exchange, today's global system uses money as a tool of control and domination. In a world marked by authoritarian tendencies, corporate consolidation, and ecological overshoot, monetary flows are not designed to meet human needs but to maximize consumption, profit, and compliance. Speculative finance, consumer debt, and algorithmic pricing mechanisms trap individuals and countries in cycles of dependency and degradation. Central banks, private financial institutions, and supranational actors effectively dictate global outcomes while remaining shielded from democratic accountability. In this context, money no longer facilitates mutual exchange—it becomes a mechanism for systemic extraction under the illusion of growth.

The effects are becoming undeniable. In Italy, for example, the deterioration of worker protections is visible. Just this month, a referendum aiming to repeal recent laws that undermine worker safety failed to pass. As a result, we are now forced to live under regulations that may further endanger the working class. And while this is a national example, it echoes a broader pattern that is playing out across many countries: economic instability, political disillusionment, and the erosion of human dignity in labor.

To conclude, what we are experiencing globally today is clear evidence that free market capitalism, especially in its libertarian form, is failing. It promotes a toxic system rooted in overconsumption, systemic inequality, and self-destructive incentives. A system designed to self-sabotage cannot claim to be rational or just. I would welcome the opportunity to further explore potential resolutions or alternatives with you, if you are open to continuing this discussion.

 

There is a huge amount of space between perfectly rational, as you are describing here, and utter nonsense. Capitalism lies somewhere in that area. 

Yes, the free market, like everything, is littered with flaws. These flaws however do not reduce this system to complete irrationality. Capitalism also possesses a lot of benefits, including the ones I mentioned last round.

I fully concede that every issue you have brought up thus far is indeed problematic. However, I still assert that because of the aforementioned benefits of capitalism, and the absence of another system that has managed to compete with capitalism, that there is at least a small amount of good sense in the system. 

I'm sorry for the brevity of my argument, I had to write it on my phone, my conclusion will be more thorough. 

Capitalism has many downsides, but there are reasons it has become the dominant system globally. Along with its flaws it also boasts an array of benefits, chief among them being general prosperity, which in this context is an umbrella term for things such as income, health, environment, and equal rights. The freedom of a market is also strongly correlated with levels of innovation, innovations which are a necessity in the battle against key problems such as climate change and poverty, innovations which will help us in the long run. 

Democratic socialism, like everything, is far from perfect: 

Capitalism, like all systems, has its problems, though it also has several major upsides. My burden of proof was to demonstrate capitalism is not utter nonsense, and I believe I have shown that capitalism posses some amount of good sense beyond the amount needed to fulfill the burden. 

For  these reasons I assert that capitalism is far from utter nonsense.

Vote con!

Thanks for the debate! I enjoyed reading your arguments, they were some of the strongest critiques of capitalism I've seen. Even though I'm a big believer in progressive capitalism I agreed with most of what you said throughout.