I’m considering using the term “free market” to describe my position less frequently. While to me, “free market” means an economy in which everyone is free to engage in whatever peaceable economic arrangements they want, I think the term has different meanings for many people, and it is not optimal to challenge this idea in everything I write.

Because of the way authoritarians have used terms like free market to mean other things, a lot of people seem to look at the term as signifying 1) a state of affairs in which ruling classes are free to market everything – including things that don’t belong to them, 2) an impersonal market free to make commodities out of all aspects of life, or 3) some combination of 1 and 2.

It is often useful to challenge this perception of a free market, especially for people who are more into economics than myself. But for me it will often probably be easier to use a term like “consensual society” instead. Sure, I will continue to contrast a “truly free market” or “freed market” with “the current authoritarian economy” but I don’t see why I should draw this out in every essay I write. The subject is more deserving of full essays than asides in tangentially related essays.

I like “consensual society” better than “voluntary society” because “voluntary” might imply either consent or acquiescence, while “consensual” implies more of a freedom to refuse. Also, while a lot of great people who do a lot for liberty call themselves voluntaryists, I’ve seen people use “the voluntary society” in a way that disassociates with anarchism. This has included defending contradictions like “voluntary government”. Rather than using consensual society as a substitute for anarchy, I would use it in place of “free market” or when “anarchy” makes a sentence awkward (eg “In a consensual society, X would happen like Y). Writing in a way that equates consent with anarchy will also be less confusing to many than would equating markets with anarchy.

Of course, I will use free market terminology when I think it will foster communication and promote greater understanding (like by contrasting it to the current authoritarian economy) or when I think it will get more people to think about anarchism (like presenting pamphlets as “free market literature” to libertarian-leaning conservatives). In both cases, it is a truthful use of the market terminology that can help people understand the world better. When it isn’t necessary to go into ideas about markets, I’ll just use consent terminology, as that seems to generally convey the ideas better and strikes closer to the root anyway (methods of exchange are just ways to express consensual organization).

Somewhat related: Can Anybody Ever Consent To The State?

(EDIT) Also related: Hermes In The Agora

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 7th, 2010 at 2:11 pm and is filed under libertarian. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.