
Ask HN: Does an enforced lockdown also imply a temporary end to the free market? - dustinmoris
This is a genuine question.<p>Isn&#x27;t a lockdown in a free market system inherently unfair? If some businesses are forced to shut down and many people are forced to stop working and therefore giving up their ability to provide for themselves, whilst others are allowed to continue their work then surely that is giving some <i>priviledged elites</i> an inherent and unfair advantage, not just during the lockdown but even for many months and years after, since everyone else will be in recovery mode&#x2F;damage control for quite some time while whilst others will continue to &quot;expand&quot;.<p>That makes me think that the only ethical way of enforcing a temporary lockdown would be to also transition to a temporary marxist system. Collect 100% of profits and incomes and evently distribute it across the population whilst the economy is being put on hold. I know that sounds crazy, but so does a lockdown right? If we enforce a lockdown then surely we should do it the right way?<p>Obviously if that was the case then I&#x27;m not sure if many people who are in favour of a lockdown today would be still in favour tomorrow, but everything else just feels wrong.<p>I know that on HN the majority of readers still work (from home), have above average incomes, and generally cushy lives in comparision to the general population, so it&#x27;s easy from our point of view to strognly advocate for a long and extensive lockdown, but would you all be prepared to give up 100% of your wages and live in a communist society until the lockdown has been lifted? After all who cares about economy (including yours) when lives are at risk, right?<p>If you wouldn&#x27;t be prepared to those measures, why not? Why would you not give up something yourself if it&#x27;s clearly the right thing to do, but ask others to give up theirs?
======
s1t5
> That makes me think that the only ethical way of enforcing a temporary
> lockdown would be to also transition to a temporary marxist system. Collect
> 100% of profits and incomes and evently distribute it across the population
> whilst the economy is being put on hold. I know that sounds crazy, but so
> does a lockdown right?

Your reasoning here is seriously lacking. You seem to falsely presume that the
only two viable options are the two extremes - free market or Marxism. In
reality, we never had a free market to begin with, and collecting 100% of
profits and trying to redistribute it is one of the worst possible solutions.

------
non-entity
> Isn't a lockdown in a free market system inherently unfair?

Sure, but then again, to be pendantic, we never lived in a 100% free market
and there a always regulations that prevent that whether you agree with them
or not (I personally beleive some are better than others).

Marxism is not taking money generated from a capitalist system and then
redistributing it while keeping the system in place. It's difficult to reduce
marxism to a simple definition because a lot of it is really about his various
analyses on society. The best way is probably to read his works, or a
relatively unbiased analysis of it.

Any paranoid ramblings about a Marxist takeover of the US are comical at best.
The US has a strong anti-communist history that survives today. In the past,
association with leftist groups could end up with you being persecuted and I
imagine even today overt interaction with far-left groups could get you on a
list. There is basically no one arguing for te "temporary Marxism" (which
really isn't able thing anyway) and basically no one in america would support
it. Despite what some, even in their own party would like to tell you, even
majority of democrats are far from such leftist idealogies.

------
CameronBarre
non-entity is right, we do not exist in a free market, due to government
intervention through regulations.

It's not simply 'some' businesses that are forced to shut down, it's non-
essential businesses where the majority of the work cannot be done from home.

It is true that 'some' businesses are still operating, but this has more to do
with the industry sector they've chosen to operate in, or lack of physical
constraints (if non-essential), than policy based on favoritism or even
arbitrariness.

There are always 'privileged elites' benefiting from contemporary market
conditions within a capitalist economy. You would have to count a lot of small
business owners who work hard in essential industries as privileged elites to
justify your statement, which, obviously most small business owners are not
elites on this planet.

> would you all be prepared to give up 100% of your wages and live in a
> communist society until the lockdown has been lifted?

No.

Are you aware of the magnitude of the additional money, resources, and genuine
force it would cost to convert our entire society to anything resembling
'Marxism'? There is theory out there that a highly developed and mature
capitalist system can gradually ease into socialism, but that if the
conversion is attempted before the system is ready, there will absolutely be
bloody revolution. In your scenario, how will the government force every
individual and business to give all of their profits up? By force, presumably.

As an aside, there are many conceivable 'flavors' of socialism, each with
their own themes and attributes. Most of them do not need to be filed under
'Marx'.

Hope this helps.

Edit: a word

------
p1esk
If you’re going to take all my money, why would I want to work for you?

