CHALLENGE:Walzer on free market economy and spheres of justice?

How can Walzer be pro-free-market and at the same time criticize what he calls "Fetishism of Commodities" which is described as "Commodities mediate membership" Ownership and consumption define social membership in a community. How "free" can the free market be in Walzer's conception since he gives a list of "blocked exchanges?" What do these mean and why in his philosophy of justice, are warranted?

Answer:
Not familiar with Waltzer, but most economists realize that there are certain situations where markets fail:
1)Public goods. (non-excludable, non-rival goods)
2)Natural monopolies due to economies of scale.
3)Significant externalities.

If you define "pro-free market" as being for markets when they are in the public good, then clearly there are times where you want to limit markets. If you define "pro-free market" as being for markets, regardless of the public good then you'd better pray you're never on the wrong end of a failing market. Markets aren't always the most efficient (or just) way of doing things, they are simply a tool that tends to work well the majority of the time (excludable, rival goods without significant externalities).

Walzer is probably idenifying what he views as a negative externality in some markets, which he feels should be addressed by some non-market means.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.

FunQA.com

CHALLENGE:Walzer on free market economy and spheres of justice?

Topic