Frequently Asked Questions
This page addresses recurring questions about Beingism and its positions on reason, free will, fulfillment, compassion, and social systems.
A useful starting point is Why Use Reason?.
You don’t know what Libertarianism is!
Libertarianism is used here in its common contemporary sense: an emphasis on minimal government, strong markets, and limited collective intervention. If you are using a more specialized definition, that difference in terminology may account for some disagreement.
You don’t know what you’re talking about!
If a specific claim is mistaken, it is worth identifying it directly. Clear disagreement about particular arguments is far more productive than general dismissal.
You should read Sowell, Rand, Friedman, Rothbard, etc.
Those authors are part of the broader intellectual landscape, as are many others who offer different perspectives. The essays here engage with these ideas at the level of argument. If a particular claim has not been addressed adequately, it is worth bringing it forward explicitly.
What is “free market fundamentalism”?
The term refers to a strong confidence that market mechanisms alone will reliably produce optimal outcomes. The comparison to “fundamentalism” is descriptive rather than rhetorical: it highlights a tendency to apply simplified models broadly, even where real-world complexity may call for additional considerations.
The free market is always better at allocating resources. Prove me wrong.
The essay Why People Are Economically Conservative outlines structural reasons why this claim does not consistently hold. If those arguments fail, the next step is to identify where they do so.
You must support systems like the USSR.
Rejecting aspects of market fundamentalism does not imply support for authoritarian systems. Beingism evaluates social arrangements based on how well they promote well-being and reduce suffering. Systems like the USSR fail that test.
Why do you support parts of the current U.S. system?
The position here is not one of blanket support. Many current policies are seen as suboptimal. The goal is to assess systems in terms of outcomes rather than align with existing political categories.
Are you avoiding labels like socialist or fascist?
Labels often obscure more than they clarify. Beingism overlaps with some forms of socialism in its emphasis on shared well-being, while rejecting authoritarian structures such as fascism. The focus remains on principles rather than labels.
Aren’t free market advocates often atheists?
The discussion is not about religious identity, but about how reasoning is applied to social systems. The same standards of evidence and coherence apply regardless of worldview.
What level of income inequality is acceptable?
There is no single fixed threshold. The relevant question is whether resources are being used in ways that effectively promote well-being. Large disparities often signal inefficiencies in that regard, particularly when marginal gains for some come at significant cost to others.
Why not debate on YouTube?
Public discussion has value, but depth is often lost across fragmented threads. The aim here is to develop arguments in a more structured and cumulative way.
Why isn’t my specific point addressed?
No single essay can cover every variation of an argument. Many common objections are addressed across the site. If something important is missing, let us know on the discussion page.
Is libertarianism compatible with compassion?
The question is whether systems that rely primarily on individual initiative and private charity reliably support those who cannot meet their own needs. Beingism is skeptical of that claim, particularly in cases involving structural disadvantage.
Are you trying to dictate values?
The aim is not to dictate values, but to examine how cooperation, reasoning, and shared well-being relate to outcomes. Individuals remain free to choose their own goals.
Do you have real-world experience with poverty?
The perspectives here are informed by a range of experiences, including work involving direct engagement with individuals facing economic and social challenges.
Isn’t it overly confident to think social programs can help?
Social systems are complex, but that does not make them beyond analysis. Evidence-based approaches can improve outcomes, even if they are imperfect.
Do libertarians reject science?
The issue is not rejection of science, but how consistently empirical reasoning is applied when evaluating economic and social claims.
Should government use science to allocate resources?
Not in a rigid, centralized sense. The relevant point is that evidence should inform systems, rather than be ignored in favor of simplified assumptions.
Should money be eliminated?
Money is a useful tool for exchange. The focus is on how resources are distributed and used, not on eliminating the mechanism itself.
Will your system lead to futuristic abundance?
Long-term outcomes are uncertain. The focus is on improving well-being with the resources and systems currently available.
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Not directly—but they do travel in ways that are more interesting than one might initially expect.