Posted on 05/08/2002 8:03:25 AM PDT by RJCogburn
In a May 1 editorial, the Washington Post called on Cuban dictator Fidel Castro to honor a petition signed by 10,000 Cuban citizens demanding that a national referendum be called on freedom of expression, free elections, the right to private enterprise, and amnesty for political prisoners. The Post correctly praised those 10,000 people for putting “their names to an initiative that essentially seeks to replace Mr. Castro’s stale totalitarianism with the political and economic freedom that now prevails everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere.”
But what is meant by the term “economic freedom”?
Does it mean the economic freedom that characterized the United States, say in 1890, or does it mean the “economic freedom” that characterizes the modern-day welfare state in America?
By economic freedom, our ancestors meant: no income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, public schooling, occupational licensure, drug laws, immigration controls, trade restrictions, and economic regulations. That’s why Americans in 1890 lived without any of those things.
On the other hand, to advocates of the socialistic welfare state, “economic freedom” means the extent to which government has the unfettered power to watch over and take care of the citizenry and to tax them to pay for such care and control. Thus, the paternalistic government programs that our ancestors rejected as violations of economic freedom are embraced by welfare-state advocates as essential aspects of “economic freedom.”
This raises an interesting question: How many advocates of the welfare state in America would favor the following aspects of Cuba’s socialist economic system: income taxation, old-age assistance, public schooling, national health care, welfare, coercive redistribution of wealth, economic equality, drug laws, occupational licensure, immigration controls, trade restrictions, and economic regulations? Indeed, how many welfare statists would endorse the Cuban government’s gun-control laws?
In the same editorial, the Post argues that the U.S. embargo against Cuba should not be lifted. But what’s an embargo if not the deprivation of economic liberty of American citizens? Doesn’t economic liberty entail the right to do what you want with your own money? If the federal government can punish an American citizen for spending his money in Cuba, how is that different in principle from the Cuban government’s restrictions on what Cubans can do with their own money?
Excellent post, and a legitimate question.
A couple of points, though. In the 1890s America, there were immigration controls and trade restrictions. The former were in place for many reasons and took many forms, not the least of which was the requirement that immigrants be limited in number, and that they must be able to be self-sufficient. That, in great part, eliminated the need for welfare, etc.
And the Federal government funded itself with trade tariffs, which is why it needed no income tax. Because it was also much smaller (again, much less social spending) it did not need as much, and was able to sustain itself on said tariffs.
Able? What does that mean? Two arms, two legs? It might have been "expected" that they would be self-sufficient, but any requirement back then -- when schooling wasn't particularly needed for much of anything -- would have been a silly requirement -- even if it could be defined.
This is like asking, if a mother spanks a child once, how is this different from murder? Violence is violence.
Do such questions even need an answer?
Rabid anti-government types do not even bother to think: they deny any group activity whatever.
This is very much similar to any private company. Shareholders hire a manager, who takes care of everyday decisions. He or she may decide to upgrade a copy machine tomorrow and reject a suggestion that the money is better spent on office expansion.
Does that constitute an affront on the freedom of the shareholders? Of course not. This is the essence of delegated authority. Note the parallel: the manager's action may be contrary to the opinion of a few shareholders, just like Cuban embargo may be a policy with which some Americans disagree. If majority of shareholders dislike the measures, they will replace the manager. The parallel still holds: we as a people replace our administration when we are dissatisfied with the course of action. Thus, if the author is against the government's actions, he should also oppose the vary structure of share companies --- the backbone of the capitalist system.
Moreover, he should abandon any group activity. This is because in any group activity, there is delegation of authority. There is always a chance that after the authority has been delegated, one may not like the action resulting from the exercise of that authority. If you get together with a bunch of friends for dinner, someone else pick out a restaurant, and you don't like that choice post factum, should you be screaming that you freedom was curtailed? If you did, you would be laughed out of that restaurant.
Conversely, if you do not object to delegation of authority, you should not view embargo as an affront on your freedom by the government; there is nothing the government does here what a private company does not.
Which is why extremists such as the author are silly anarchists: in the end there are no groups for anything. They are really silly, because in the next sentence they usually scream about the sacred property rights, forgetting that it is the government that enforces them.
Not really. Shareholders can, and may, sell their shares and have no more to do with the company if they do not agree with the decisions of management.
That is not quite true: you are thinking of (i) public companies for which secondary markets are available, (ii) minor shareholders. And you disregard the possibility that a citizem, too, may "sell shares" by emigrating. This is not a rare occasion at all: America was formed this way.
Most businesses in this country are not publicly traded. For someone who has spent his lifetime building up a business, to sell it is extremely emptionally traumatic and may, given the absence of the market, lead to financial ruin. That is, it may be suffering comparable to leaving one's country. Further, everything I said in the previous post applies to partnerships, not just corporations. Partnerships, too, hire managers to delegate authority. A prtner cannot "sell shares:" the parnership ceases to exist typically when one of the partners withdraws.
Finally, your criterion must also be addressed. When someone compares, as I did, two entities, he does so with respect to a specific characteristic. It is clear that two entities differ, so they may differ in at least one characteristic.
I never claimed that the government is equivalent to a corporation in all respects. To refute what I did not claim is a red herring. What I said was that they are similar in terms of delegation of authority. In fact, in terms of this characteristic, the citizen-government relationship is similar to many other. There is even a term for that: the principal-agent relationship, which is the subject of investigation by law and economics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.