Posted on 07/31/2002 5:35:10 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
|
Freedom is often struggling to gain recognition, respect, and this is ever so true in the wake of corporate scandals. Whereas before we heard a lot from people about how freedom and free markets promote greed, hedonism, and the “me generation,” now some are denouncing freedom for being fundamentalist, purist, refusing to be compromised or diluted with other systems, such as unrestrained democracy or vigorous government oversight. Indeed, the U. S. Congress has been urged recently from many corners to unleash a new wave of government regulations that would serve to tame the allegedly out of control free market capitalism that we’ve inherited from the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. (Never mind that no such capitalism has ever existed anywhere!) But what is at stake here, actually? To be fundamentalist, intransigent or uncompromising about freedom is, recalling a well-known phrase from Barry Goldwater, no vice. Surely, abolitionists in the age of chattel slavery were fundamentalists by refusing to compromise their demand that slaves be set completely free, that it’s not enough to just let them have some time off or otherwise moderate the extremes of slavery. No, the institution must be abolished, period. No less are defenders of freedom of the press, artistic expression or religion fundamentalists about what they demand. No system of occasional, gentle censorship will do. Freedom must be absolute — only once a person has been convicted of a crime that violates the rights of others may such a person’s liberty be taken away or reduced. I am a market fundamentalist because I believe that each individual is morally, and should be politically, a sovereign person whose business (as well as other kinds of) conduct must be free of interference unless something criminal warrants its restraint. Anything else would be what most people in the press would vigorously protest, being the fundamentalists they are, namely, prior restraint. The fact is that this market fundamentalism is simply consistent demand for individual human liberty, nothing less or more. It is now targeted as something bad because “fundamentalism” has been associated with terrorism and mindlessness. But, why not be a fundamentalist here? Why should democracy, for example, be allowed to limit our economic liberty? Who are these majorities, with some kind of mysterious moral authority, to force others to conform to various terms before they may carry on their commercial or economic activities? Isn’t it the point of the famous example of the unruly lynch mob that individuals may not be sent off to the gallows or otherwise limited in their liberty unless it has been demonstrated, by way of due process, that they have forfeited their right to liberty? The innumerable government regulations already on the books and now being proposed not only seem not to be able to wipe out occasional business mal-practice but constitute a kind of democratic lynch mob action, this time on the futile grounds of precaution or prevention. By that argument the very idea of innocent until proven otherwise could be tossed and the creeping totalitarianism of police states unleashed. (Moreover, proponents of this idea are naïve in holding that regulators are immune to corruption!) If a system is in fact suited to human community life, as the free market capitalist system is, then being fundamentalist about it, refusing to compromise its principles even from a sense of urgency to prevent misconduct, is the right approach to take. It is only thoughtless, stupid fundamentalism that is objectionable, when the fundamentals are accepted on blind faith. But in the history of human economic life it is obvious that freedom is not only more productive, more efficient than the alternative of government regulation and planning, but it is also more suited to human nature, which is creative and productive when not crushed by tyranny, be it of the democratic, monarchical or single party type. In morality we tend to prize integrity, consistency and consider those who compromise to be at least partial moral failures, and rightly so. Why, then, should we give up on this kind of fundamentalism — complete, unrelenting loyalty to sound principles — in the realm of political economy? No reason is given — by the likes of Professor Benjamin Barber of the University of Maryland, who tries so hard to substitute the regime of strong democracy for that of the regime of individual liberty — except that here the people who want to rule want to persuade us that upholding and championing a principled political system amounts to ideology, to being dogmatic, to failing to be flexible. One can only surmise that they do this in the hope that they can persuade some majority to do their own bidding and rob us of the defense against such democratic tyranny. Principles help people to know how they ought to live and whether what others propose should be accepted or rejected. So, those who want to rule others don’t much like principles. Well, this trick is quite insulting and shouldn't be permitted to work. Market fundamentalism is simply being loyal to the principles of a free society, especially as it pertains to economics. Those who attempt to demean it are advocating some kind of political elitism where certain folks, maybe majorities, maybe demagogues, get to order the rest of us to do what they deem is right. I am urging that this scam be rejected in favor of, yes, unabashed market fundamentalism. Machan, who teaches at Chapman University in Orange, California, advises Freedom Communications, Inc., on public policy matters. His most recent book is Initiative — Human Agency and Society (Hoover Institution Press, 2000). His email address is Tibor_R._Machan@link.freedom.com. |
without economic liberty, there is no other liberty. once your capital (private property) is controled, what else is there to control?
thanks for posting this article.
Under the market anarchy that Mr. Machan seems to be advocating, property rights would not exist.
"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant."
--Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45
The author of this article claims to be a "market fundamentalist", and yearns for an ideal society where individual sovereignty reigns unimpeded by the "tyranny" of government. He does so in the extreme, even to the point of demonizing democratic forms of government.
Yet, unless the author desires a market as primitive as that practiced by stone-age, Native-American tribes, he ignores that a more advanced definition of property rights are necessary for development of modern market economies. And as Jefferson so eloquently points out "Government must be established and laws provided... and determine the conditions of the grant" advance socio-economic development can occur.
Jefferson also provides more widely known commentary on this issue: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
In his denunciation of democracy, the author ignores this Jeffersonian Truth, and myopicly undercuts the foundation upon which the conditions of property rights are established.
You don't think "property rights" have anything to do with capitalism and "market fundamentalism"???
See this every day around here...losers want thought-job protection---promotions too!
Excellent. Reality is not what some imagine. This idea of public property is at the core of many of our arguments on FR. Probably 99% don't 'get' it. Some will wave the Constitution like a magic wand while displaying the 9th amendment and ignoring the 4th and 5th Amendments, which doesn't help at all.
Keep chipping away at it. Now and then a light will go on, and maybe the 99% will drop to 98%.
Perhaps if it had wheels.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH
Yes, many narcissisticly assume that property rights are a given, and government only exists to protect those rights without any obligation on their part to contribute to the community which forms that government.
Jefferson refutes that assumption much more eloquently than I.
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.