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. |
"I am urging that this scam be rejected in favor of, yes, unabashed market fundamentalism.
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."
This is exactly what has already happened in in govt.-schools-education-science...evolution/atheism----'libbertearalien'-taliban!
Although Jefferson could not have posssibly imagined the marvels of Maglev technology, there is no doubt that he would have recognized Government's right of eminent domain in the acquisition of public rights-of-way for travel and transportation purposes.
As far as public funding of such endeavors, it can be truthfully stated that, while Jefferson generally approved of such public funding, he also deplored the potential for abuse such projects presented.
"A most powerful objection always arises to propositions of [public works]. It is that public undertakings are carelessly managed and much money spent to little purpose."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1784. Papers 7:27
"I experience great satisfaction at seeing my country proceed to facilitate the intercommunications of its several parts, by opening rivers, canals and roads. How much more rational is this disposal of public money, than that of waging war."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Ross, 1786. ME 5:320
"I view [a proposition respecting post roads] as a source of boundless patronage to the executive, jobbing to members of Congress and their friends, and a bottomless abyss of public money. You will begin by only appropriating the surplus of the post office revenues; but the other revenues will soon be called into their aid, and it will be a source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest.
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:324
"The fondest wish of my heart ever was that the surplus portion of [those] taxes destined for the payment of that debt [contracted in the Revolutionary war] should, when that object was accomplished, be continued by annual or biennial re-enactments and applied in time of peace to the improvement of our country by canals, roads and useful institutions, literary or others; and in time of war to the maintenance of the war."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:354
Of course nobody can say for certain what position Jefferson would take on Maglev. However, he is generally recognized for having been a "Renaisance Man" of his era, very inquisitive and appreciative of scientific invention. Combined with his advocacy of American liberty, independence and self-sufficiency, I like to believe that he would have supported construction of mass-transportation systems as a means of alleviating our dependence on foreign oil. Of course, being as frugal as he was, he would also have been extremely watchful over the sensibility of such expenditures.
Your efforts to restrict the vocabulary used in discussion of economic concepts to that employed by the author is hysterically adolescent. If you see no connection between "property rights", "capitalism" and "market fundamentalism", then there is no reason for anybody on this thread to take your input seriously.
Yeah, yeah, we know. It's all about you.
You get a chance to participate in an intelligent discussion on economic philosophy, and all you do is try to play the little elusive political spindoctor with the semantics.
How boringly superficial!
What's the matter? Is your libertarian peabrain so fried on drugs that you can't grasp such intellectual concepts?
Heck, even that tutti-fruitti weikel tried to contribute when he babbled "Democracy needs to go as well."
Yeah, you're right tpaine. It's all about you.
Pot will amplify your paranoia like that.
The government is out to suppress all your rights.
Everybody you talk to attacks you because they disagree with you.
Poor little tpaine. Nobody understands. They just don't get it.
Nobody likes you, everybody hates you.
Let us know when you get out of rehab, tpaine.
"Whatever", dude.
If you think I'm "freaking out", then I guess I must be "freaking out".
If nothing else, I do acknowledge that libertarians gotta be freaking experts on "freaking out".
Yes, "till then" certainly implies that the establishment of government is a prerequisite to the establisment of property rights. But he also states that it is up to government to "determine the conditions of the grant." It is this constraint that the author of the ariticle rails against in anarchist fashion.
The anatomy of tyranny via idealism----denial of reality/human nature; i.e., fascism---state economic control!
Sure he does.
Just who do you think Jefferson is referring to when he mentions "the body of the nation" or "their chief as trustee"???
Thomas Jefferson is quite eloquent in his prose, and he doesn't limit his vocabulary to a dull, redundant and boringly repetitious use of government, government, government, government, government... every time he is referring to government.
But it is quite clear from the quote that "the body of the nation" or "their chief as trustee" or GOVERNMENT is the one who determines the conditions of the grant.
'Be reasonable, Mr. Galt, or we'll have to use other methods...';^)
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.