About Me

Name: WRH Bill (aka...
Location: Cleveland, OH
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Is the Free Market Magic?

Posted by WRH Bill (aka Mr. Bill) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:16:48 AM
I don't claim to be a real expert on economics (some would say I'm not a real expert on anything:-) but I do have a general familiarity with the free-market economic ideas espoused by people like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand, etc.  I believe in the free market, in the idea expressed by Friedman that"a lack of belief in the free market is, at bottom, a lack of belief in freedom itself".  But some would say my time is over.  Not only liberals and leftists but some conservatives as well are attributing the current economic crisis to the failure of free-market ideas and suggesting that free-market economic libertarianism is, or soon will be, dead.  It is particularly common to sneer at people who believe in "the magic of the free market".

Well, up to a point, they're right to sneer. The free market isn't magic. Magic, unfortunately, doesn't exist.  (I enjoy a lot of fantasy fiction in which magic does exist, but I try not to confuse it with the real world.)  Enthusiasts who speak of the magical free market as it it could solve all economic problems painlessly and make the world a utopia of plenty for everyone, if only the market was allowed to function completely unrestricted by government, are way overstating their case.

The free market is a way in which fallible human beings carry out their affairs in a decidedly non-magical and often harsh material world.  Being part of the free market doesn't prevent people from making mistakes and being foolish, short-sighted, dishonest, and, yes, greedy (though I would define "greed" as wanting what one has not earned rather than simply wanting "more" or "too much").  Relatively free markets have helped people create tremendous wealth and spread it around widely, but the free market cannot guarantee that everyone will always have everything they need, want, or even deserve. 

But the basic alternative to free-market ideas is advocacy of government controlling the economy; having politicians and bureaucrats and voters make economic decisions instead of buyers and sellers and private owners; using the power of government (which is, ultimately, the power to point a gun and say "Do what I tell you or I'll kill you")  to overrule and change private economic decisions.  It is assumed that getting government involved produces better results than relying on "the whims of the market".  But there's one basic problem (at least) with this idea:  Government isn't magic either.  I said human beings acting freely in a free market are fallible, and they are.  But government is made up of human beings too, and they are just as fallible, if not more so.  Getting a government job never made anyone wiser or more moral than they were before.  Politicians and bureaucrats and voters are just as prone to foolishness and short-sigtedness and selfishness (the bad, non-Randian kind of selfishness) and just plain error, as are owners and managers and buyers and sellers on the free market.  Moreover, government still operates in that mean ole material world where you can't get something for nothing and things never will be perfect. 

And as free-marketeers from Adam Smith on down have understood, while the free market is no absolute guarantee against mistakes being made and bad things happening, it does have certain "invisible hand" advantages that tend to make selfish and greedy people work for the general good and to punish screwups before they get completely out of hand.  When government thinks it can do things better than the free market, what it often does is the equivalent of putting a penny in the fuse box-- and keeping things humming along nicely *until* the fire breaks out and everything blows up.  I don't claim to fully understand what all caused the current economic crisis, and I don't deny that the kind of human screwups that happen even in free markets had a lot to do with it.... but I also suspect that people in government, including the very dubiously "conservative, free-market" Bush administration, put a lot of pennies in a lot of fuse boxes which now are all blowing up at once.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays to all

Posted by WRH Bill (aka Mr. Bill) on Friday, December 05, 2008 7:15:28 PM
I didn't, and don't, particularly intend to make this blog primarily a place to argue about religion. But apropos of the season, and of Michael Reagan's Townhall column on the Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays "issue", let me say:  As a non-militant and non-dogmatic sort of atheist, I am not in the slightest offended if someone wishes me a "Merry Christmas". I *am* offended, however, by militant Christans who go into a snit, and even threaten protests and boycotts, if anyone wishes them "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".I am also not thrilled with people who insist that, since I don't actually believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born on Dec. 25 and grew up to become the Savior of Humankind, I therefore have no right to celebrate Christmas in its more secular manifestations or to share in the spirit of the season.  (And yes, I am also embarrassed by militant atheists who actually do get offended to be wished "Merry Christmas," though I'm not sure there are as many of them as the "war on Christmas" claimants insist.) 
It is a fact, as Christians point out, that Christmas is the particular mid-winter holiday celebrated by a majority of Americans.  But it is also a fact that Christians hardly invented the idea of a mid-winter holiday-- indeed, they adapted or co-opted the idea of a holiday at this season, and many of the customs connected with it, from other faiths.
 
If your particular "reason for the season" is that the birth of Jesus is traditionally celebrated this time of year, that's fine.  I'm not convinced you're right about the event of Jesus' birth or its significance, but I'm hardly out to take your belief or the joy it gives you away from you.  But if your "reason for the season" is the victory of the Maccabees and a miraculously extended oil supply.... or whatever it is that Muslims celebrate at Eid al-Fitr (sp?).... or the winter solstice and symbolic return of the sun from the shortest day of the year.... that's OK too.
 
And if, like me, you celebrate because of cultural tradition including but not limited to Christian traditions, and simply because you enjoy celebrating and think that "peace on earth and good will to men" is a good idea regardless of the specific reason, or excuse, for it, that's OK too. (Heck, even Ayn Rand, hard-shelled atheist and apostle of the "virtue of selfishness", liked Christmas.  Of course, as a fan of capitalism and free markets, she appreciated the commercial aspects of the holiday that more religious or "spiritually" minded people disdain.) 
 
So to al of you out there who may read this-- if anyone actually does read it--  Merry Christmas to you if that is your particular flavor of seasonal joy, or Happy Holidays if you prefer a more generic greeting.  And if you wishe me either Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, I will thank you and wish you a joyous season of celebrating whatever you're celebrating (or even a joyous season if you're not celebrating anything in particular other than the chance to celebrate). 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Return to "leave us alone"?

Posted by WRH Bill (aka Mr. Bill) on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:28:28 PM
I found it interesting that on the recent issue of the Eharmony dating service being legally coerced to provide services to homosexuals, Jacob Sullum-- Townhall's main representative of freewheeling secular libertarianism-- came out on the same side as the "Religious Right".  He doesn't think that Eharmony, a private business, should be forced to match gay couples if it doesn't choose to engage in that business.
anti-gay
I wonder if this might point the way towards a solution to the growing conflict between social/religious conservatives and more secular, limited-government, free-market oriented conservatives-- a conflict which threatens to tear the cosnervative movement apart.  Perhaps the social/religious conservatives should give up some of their dreams of remolding America into a more "moral, religious" nation by means of politics and governmental force, and instead rejoin what Grover Norquist calls the "leave us alone coalitiion".
 
For my part, I don't think that gay marriage is an awful thing (I voted against an anti-gay-marriage referendum in my state).  But I don't think that preaching against homosexuality should be criminalized as "hate speech," or that churches should be forced to perform gay religious weddings or ordain gays.  (I don't think being gay is immoral or "sinful", but I do think it's somewhat dysfunctional, which by some standards makes me a raving "homophobe" right along with you religious conservatives.)
 
I'm not in favor of banning all abortions; I can't accept the idea that a fertilized egg a few hours old is the exact equivalent of a born human infant.  But I can oppose using tax money to perform or promote abortions; I don't blame you for not wanting your taxes spent on a practice you abhor.  I can also support efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, because I think it's bad constitutional law and the abortion issue ought to be decided by voters and elected reresentatives in the states.
 
I think creationism and "intelligent design" are religion falsely masquerading as science, and I don't want them in the public schools.  But I support your right to have private religious schools that teach creationism and even to divert a portion of your tax money to support them. (Even though I think you are doing your children a disservice.) 
 
Is there any chance of a peace treaty between religious conservatives and non-religious limited-government conservatives, on such "leave us alone" terms?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »