Friday 4 November 2005

Economic and social freedom

Ragnar asked me:
"If you had to choose, would you go with economic freedom (capitalism) or social freedom (indevidualism)?"
My friend and fellow Libertarian Alliance member Nigel Meek has reminded me of his excellent paper that he wrote on this very subject.

Nigel's conclusion (using "civil" rather than "social") reads:

We end by arguing that we have demonstrated that the two sorts of freedoms here discussed – economic and civil – do indeed ‘go together’. They are not inextricably linked by some iron law of human society, but the relative absence of one usually indicates the relative absence of the other. The implication that we are probably entitled to draw from this is that that those who – again accepting for the moment good faith – argue for the diminution of one to shore up the other are making a dangerous and inhumane mistake.

In addition, we have also provided evidence for the claim that - assuming that satisfaction of material wants is an underlying aim of all more-or-less coherent political belief systems that wish to be taken seriously – that free markets are relatively more important than free speech.

I used to wonder why traditional conservatives support (sort of) economic freedom, but not (too much) social freedom with traditional social democrats being the other way round. Shouldn't people be consistent? Preferably consistently in favour of both freedoms like libertarians of course, although we can acknowledge the consistency of those who are nastily against both sorts of freedom like the communists and fascists.

I concluded that the conservatives favour economic freedom because they tend to work in the business world, often being entrepreneurs in their own right. Social freedoms perhaps don't seem to be as important to such folk because running a business takes up almost all of one's time, and besides, those who are pro social freedom are often anti-business, so why support them? Conversely, the social democrats are predominant in the arts, media and education. Free speech is understandably a high value to such people. But the social democratic workplace is all too often funded by the state. In my experience, taxpayer-funded employees have no conception of how difficult it is to run a profitable company - so why support them?

So which freedom is more important to me? Almost all of my working life has been spent in the private sector and so my first reaction would be so say that economic freedom is more important - thus agreeing with Nigel's conclusion. I am though tempted to conclude the opposite.

Economic freedom has been achieved or recovered quite speedily in certain circumstances. Think of the creation of Hong Kong, the recovery of the British economy following Thatcher's reforms and the success of West Germany after WWII. On the other hand, the loss of social freedom - especially free speech - would bring about a new dark age for all of us.

4 comments:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Laura(southernxyl)
"Without a publicly funded system either I would be untreated and unable, or at least less able, to work and be a much bigger burden on society than I would as a user of publicly funded healthcare, or I would have to pay fees I couldn't possibly have earned by my age (22) because the last few years have been spent on my degree, a 1st class BSc Hons in Computer Science. As a student I couldn't possibly have afforded private health insurance and probably would have become heavily indebted and unable to start my own business." 
 
My 18-yr-old daughter's private health insurance costs about $100 per month. That's here in the USA, of course; don't know what it costs in the UK. Perhaps private health insurance in the UK is much more expensive. Government meddling can totally screw up price structures. But at the same time, people frequently think they could never afford something when actually they haven't found out what it would cost; or when their priorities are such that they have the money but spend it on other things. 
 
We also have lots of doctors and hospitals who work with uninsured patients and either work out a plan for being paid or just write off the unpaid balance. My brother-in-law had a heart attack not long after the company that employed him went out of business, and he got excellent care even though the hospital and the cardiologist knew he probably could never pay his entire bill. 
 
The fact is, of course, that insurance companies, who do have the money, are charged more to cover the care of the uninsured, and that's passed along to the rest of us in higher premiums. My point is that it's not true that national health care is the only way 22-year-olds right out of college can get medical treatment. 
 
As to the subject at hand - I too thought of economic freedom first, but all the wealth in the world isn't worth anything if you have to be looking over your shoulder for Big Brother all the time.

12 November 2005, 16:17:01 GMT
– Like – Reply





Neil Craig
Have you taken the political compass test Ragnar. www.politicalcompass.org/ 
Since you know who Adam Smith is I suspect you would be closer than you might be comfortable with to many here. The left/right dichotomy is increasingly meaningless for many questions - for example internment without trial.

9 November 2005, 21:45:27 GMT
– Like – Reply





Sandy P
Socialism is freedom from - the King/Daddy/bureaucracy is taking care of you from cradle to grave. 
 
Freedom for - I am the king and I and my family can take care of me, thank you very much. 
 
This is just for starters.

7 November 2005, 18:45:04 GMT
– Like – Reply





Sandy P
It's the meme(?) that's now going around 16 years after The Wall fell, it's not the idea that is bad/wrong, it's just that the "right" people weren't in place. 
 
Which begets the question, who are the "right" people????????????? 
 
Cos we all know this thing'll work, really and truly it will when the "right" people are in place. And if it doesn't, well, we'll just keep killing them until it does.

7 November 2005, 18:27:32 GMT
– Like – Reply

David Farrer said...

Sandy P
It's all BS Ragnar, it doesn't work. 
 
Socialism in whatever form which includes fascism, communism, doesn't work. 
 
You're going against 100K years of man's hardwiring.

7 November 2005, 18:24:23 GMT
– Like – Reply





Andrew Ian Dodge
Ok, agreed. But what about people who are ill through no fault of their own. What about a person who is born with AIDS... should they be treated with the same distain? 
 
There are plenty of charties that raise funds to help pediatric AIDs patients and hemopheliacs etc. If you wish to help you donate to them.

7 November 2005, 13:58:58 GMT
– Like – Reply





Ragnar Danashold
I guess I'm also more Libertarian Left. A Libertarian with a Heart. 
 
Let the indevidual do what it wants to do, but if it ever wants help, we're right here.

7 November 2005, 12:24:36 GMT
– Like – Reply





Ragnar Danashold
Neil, I might just add that Marxists rarly pay any attention to Adam Smith. However, in this case, he is correct. 
 
I actually prefer the John Nash/Fyodor Dostoevsky idea... 
 
"The best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for themselves and for the group." Now THAT's rational self-interest.

7 November 2005, 12:21:53 GMT
– Like – Reply





Neil Craig
Ragnar 
If we had a citizen's wage then you would have true socialism, without government busybodying - for reasons explained by Adam Smith the consumer is the ultimate arbiter of what is produced. 
 
If you renamed money as "proletarian credit vouchers" you would have achieved communism. 
 
I actually have some sympathy with the idea a citizens wage except that I see difficulty in funding it & you would have to produce some other incentive for people to work.

6 November 2005, 22:51:10 GMT
– Like – Reply




David Farrer said...

Ragnar Danashold
"You keep working at it Ragnar, your side's only killed over 100 million to get it right. 
 
Socialism is not freedom for - it's freedom from. And that is not how man's designed." 
 
How do you figure? I mean, I thought it'd be a lot more than that. After all, if you're adding in all of Soviet history + China, the Kims, and Pol Pot, I think that the number would be far greater than that. 
 
The difference is, they weren't Socialist. Any assclown can pay lip service to Marx and Lenin, to Equality and Democracy and Freedom, but the Soviet KGB basterds didn't have the guts to hold themselves responcible to Democracy, and the People. 
 
BS Socialism: A tax-heavy burocratic welfare state with a militant enforcement of political correctness and financial equality. 
 
BS Communism: An anti-democratic oligarchal police state, where a small party elite control everything through powerful security forces, and where everyone gets paid the same, whither they’re a soldier, a teacher, a brain surgeon or a pool boy. 
 
True Socialism: An economic system where the Citizens and Workers have direct democratic control over the major means of production. Or, at least, with some Democracy in the Economy. 
 
True Communism: A moneyless, classless, democratic global society, based on self-organized cooperation rather than savage competition. 
 
Now, anyone with any idea of what went on in the Soviet Union knows that nothing even remotely similer to True Socialism or True Communism was happening. It was BS Communism, all the way.

6 November 2005, 18:33:54 GMT
– Like – Reply





Jim H
I said: 
 
>> "For me, social freedom includes 
>> the right to not be ill due to 
>> curable disease, regardless of if 
>> you are able to pay for treatment." 
 
markm said: 
> So you are claiming the "right" to > temporarily enslave other people 
> in order to get the money to pay 
> for your treatment. Because that's 
> what taxes are... 
 
By 'temporarily enslave' I take it you are saying people who pay taxes are slaves because for some of the time they spend working the government gets paid instead of the worker. 
 
This is an interesting point, but I can't see any alternative (in my situation at least) that could be considered more beneficial to society.  
 
Without a publicly funded system either I would be untreated and unable, or at least less able, to work and be a much bigger burden on society than I would as a user of publicly funded healthcare, or I would have to pay fees I couldn't possibly have earned by my age (22) because the last few years have been spent on my degree, a 1st class BSc Hons in Computer Science. As a student I couldn't possibly have afforded private health insurance and probably would have become heavily indebted and unable to start my own business. 
 
Now, it is possible I could have persuaded one of my financial backers to stump up an extra few grand to cover my three operations, but pretty unlikely. A society where I wouldn't be free to start my (already quite successful) business because of a random accident is also a kind of enslavement. 
 
I suppose the reason I feel it is right that society paid for my care is that by doing so my ability to pay taxes increases tenfold. In the end I will probably pay the money back many times over the market rate, but I am willing to make that commitment because I was provided for when I couldn't have helped myself. 
 
Btw, I don't consider myself a socialist. Socially liberal perhaps, but economically centrist. 
 
Andrew Ian Dodge: 
> You go out and shag everything 
> that moves and get AIDS...well 
> shit happens don't it? Why is that 
> society's responsability to pay 
> for your care? 
 
Ok, agreed. But what about people who are ill through no fault of their own. What about a person who is born with AIDS... should they be treated with the same distain?

6 November 2005, 17:00:03 GMT
– Like – Reply


David Farrer said...




Kenny McCormack
"I've never liked the Freedom/License dichotomy. Freedom appears to be the right to do what you want & licence is the right of people you don't like doing what they want." 
 
With respect Mr Craig that is nonsense, and I think you are betraying your own prejudices here.

6 November 2005, 13:59:10 GMT
– Like – Reply





Sandy P
You keep working at it Ragnar, your side's only killed over 100 million to get it right. 
 
Socialism is not freedom for - it's freedom from. And that is not how man's designed.

5 November 2005, 17:48:44 GMT
– Like – Reply





Andrew Ian Dodge
A libertarian (I believe) believes is social freedom but not that expectation that others should have to pay for that freedom. IE: You go out and shag everything that moves and get AIDS...well shit happens don't it? Why is that society's responsability to pay for your care? You have your fun now you got to pay the price (ditto smoking 2 packs of fags a day or drinking like a fish all your life). 
 
How can you be socially free if the state has such high burdens on you via taxation that you are unable to take advantage of those freedoms instead of working all the time to pay for the crushing taxes?  
 
Freedom both socially and economic allows the individual the right to take risks and live their life to their fullest, but it also gives the individual the responsability of making sure they can clean up any mistakes. 
 
If one wishes to be truly honest it is not capitalism that is holding people back from achieving their full potential it is the state and its over-regulation & over-taxation.

5 November 2005, 15:52:01 GMT
– Like – Reply





markm
"For me, social freedom includes the right to not be ill due to curable disease, regardless of if you are able to pay for treatment." 
 
So you are claiming the "right" to temporarily enslave other people in order to get the money to pay for your treatment. Because that's what taxes are...

5 November 2005, 15:29:13 GMT