“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself,” argued the well-known American economist Milton Friedman. Once again we have an example of sheer demagoguery that seeks cover under the highly attractive, yet totally meaningless word freedom. Unless, of course, we admit that the word freedom does have a meaning, but, perhaps, not a very attractive one, depending on how it is exercised in certain particular contexts.
“Behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.” (Jeremiah 34:17.)
A general manifestation of dangerous freedom is in all such instances when it has the power to revert man to his natural state, which is war, according to Hobbes.
So, what was all that about “a lack of belief in freedom itself”? Here is my spontaneous aphorism: “In God we trust, in freedom we don’t!” How about that for a rejoinder?
Before I am accused of something deadly, as in “deadly sin,” mind you, that I am carrying out no vendetta against freedom and liberty here. However, in Genesis 2:16-17, the first time freedom is mentioned in the Bible, God uses this word conditionally: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But… (!!!)”
Let us try not to forget that it is the serpent who becomes the advocate of absolute freedom.
Thus, not surprisingly, it is my general conclusion that should we try to evaluate the concept of “freedom” in an ethical sense, there ought to be no rush to declare it either good or bad. Most prudently, we may call it amoral. This can be readily applied to the social sphere as well. So, here is the point where the line of sharp distinction needs to be drawn between the notions of freedom and the law.
While freedom as-such is, at least arguably, amoral, the law is designed to regulate public morality, and it cannot be allowed the dubious luxury of extramoral existence. It is, therefore, imperative that every law of the land, big and small, be evaluated as an ethical commandment, and, should it be found morally wanting, the law must be changed. Here is an area where the separation of church and state is the least desirable.
How does all this relate to the particular issue of capitalist freedom? Simple: all that’s freedom is not good, Mr. Friedman!
“Behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.” (Jeremiah 34:17.)
A general manifestation of dangerous freedom is in all such instances when it has the power to revert man to his natural state, which is war, according to Hobbes.
So, what was all that about “a lack of belief in freedom itself”? Here is my spontaneous aphorism: “In God we trust, in freedom we don’t!” How about that for a rejoinder?
Before I am accused of something deadly, as in “deadly sin,” mind you, that I am carrying out no vendetta against freedom and liberty here. However, in Genesis 2:16-17, the first time freedom is mentioned in the Bible, God uses this word conditionally: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But… (!!!)”
Let us try not to forget that it is the serpent who becomes the advocate of absolute freedom.
Thus, not surprisingly, it is my general conclusion that should we try to evaluate the concept of “freedom” in an ethical sense, there ought to be no rush to declare it either good or bad. Most prudently, we may call it amoral. This can be readily applied to the social sphere as well. So, here is the point where the line of sharp distinction needs to be drawn between the notions of freedom and the law.
While freedom as-such is, at least arguably, amoral, the law is designed to regulate public morality, and it cannot be allowed the dubious luxury of extramoral existence. It is, therefore, imperative that every law of the land, big and small, be evaluated as an ethical commandment, and, should it be found morally wanting, the law must be changed. Here is an area where the separation of church and state is the least desirable.
How does all this relate to the particular issue of capitalist freedom? Simple: all that’s freedom is not good, Mr. Friedman!
No comments:
Post a Comment