Statism or free market? Calling for a fair debate

Intellectual discussions regarding inequality and the duty of the State to establish social justice are interesting excercises in University classrooms, thinktanks and on blogs, but in reality the problems are less theoretical and more a matter of practical human concerns and results. I'm not sayng that intellectual debates between free market proponents and social justice statists are useless -- in fact, they're vital, but the debates mean nothing if reality-facts, human nature and economics aren't brought into the debate.

It's one thing to claim that a State run by intelligent, informed experts can regulate the economy in such a way that equality and justice are maximized and poverty is ameliorated -- it's another thing to prove this claim and lay out the actions necessary to accomplish the goals -- or to explain the failures. Much of the statist mindset is based on faith in the rationalist approach, that if we do it right it will work, that central planning is possible if enough information is available (which it never is) and the right regulations are put into place (which they hardly ever are). Statists look at organizations where rational application of organizational plans create the desired results, so they extrapolate that if the right government experts rationally apply the targeted regulations, social justice and a stable, fair economy can be accomplished -- perhaps not perfectly, but close enough for government work, and certainly it wouldn't collapse the State as the free market proponents claim in their excited denial of statism. We have to ask if this faith in statism is warranted?

But in order to have this debate steeped in reality-facts, human nature and economics, it has to be accepted that free market proponents are not evil, that they want equality and justice (even if these concepts are understood differently), and they want to ameliorate poverty -- otherwise, the debate is morally rigged in favor of the statists. We can agree that nefarious motives may exist on both sides of the debate, especially at the top where political power is concerned -- but at the level of ideas among thinkers who have no political power at stake, each side should be considered sincere, wanting the best for society as a whole. The question is which approach is best for society as a whole. It can also be considered whether a mixture of the two approaches is even possible,  even though history has shown that mixing the two approaches always leans toward the State's unfair advantage to expand statism, leaving the market at the mercy of politicians. So, let's say the idea of a mixture of the two is actually statism, and the free market approach is free of regulations which don't have anything to do with the protection of basic rights -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- in other words a market which operates freely, but within the rule of law which prohibits fraud and physical coercion in all its forms.

Because the idea of the statists is that the right regulations will work, this implies a mixed economy -- most statists aren't calling for totalitarianism. Once a significant portion of the economy is regulated, we have statism. Presently we have an economic crisis that has to considered at least partly caused by government interventions. The current economic crisis is more than a cyclical recession, it threatens our viability with unfunded promises going way into future, at a time when U.S. citizens are retiring at high numbers every year for many years to come. So far, all the government interventions have added to the debt, but they haven't created the necessary growth to avert a collapse. If there are no major reforms of entitlement programs, we face economic collapse within a couple of decades.

The purpose of this post is not to provide answers to the problems, but to call for a debate regarding the mutual concern both statists and free market proponents have for the future. Are the statists correct -- that we haven't applied the correct interventions, and, once we do, then the economy will stabilze, begin growing, and in the future avoid this type of financial crisis? Or, is a free market approach required which liberates businesses to make their own decisions based on the principles of spontaneous order? Again, this is not about a third choice of a correctly mixed economy, because mixed means statist -- it's a question of whether any mixture can be successful, or whether the best approach is an unmixed, free market. Plus, it has to be accepted, and not dismissed as a free market cop-out, that free market principles haven't been fully applied since the beginning of America. 

The correct mixtures of free market and government intervention have been experimented with from the beginning, and, so far, we've steadily drifted toward collapse, with periods of great growth as blips among the overall movement to insolvency. The left may be forced to consider the reality and viability of a truly free market, and how the private sector can replace the welfare state. But first the demonization has to stop, so that the debate is open-minded and honest. When either side demonizes the other, defenses prevent an honest search for solutions. We can no longer afford the fight. I believe that if an honest analysis is made, the findings will show that government intervention has prevented a steady movement toward economic stability, prosperity and greater equality, which would have occured in the absence of intervention. This is not to say that a free market is perfect and never falters -- it's to say that a free market is better for society as a whole than statism. It might be impossible for great minds to get together and to objectively determine this proposition, but I do think it needs to be done.

Comments

[Free Calling]

very interesting article i like every bit of it thanks for sharing.

[Free Calls worldwide]

I found it on msn will add it to bookmark and come back often again to read and follow. Please continue to do awesome job you do on it.