FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Free Market: Means or End?

by JASON BERNARD CLAXTON

Free market advocates sometimes champion the free market as a means to an end, sometimes as an end in itself.  Sometimes the free market is better at achieving certain goals than any alternative, sometimes there is no alternative.  Sometimes the free market is the best way of achieving prosperity, security, and a good life for a people, sometimes the free market is “the only moral system.”  If it were clear at any given moment which justification were being offered, a lot of confusion might be avoided.  But free market advocates often take both positions within the same argument – a strategy that is rhetorically effective, but logically dubious.

When an owner’s right to dispose of property exactly as that owner desires is considered morally ultimate, then the free market becomes an end in itself.  And if individual property rights are so sacred that no state of affairs that market intervention could possibly bring about would justify the rights violations that market intervention implies, then it simply wouldn’t matter whether more market regulated economies are more productive than free market economies.  It wouldn’t matter whether more “socialistic” economies have, say, lower infant mortality and poverty rates, or higher literacy, job satisfaction, and social mobility rates than more free market oriented economies.  All that matters is that individual property rights, which are supreme, are not violated.  As long as this condition is met, the consequences of the free market system don’t matter at all.

If, on the other hand, individual property rights represent not a supreme concern, not an utterly inviolable set of rights, but rather one set of concerns among many, all of which must be weighed against each other and delicately balanced, then consequences do matter.  And if consequences matter, then the comparative claim that freer markets necessarily equal greater prosperity would have to be tested.  And the claim can be tested: All we need to do is define those benchmarks that free markets are supposed to deliver with so much more efficiency than any alternative.  Then we can compare the performance of economies with more market intervention to economies with less market intervention.  One type of economy will meet the benchmarks better than the other.  If, with enough ingenuity, we can isolate all the relevant factors, then we will be able to answer the comparative question, one way or another.

The distinction between free markets as a means and free markets as an end may seem subtle at first, but it yields an important consequence.  The distinction helps us realize that one justification (“the market is the only moral system”) rests on moral grounds, and the other (“markets function better than any alternative”) rests on empirical grounds.  This clarifies the point being argued.  It makes it possible to determine what kind of evidence needs to be presented, and what kind of argument will prove the case.

It is infinitely more difficult to chose an end than it is to determine whether a given means will achieve that end.  It will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for people who believe that individual property rights are ultimate and supreme to convince those that disagree that they are wrong, and vice versa.  But when a claim is empirically testable – such as the claim that free markets are necessarily better at delivering certain results than any available alternative – then the claim can be objectively evaluated.  One economic system will or won’t out-perform the other – and the difference won’t depend on our moral evaluation or opinion.  But then, of course, we will have to debate the value of the goals one or the other system is supposed to achieve.

When free market advocates stealthily alternate between justifications, they only end up evading either argument.  When intervention is on the table, they argue “That’s socialism, and socialism just doesn’t work.”  That is, markets are better for prosperity than redistributive market intervention.  In the face of evidence that certain interventions might actually yield desirable results, or at least prevent certain harms, they argue “Sure, but do you really want the government telling you what to do?”  The implied argument, then, must be that having “the government tell you what to do” is worse than the poverty and insecurity that a stronger social safety net could avoid.

If the free market is an end, its purpose is achieved as soon as it is instituted.  It is not good for any further purpose.  It meets its goal immediately and perpetually.  Its value is inherent.  As a means, the free market’s value is not inherent, but instrumental.  It is subservient to the values it is supposed to promote.  Its value lies in its ability to deliver certain results, and its own value is always relative to the value of those results.  The free market can’t be both end and means.  Arguing both is logically inconsistent.  But since logical consistency isn’t a requirement for persuasive marketing, free market advocates will surely continue to sacrifice one for the other.

Jason Bernard Claxton is an attorney in New York.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
Stratos Ramoglou
Why the Greek Economic Crisis Won’t be Ending Anytime Soon
David Price
The 2016 Tour of California: Notes on a Big Pharma Bike Race
Dmitry Mickiewicz
Barbarous Deforestation in Western Ukraine
Rev. William Alberts
The United Methodist Church Up to Its Old Trick: Kicking the Can of Real Inclusion Down the Road
Patrick Bond
Imperialism’s Junior Partners
Mark Hand
The Trouble with Fracking Fiction
Priti Gulati Cox
Broken Green: Two Years of Modi
Marc Levy
Sitrep: Hometown Unwelcomes Vietnam Vets
Lorenzo Raymond
Why Nonviolent Civil Resistance Doesn’t Work (Unless You Have Lots of Bombs)
Ed Kemmick
New Book Full of Amazing Montana Women
Michael Dickinson
Bye Bye Legal High in Backwards Britain
Missy Comley Beattie
Wanted: Daddy or Mommy in Chief
Ed Meek
The Republic of Fear
Charles R. Larson
Russian Women, Then and Now
David Yearsley
Elgar’s Hegemony: the Pomp of Empire
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail