I was intrigued to read the many comments to my recent post, “Walmart: Well Might We Rue the Day”.
I will once again suggest that people read Towards a Truly Free Market by John Médaille.
The thing that struck me about the libertarian consensus in defence of Walmart was the apparent belief that the freedom of choice in the marketplace is itself all the moral justification that is necessary to justify Walmart’s business practises. The argument runs something like this: Walmart is simply supplying people with what they want. We buy from Walmart because we freely choose to do so and therefore what’s the problem? Walmart buys from China to get the cheapest prices for its customers so what’s the problem? Who cares that Big Business is supporting Big Brother in supporting the largest totalitarian regime in the world, a regime which makes abortion compulsory?This implies that every choice we make as consumers is itself justified simply because we choose it.
An analogy: Drug dealers are simply supplying people with what they want. Drug users buy from drug dealers because they freely choose to do so and therefore what’s the problem? Drug dealers buy from drug cartels to get the product for their customers so what’s the problem? Who cares that entrepreneurs are supporting gangsters and murderers?
Another: Pimps and pornographers are simply supplying people with what they want. People pay for prostitutes and pornography because they freely choose to do so and therefore what’s the problem? Prostitution and pornography creates the demand that leads to the abduction of women and children for the so-called sex-trade, helping to keep the price of prostitutes and poronography down. Who cares that entrepreuneurs in the sex industry are supporting the kidnappers of children?
A thought to ponder: the Chinese regime has killed millions of more people than either drug cartels or sex traffickers.
I’ll reiterate my original point. The most powerful vote we have is the dollar in our pockets. Every dollar we spend is a moral choice with moral consequences. We need to think before we spend!
The libertarian is a member in good standing of the “dictatorship of relativism”. The abstract “market model” trumps all. Another economic theorist worth considering is Wilhelm Ropke, who understood free market economics, but refused to be a slave to a system and opted for a human and personalist civilization.
I heard a very absurd non-economic, analogy that I would like to add to yours. A talk radio caller, here in Boston, strongly differed with a host regarding a very prominent Baltimore Raven defensive player. The caller didn’t approve of lionizing a man who fathered many children by different women. The caller didn’t approve of the player’s leaving the scene of a murder with the violent perpetrators. However, if fans choose to praise this gladiator it is their choice, similarly New England fans have the choice of praising clean cut Tom Brady. All is choice and relative to the libertarian. The substance of the choice does not matter. I sometimes miss the straightforward nihilist, who looked into the abyss, and shirked abstraction and sentimentality.
“The most powerful vote we have is the dollar in our pockets. ”
Yes and no. What good is the dollar if it means debt?
Free markets philosophy presupposes lack of controls. So basically the dollar must flow where there is a demand for it. If you are going to say it must follow only into activities which have moral consequences, I am not sure that’s true libertarian thought. In a way a libertarian is a libertine.