Does Capitalism equal freedom?
It is a fundamental question that needs to be asked again and again (i.e. it is a question that should never cease to exist: let it resonate in collective memory for time immemorial) - A one liner on what fair and free trade would be in order:
Capitalism is a system where the right to capital gains from unhindered competition are fundamental and indisputable
This right is considered central to the problem of resource scarcity (real or imagined; I will at this stage encourage you to read Galbraith for his thoughts on the 'central tradition'). So entrenched is this right considered to be, many other rights (on many occasions including the right to liberty, freedom of expression and, ironically, the right to compete) are sub-served in it's protection.
This does not make Capitalism a flawed system. Yet does it by necessity equate to freedom and liberty? Many opine it does. I consider this aspect to be a work in progress.
In a compassionate society, not merely a socialist one, an individual who pays his economy it's due share of taxes (a percentage of his income over which he / she does not have direct control) she / he should and does expect that same social construct to pay him back by securing:
- His health (health insurance)
- His safety
- His liberties
- His right to participate in the democratic process (right to participate in the consensus of views)
The first instance is also where the first flaw appears. However it is a superficial flaw. Once we embrace Capitalism, we embrace that we are allowing a more 'natural' (competitive) system of economic distribution.
We allow this to happen because, amongst the many constructs of the political economy, we have found open competition to be a fantastic agent of equality; this does not mean it a perfect agent.
Not all can be catered for, not all can have equal amounts of a collective wealth of a nation. It should, by right, be distributed fairly: I.e. it should be distributed according to the contribution of the individual.
Capitalism (political economics version) has flaws. It is cracked at it's core in some ways, in others it provides a very just and logical solution. Consider medical insurance in a welfare state (and for the purposes of clarity, let us NOT consider the United Kingdom as the system is being re-constructed as I write this) - Let us consider Canada.
Canada provides welfare systems of health. Medical insurance is a citizen's right. He / she pays for it via his taxes. However, devoid of medical insurance (as is the case of landed immigrants for the first few months) Canadian health services cost a fortune. More then the average person's ability to pay.
Here, the parallel between natural law and Capitalist law, in a social welfare context, becomes clearer. Competitive variants of a species reap the many rewards that nature has to offer. Excluded from the circle of the competitive, nature will kill you or ensure your chances of survival become minimal. In other words, nature is cold, cruel and without any compassion.
If you be sick, uninsured and poor, the construct is such that you are restricted to suffer (and possibly be eliminated). This is more like the Capitalism we know (with regards health insurance) i.e. the system the US follows: You work for your right to seek medical help, or you perish (medical services in place for the noncompetitive or uninsured are akin to perishing in some states).
The state 'authorizes' you to seek free medical help upon gaining medical insurance. It compels you to avoid health deterioration, and to work hard to retain the right for health services.
This is not freedom in it's strictest sense: none the less it is nature's way. A great many programs have been proposed in 'socially' inclined welfare states for the government to reduce health care costs ('import' 500,000 doctors from India and Pakistan per year, for example!) but that would not work in the more market oriented constructs in Canada. It goes against the natural order.
Shahbaz Ali-Khan
Montral, 29 May 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment