The Morality of Free Markets
Sep 17, 20
It is hard to imagine after a century of Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cuba, Communist China, Venezuela, Nicaragua and North Korea that free markets would even need defending. Nevertheless, the political Left in the West are laying siege to what is indisputably the greatest force for good in the modern world outside of Jesus Christ.]
-Bolshevik banners and speakers in St. Petersberg during the Communist Russian Revolution. 1917.
In terms of freedom and prosperity, free markets have been the greatest driver in creating and improving both. There is really no argument that free markets do not achieve their purpose of creating wealth and improving the standards of living for the world at large, but given the attacks are not coming against its effectiveness but rather against its morality, my defense will remain on the morality of the system.
Efficiency does not appear to concern the critics of free markets, but rather “it does not serve the common good.” How do we define the common good? In short, you cannot. Every person has their own answer to this question. That being the case, allowing people to make their own decisions would seem to be the common good.The West is founded on the premise of liberty and nothing is more freeing than Jesus and free markets. This is interesting because the former was actually in favor of the latter.
City shot of Dubai (Peak Capitalism) at night.
The practice of free markets is rather simple. I give you something of value and in exchange you give me something of value. I am not coerced into anything, but rather I am voluntarily making an exchange with you. I am in control of my own property and I can do with it as I see fit.For the Left, morality is based solely on consent. If this is the case, then the Left should be the most enthusiastic about free markets because the only way free markets exist is for two or more consenting people to make a trade.
The Left has no interest in this for some reason; rather, they have an interest in making everyone “equal.” A noble cause, except for the fact that it violates their entire premise of morality.If the premise for morality is solely based on consent, then there is no possible way everyone can be equal because people make different life decisions. Some people build large businesses and others commit felonies that land them 30 years in prison. The only way to create “equality” at this point would be to either control the public’s decisions, which would not be consensual, or to confiscate the wealth of one person and redistribute to another. Either way this is not consensual; therefore, the Left is violating its own terms of morality.
The point of free markets is so we can each make our own decisions without somebody else dictating to us what we must do. If you believe it is wrong to be coerced into making a decision regarding your life, then the alternative—making decisions for yourself, would therefore be moral. That is all free markets are. Free markets are consensual agreements of which goods and services are exchanged for other goods and services. By the Left’s standards, this would inherently be immoral. Therefore, their critique of free markets is inherently flawed.