Robert Wright in the New York Times today makes the case that markets are the way to bring freedom, not invasions… or sanctions. In The Market Shall Set You Free, he argues that President Bush and his neocon advisers, though professing a desire to see freedom in other countries are ignoring or threatening to impede the greatest force for freedom: the growth of markets. “You won’t hear much about such progress from neoconservatives, who prefer to stress how desperately the global fight for freedom needs American power behind it (and who last week raved about an inaugural speech that vowed to furnish this power). And, to be sure, neoconservatives can rightly point to lots of oppression and brutality in China and elsewhere – as can liberal human-rights activists. But anyone who talks as if Chinese freedom hasn’t grown since China went capitalist is evincing a hazy historical memory and, however obliquely, is abetting war.”
Wright goes on to point out that economic sanctions impede the growth of markets, and therefore the growth of liberty. To say you desire freedom in a country and then argue for sanctions on that country is contradictory.
It is great to see opposition to war (a “leftist” position) and support for markets and free trade (a “rightist” position) compellingly harmonized. The mutually reinforcing natures of peace and free markets and, conversely, war and State domination have long been a theme for libertarians. Rothbard wrote, for example: “War is the great excuse for mobilizing all the energies and resources of the nation, in the name of patriotic rhetoric, under the aegis and dictation of the State apparatus.”
{ 8 comments }
Neither Bush or all of his advisors are “neocons” – so you are begging the question.
Hey Marketeer -
Try replacing “neocons” with “Republicans” or just remove it. Then read the above again and see if you can make a real argument, rather than a sophistry.
And just what question, exactly, is being begged?
Begging the question
The premises are questionable, therefore “beg the question”.
On a direct comment, opening markets to where there’s no personal freedom is not enough to ensure internally a real free market there. To be more specific, if the party controls censorship, and the only allowed “free enterprise” allowed is the one sanctioned by the party, that’s not a real free market.
What’s astounding is that this is published in the NYT, not that someone said it at all.
“If goods do not cross borders, bullets will.”
How many times and different ways must this be said before people again believe it?
Apparently the NYT editorial board has determined that criticism of Bush is sufficient to atone for the crime of praising the free market. It’s always fascinating to watch the infighting among different schools of socialism.
“Apparently the NYT editorial board has determined that criticism of Bush is sufficient to atone for the crime of praising the free market. It’s always fascinating to watch the infighting among different schools of socialism.”
This assumes that the good people over at the New York Times are socialist, they are not.
Not beeing Libertarian and beeing Socialist are two radicly different things.
Kristian Joensen, I disagree.
To “not be libertarian” is to believe that initiating force is justifiable. It is to believe that there are times and places where the ends justify the means.
The other end of this scale is someone who believes that the end always justifies the means.
So someone can be a socialist on a few issues, or a socialist on lots of issues, or a socialist on every issue, but they are still socialist.
To advocate a state is not to be a socialist. Otherwise, the word has no meaning.
- Josh
Comments on this entry are closed.