Today, few things
are more entertaining than observing the continuing debate among intellectuals
about the merits and demerits of economic freedom.
What is the cause
of the levity? Most of the opinion is decidedly about the demerits of economic
freedom, with a pronounced preference for any form of governmental supervision
that would supposedly assure the equitable distribution of material wealth.
The problem is, of
course, that the very debate, or intellectual freedom itself, is only made
possible by economic freedom, which is the principal support of free speech.
Why? It is a truth far too often demonstrated that once the state owns your
meal ticket, you’re a slave of the state. And you better shut your mouth or you
could end up in a Gulag or a rice paddy.
Or, as the philosopher
Herbert Marcuse noted, a centrally controlled economy is actually state
capitalism, conducted by insiders with decided benefits allocated for those who
open and close the national treasury.
Meanwhile, the rest
of the citizenry are expected to wake up and row the ship of state, with scant
provision of bread and water for the dutiful and a plentiful supply of lashes
for any who dare to complain.
A free economy is
far from perfect, but it supports the stage on which intellectual freedom may
cavort.
So, wisdom comes
down on the side of improving it, not abandoning it, and with so much clarity
that debate with a bias against it is downright amusing.
Comments