Capitalism, Socialism, freedom and equality
Some points to consider:
- Friedman’s concept of freedom: compare with Mill’s definition
(restrict liberty of individual only to protect others – where is the
boundary?) and with Berlin’s idea of ‘negative’ freedom (freedom ‘from’ – how distinct
from freedom ‘to’?) How relevant is
it that complete freedom (like complete
equality) seems impossible?
- Arguments for giving freedom priority
- Friedman’s? (Achievement of other goals – such as equality of
opportunity – thereby)
- Rawls’: choice in the ‘original position’ puts liberty first,
after a certain minimum of liberties and of material well-being is
secured for all. But Rawls’
analysis suggests that a system of ‘natural liberty’ (Friedman’s) needs
some correction, to give meaningful equality of opportunity and to
incorporate his ‘Difference’ principle (inequalities permitted only
insofar as they work to the advantage of the worst off). Also, criticism of the ‘original
position’ device anyway (Sen, Marx); doubts
about the supposed choice (Hart); question whether fostering liberty
requires pursuit of material goods for the poor beyond established
minimum (Daniels, also Sen?); issues whether
distribution in accordance with natural assets (‘talents’) is no
more justifiable than distribution by social or historical fortune –
effort etc. (Query: is conscientiousness inherited too? Issue of
‘dessert’)
- Friedman’s argument that economic freedom in the shape of
capitalism is necessary (but not sufficient) for political freedom: dispersal
of power etc. Contrast with Tawney’s position:
unbridled economic liberty provides ‘equal opportunities of becoming
unequal’; unequal economic power threatens the liberty of some (‘freedom
for the pike is death for the minnows’); Marxian challenge to idea of
‘free’ exchange of labour for wages; suggestion that ‘a large measure of
equality…is essential to [liberty]’ (progressive taxation to finance
welfare programmes may limit freedom of a few but enhance that of the
many).
- Fairness of capitalism? Idea of ‘purely procedural justice’
(Rawls) in which a just outcome can’t be specified but fair
procedures can; compare with ideas of ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’ procedural
justice in which fair outcome specifiable too. Which concept is
appropriate? (Consider discriminatory legal advice, medical aid,
education, ability to bring pressure on government, etc.) (Also, Nozick on ‘entitlements’)
- Is compulsory old age insurance a
deprivation of liberty? (Whose? In what sense?)
- The allocatively efficient solution
may ‘in principle’ also be obtainable in an ‘ideal’ socialist state
(Lerner, Lange); whilst actual capitalist economies do not match up to the
perfectly competitive blueprint. (How important?) Monopoly elements in
capitalism tending to restrict the freedom of the consumer: should the
onus always (Friedman) be on the state to justify intervention?
- Compare Soviet socialism with socialism in the West European
tradition.
- Arguments from economic history. See Friedman on Russia and Japan (how accurate are his accounts?)
N.B. Recent economic history: did
the Soviet system (in contrast with, say, the Swedish
one) require absence of political freedom in order to work well? (Consider comparisons of post-Soviet Russia
with current communist China; see Ellman, Nolan).
(Dr. J G T Meeks)