Liberty, Equality and Free Markets

Is Liberty more important than Equality? Or is it the other way around? There seem to be many debates lately that eventually boil down to having to choose one over the other. To my mind, this is a false choice. Agreed, Liberty is a great concept. But should it be enjoyed only by those who demand it most vociferously? Or by everybody? 

To anyone who understands and embraces the idea of Liberty, it should be obvious that it is inclusive in nature, that it applies to all in equal measure. Equality is implicit in Liberty. Any interpretation to the effect that some (do, or should) enjoy more or greater freedoms than others is a fallacy. People who (claim to) champion Liberty -- who quote Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" at the drop of a hat -- but see Equality as a threat to Liberty, are the ones who want Liberty exclusively for themselves and their kind. And are therefore not true to the very ideal they cherish, the very cause they uphold. True believers in Liberty should therefore strive for greater Equality.

To strident advocates of Free Markets, who (ostensibly) understand and embrace its core principles, it should be obvious that Free Markets are inclusive in nature: the more the players the freer the markets. Exclusive markets are not free, and Free Markets are not exclusive. Where there is unequal access to markets, there will be less participants -- such markets will be less liquid, price discovery will be less efficient, transaction costs will be higher. By not removing entry barriers (or worse still, by erecting artificial entry barriers) to markets, they betray the very ideal they cherish, the very cause they uphold. True believers in Free Markets should therefore strive for equal access opportunity for all.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Post Script to Minor Observation #9

Apropos of my previous post, here're a couple of things I'd like to add:

First, to off-post/ off-line questions about why "A level playing field ...[blah]... is the only true path to progress", I have this to say: consider the impact on science, commerce and the arts, if the human capital of a couple of billion people were to be unleashed - a potential energy (which is currently locked up and underdeveloped due to malnutrition/ poor health and lack of access to a decent education and basic infrastructure) going kinetic. Just think about it. That's all.

Second, as an afterthought, I'd like to add a fourth reason to the three I listed: 

4. Belief (that "it is what it is", and attempting to change it is either a travesty or just plain futile). 

The belief that it is a travesty is an extension of Puritanical thought, but is not limited to Puritans alone. There are many in the Eastern hemisphere whose upbringing might have had nothing to do with Puritanism (i.e. the religious denomination) per se but who are Puritans all the same. 

Regardless, there is a belief that the right approach is to not level the playing field, but instead, to "make good" through eleemosynary acts. Quite often, this turns out to be insidious as reason #3 (Deliberation) albeit for different reasons. Except in cases where all that caritas manifests in the form of building institutions that work towards long term improvements in infrastructure, education, health-care etc. and towards putting all that within reach of those that don't have access to it presently.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Minor Observation #9

Most people in privileged positions are not inclined to be in favor of what is commonly referred to as a "level playing field". (Yeah, I know, sounds clichéd, but my other option is to indulge in some form of sesquipedalianism.)

This could be because of:

1. Ignorance (not knowing exactly how uneven the playing field is)

2. Apathy (not caring how uneven the playing field is)

3. Deliberation (specifically wanting to keep it uneven)

Of these, the third is the most pernicious. It arises from the insecurity that such people have -- that they may not actually deserve the position of privilege they currently enjoy. If they were secure in the knowledge that they did, then they should be confident enough to face the competition brought on by a level playing field. In fact they ought to welcome it.

A level playing field is important not because it is the morally correct thing to have (which it may well be), but because it is the only true path to progress. 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts