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)