Markets Are Necessary and Sufficient to the Task of Politics

I attended an edifying lecture the other night hosted by the University of Washington School of Philosophy, and was astonished when I saw Hayek cited (Hayek?!) in support of a theory on discovering justice.  The visiting professor outlined a process that simply described the way it is, and for my part, in an edifying and thus more effective way.

People malign free markets advocates with the claim we say the markets provide for all human needs.  I've refuted that elsewhere, but it dawned on me upon reflection, that one provision the market does make that is often overlooked is it settles political questions, the free markets provide all that is necessary and sufficient in politics.  And this may be another reason why politicians hate free markets.

During questions after the lecture there was concern over 10,000 people of one opinion having the same starting position of one person with an adverse opinion.  I saw instantly that the one lone nut or prophet must negotiate one at a time with the ten thousand, and absent power preventing free trade in ideas, the lone nut will starve for commerce and the prophet will find more customers than he can stand.  Few people recall what Steve Jobs was up against, but he started in a field that had few constraints so his voice, although contrarian, was heard and accepted. Offering new ideas is not voting 10,000 to one, and it is not a pathogen infecting the body politic, it is negotiating among equals. 

Also, I am not certain, the audience seemed to believe that a social contract at some point must be achieved, a stasis.  And if so, then the problem arises that the system outlined may not produce it.  The professor agreed, asserting he only offers movement, not good results.  And what results, if I heard correctly, may be in the audience estimation woefully thin.

But woefully thin and lack of stasis is precisely what is called for, a kind of rolling polity of contracts and liquidations that have people gainfully employed yet are not at any point measurable in any observable way.  This is what I see among the self employed when I work worldwide.  And I handle a lot of trade data, which never sees what is coming.

The problem is power.  People inevitably give it up, and those who take power, sought and unsought, inevitably abuse it.  There are no exceptions, just ask the person on the other side of the policy dictated from power.   So far, the USA has been fairly good at leaving alone those who are disinclined to give up their right to self-determination, what with the overwhelming task of managing all those who demand that their God-given rights be taken over by the few who take grim delight in wielding outsized power, sought and unsought.

Hong Kong has no less a range of characters good to bad than any other polity, the difference is none has the power to leverage over another.  Collective abuse just does not get traction.  It may be the ephemerality of the place, but so far so good.  

Once upon a time in USA the news was about business people, not it is about politicians and celebrities.  Business people, on the side, did some politics, something like a Rand Paul today who would continue where he left off caring for people's eyesight.  (And as a doctor, he is the about the only senator who is not a millionaire, for people wholly devoted to public service become millionaires).

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post