Heilbroner paints a persuasive portrait of the market system. Indeed, it’s hard not to see the market system as wholly benevolent and even liberating when compared to the custom-ruled and authoritarian based predecessors. Who would dare argue against the sovereignty to choose what you will produce and how you’ll produce it; what you will buy and from whom; and what occupation you will pursue. I’ve personally always felt that economic theory is more easily talked about than realized or observed. It’s not as if every person, even those within the most free of states is as free an agent as described. Even within
Philosophically, it’s disconcerting to think that the system keeping our society from collapsing belittles human interaction into nothing more than self-interest and competition. To be sure, I recognized the merits of the market system in promoting economic freedom, but as Heilbroner notes, economic freedom is not the same as absolute freedom. And in my opinion, if independent of moral contemplation, this kind of freedom not always something to be desired. As he states, markets are “the strictest taskmaster of all… if one pleases to do what the market disapproves, the process of individual freedom is economic ruination”(58). Economic success is nice, but its pursuit can be used to justify unjust acts. Lets not forget about the boys and girls at the Lowdham factory who were “whipped day and night… to stimulate their flagging industry”(105). Sure, I find relief in Robert Owen and his crusade for humane working conditions, but I am nevertheless perturbed that, within this model, nothing more than the prospect of increased profits would drive factory owners to improve conditions. Is man truly only preoccupied with gain?
No comments:
Post a Comment