Freedom in One Lesson

59.

Amoral Markets versus
Immoral Coercion

I am a believer in the power of liberty—voluntary relationships—to bring out the best in individuals and, therefore, society. But that well-founded belief makes it painful to see markets—voluntary exchange—blamed for social problems while government coercion is supported as a means of achieving some utopian vision.

Why, for many people, are unattainable utopian visions more attractive and inspirational than liberty, which can achieve the best society that is actually attainable and break the trend of increasing statism? Leonard Read considers this issue carefully and offers insight on it in “Free Market Disciplines,” from his 1969 book Let Freedom Reign (Read 1969b).

In “Free Market Disciplines,” Read shows that liberty’s failure to gain more adherents than utopian statism can be, in part, traced to the fact that the ends envisioned rather than the means involved are often what motivate people. And since, unlike utopian visions, freedom and free markets cannot be proven to have no objectionable results, liberty can be saddled with an inspirational deficit. But to attribute unpleasant results to markets misplaces the blame. Restricting voluntary arrangements (beyond preventing force and fraud) cannot solve the real problem; moreover, it hobbles the market’s ability to coordinate cooperative and productive plans, causing harm in the misguided attempt to accomplish good.

The free market is the only mechanism that can sensibly, logically, intelligently discipline production and consumption. For it is only when the market is free that economic calculation is possible. Free pricing is the key. . . .

. . . [But] it is necessary to recognize the limitations of the free market. The market is a mechanism, and thus it is wholly lacking in moral and spiritual suasion; further, it embodies no coercive force whatsoever. . . .

[Quoting W.H. Pitt:] “The market, with its function for the economizing of time and effort, is servant alike to the good, the compassionate, and the perceptive as well as to the evil, the inconsiderate, and the oblivious.” . . .

Given a society of freely choosing individuals, the market is that which exists as a consequence—it is a mechanism that is otherwise non-definitive. It is the procession of economic events that occur when authoritarianism . . . is absent. . . .

. . . In a word, the free market is individual desire speaking in exchange terms. . . .

When the desires of people are depraved, a free market will accommodate the depravity. And it will accommodate excellence with equal alacrity. It is “servant alike to good . . . and evil.”

It is because the free market serves evil as well as good that many people think they can rid society of evil by slaying this faithful, amoral servant. This is comparable to . . . breaking the mirror so that we won’t have to see the reflection of what we really are. . . .

The market is but a response to—a mirror of—our desires. . . .

Instead of cursing evil, stay out of the market for it; the evil will cease to the extent we cease patronizing it. Trying to rid ourselves of trash by running to government for morality laws is like trying to minimize the effects of inflation by wage, price, and other controls. Both destroy the market, that is, the reflection of ourselves . . . attempts not to see ourselves as we are. . . . To slay this faithful, amoral servant is to blindfold, deceive, and hoodwink ourselves. . . . Denying the market is to erase the best point of reference man can have. . . .

. . . The market is a mechanism and is neither wise nor moral. . . . The market is an obstacle course; before I can pursue my bent or aptitude or obsession, I must gain an adequate, voluntary approval or assent! . . . My own aspirations, regardless of how determined, or lofty, or depraved, do not control the verdict. What these others . . . will put up in willing exchange for my offering spells my success or failure, allows me to pursue my bent or not. . . .

. . . Eventually, in a free society, the junk goes to the junk heap and achievements are rewarded.

I believe that anyone should follow his star; but let him do so with his own resources or with such resources as others will voluntarily supply. This is to say that I believe in the market, a tough, disciplinary mechanism. . . .

[An] individual, in the free market, considers how much of his own property he is willing to put on the line. . . . The free market gives short shrift to projects that are at or near the bottom of individual preferences.

Read sees that markets are an amoral servant: they enable people to do whatever they want better but cannot be relied on with certainty to only do good and inspirational things. If we reform ourselves, markets will do no harm. Read has great faith that such improvements are possible, that “eventually, in a free society, the junk goes to the junk heap and achievements are rewarded.” In contrast, coercively “reforming” ourselves by law does not eliminate the cause of harm and does little to stop it. It does, however, throw out the amoral servant that enables the accomplishment of more good than any other mechanism.

He recognizes that liberty—voluntary arrangements that spring up when rights involving oneself and one’s production are protected—provides the means of achieving what is achievable in advancing society. As we develop ourselves, we each have more to offer others. This, plus what freedom has historically accomplished beyond our ability to predict, are at the heart of his inspirational vision.

To follow Read’s path of increasing liberty, we must develop our ability to “see” the unseen good that can only be achieved by freeing the ability to peacefully create and innovate. We must also learn to see the inherent failings of coercion. Through this binocular vision, liberty appears far more inspirational than any statist alternative. Read argues again and again that if others are to “catch” that vision, we must articulate it as well as we can.