Free economy and morality
Hello Rabbi.
I believe you once defined yourself as a libertarian, in the socio-economic sense of the word. That’s why I’m asking you this question.
Do you think there is a place to limit the freedom of associations/individuals engaged in commerce, when this will most likely result in a positive outcome for the majority of the population?
Example: There is a prohibition in law on ‘restrictive arrangements’, i.e., a prohibition on price coordination between companies. There is an infringement of freedom here, although it may be morally justified because it will lead to increased competition in the market and thus to greater benefit to the public. In other words, contrary to the trendy perception these days, there is importance for some government intervention in the market in order to preserve social welfare.
But this is a factual issue – which system of government (libertarian in the “night watchman state” style, or free market with some government intervention) is better for a greater number of people. That’s not what I wanted to ask you about. I’m interested in your opinion on the moral issue: Given that a balanced economic system is more efficient, is it *appropriate* to reduce the freedom of corporations/individuals in order to bring about the welfare of many?
Thanks in advance.
As always, there is no general answer to general questions. Each case is unique. It’s like the question of whether the end justifies the means. The kind of questions that can’t be answered.
It seems to me that today everyone agrees that in principle there are circumstances in which it is justified to intervene, and the debates are when and to what extent. Ironically, action against monopolies is considered to be characteristic of the capitalist right, because monopoly not only harms citizens but also the free market and private initiative. Socialism does not oppose monopolies, as long as they are in the hands of the state.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
