Q&A: Free Economy and Morality
Free Economy and Morality
Question
Hello Rabbi.
If I remember correctly, you once defined yourself as a libertarian, in the economic-social sense of the word. So I’m directing this question to you.
Do you think there is room to limit the freedom of corporations/individuals engaged in commerce when there is a high probability that doing so will lead to a positive outcome for most of the population?
Example: the law prohibits a “restrictive arrangement,” that is, price coordination between companies is forbidden. There is an infringement on freedom here, though it may be morally justified because it will increase competition in the market and thus bring greater benefit to the public. In other words, contrary to the trendy view these days, there is importance to a certain degree of government intervention in the market in order to preserve social welfare.
But here we are dealing with an empirical issue—which system of government (a libertarian one in the style of a “night-watchman state,” or a free market with some government intervention) is better for a larger number of people. That’s not what I wanted to ask you about. I’m interested in your view on the moral issue: given that a balanced economic system is more efficient, is it *proper* to restrict the freedom of corporations/individuals in order to promote the welfare of the many?
Thank you in advance
Answer
As always, there is no general answer to general questions. Each matter has to be judged on its own merits. It’s like the question of whether the end justifies the means. These are the kind of questions that can’t really be answered in the abstract.
It seems to me that today everyone agrees that, in principle, there are circumstances in which intervention is justified, and the arguments are about when and to what extent. Ironically, action against monopolies is actually considered characteristic of the capitalist right, because a monopoly not only harms citizens but also harms the free market and private initiative. Socialism, of all things, does not oppose monopolism, so long as it is in the hands of the state.