The Moral and the Practical
by Robert W. Tracinski

Free Markets Are Practical for the Same Reasons That Make Them Moral:
Respect for the Mind and Values of the Individual

The worldwide discrediting of socialism has left our intellectual leaders in an
odd dilemma. The system that they hailed for decades as a moral and
philosophical ideal has been shown to be disastrous in practice, leading to
stagnation at best and starvation at worst.

Meanwhile, (free markets) have led to the creation of unprecedented wealth,
advanced technology, and widespread prosperity. Yet the free market system,
capitalism, is denounced by these same intellectuals as a system of greed,
materialism, and ruthless "dog-eat-dog" competition.

<< Likewise, socialized medicine is touted as "moral" even today by those
who assert that individuals are born with a "right" to health care services.

Yet, it has been shown to lead to unlimited public demands for and resulting
bureaucratic rationing of health care services, rising taxes, waiting lists
and lines for necessary medical care, bureaucratic micromanagement of medical
decision-making, limitations of available technology and the flight of
medical providers to relatively freer countries or professions.

By contrast, and in comparison to the Canadian and UK systems, such preservation
of quality, technological innovation and relative abundance of high- tech goods
and services in the US system is the result of the ever- diminishing remnants
of freedom/ incomplete regulation under a system that is relatively less
bureaucratically regulated, though rapidly catching up, thanks to the US form
of socialized medicine ie., Medicare/Medicaid and government- spawned
"Mangled Care". >>

So it would seem that the system that enforces "virtue" leads to poverty ( and
deteriorating medical systems) while the system that encourages vice leads to
prosperity ( and technological innovation, superiority and abundance)

But there is another answer to this dilemma; there is a solution to this
apparent contradiction between the moral and the practical. That solution is to
re-examine the premise that the free market system is immoral.

<< ...which is not to defend that highly immoral outgrowth of government
regulations- managed care- that bureaucratically micromanages every medical
decision and violates the rights of patients and providers to pursue their lives
and own interests and is frequently and ridiculously cited as an example of a
"free market run amok"......>>

If we do this, we can see that every characteristic that makes capitalism
practical is also a principle that makes capitalism moral.

Capitalism is practical, many economists have argued, because it allows
individuals to act on their own thinking rather than being forced to obey the
decrees of bureaucrats. Under a free market system, every problem of economic
production is tackled by thousands, even millions, of minds.

The people whose thinking is successful will thrive. They succeed because they
find opportunities that others don't see, because they develop new products that
no one else has thought of, or because they discover more efficient production
methods that have never been tried before.

In a free market, where everyone is free to start a business, raise capital, and
place his product on the market, each individual thinker has the opportunity to
put his ideas into practice, and to succeed or fail based on the merits of his
idea. Those who succeed bring us new and improved products at an ever lower
cost, creating economic progress and prosperity.

In the regulatory state << or under government regulated medicine>> by
contrast, the edicts of politicians and bureaucrats override the thinking of
individuals. The result is that political expediency, rather than the truth or
falsity of an idea, determines who gets to put his ideas into practice.....

Stated in more fundamental terms, it is the rational thinking of individuals
that causes the production of wealth. But government regulation acts to stymie
individual thought, subordinating the knowledge and creativity of millions of
individuals to the edicts of public officials.

Thus, the practical value of capitalism flows from the need to protect the
creativity and freedom of thought of the individual. But isn't this also a
profound moral principle?

Most of today's intellectuals still recognize that we need to protect the
thinking of the artist or the scientist—but the same principle applies equally
to the worker, the executive, and the industrialist.

<< and especially to the doctor- whose ability to think, make life-saving and
life-preserving medical decisions and take actions based on his or her own best
medical judgment requires protection from bureaucratic interference in order
that it be of value to a patient.>>

Only a truly free market system fully recognizes the moral right of the
individual to think and to act on his thinking- not just in his personal life
or intellectual life, but also in his economic life.

Economic production << including the production of health care services >> is
not just a matter of thinking; it is also a matter of motivation << as doctors
leaving the state of PA in the face of declining financial incentives and
sky-rocketing malpractice costs recognize >>.

Thus, according to economists, the "practicality" of a free market also stems
from the fact that it allows individuals to set their own plans and pursue their
own goals.....

In a state-run economy << or medical system >> by contrast, the central
planning of government officials wipes out the plans of individuals. Since they
don't own the business, can't control the course of their own careers, and don't
stand to gain or lose from their actions, the workers' predominant attitude is
apathy.

And why should they care? If they succeed in increasing production, the extra
wealth will be used to support those who haven't succeeded. "From each according
to his ability, to each according to his need" is the motto of the welfare
state.

But in such a system, who would want to be the man of ability << in general, let
alone a doctor....>>, conscripted into a life of unrewarded drudgery so that
others can consume the product of his labor?

It is no surprise that every society that has approached this socialist ideal
has found few volunteers to be the men of ability who keep the economy running.

Stated in more fundamental terms, capitalism is practical because it relies on
the inexhaustible motive-power of self-interest. Under capitalism, people are
driven by loyalty to their own goals and by the ambition to improve their lives.
They are driven by the idea that one's own life is an irreplaceable value not to
be sacrificed or wasted.

But this is also a crucial moral principle: the principle that each man is an
end in himself, not a mere cog in the collective machine to be exploited for the
ends of others.

Most of today's intellectuals reflexively condemn self-interest; yet this is the
same quality enshrined by our nation's founders when they proclaimed the
individual's right to "the pursuit of happiness."

It is only capitalism that recognizes this right. The fundamental
characteristics that make capitalism practical- its respect for the freedom of
the mind and for the sanctity of the individual are also profound moral ideals.

This is the answer to the dilemma of the moral vs. the practical. The answer is
that capitalism is a system of * virtue * the virtues of rational thought,
productive work, and pride in the value of one's own person.

The reward for these virtues and for the political system that protects and
encourages them is an ever-increasing wealth and prosperity."

Full article:

http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Philosophy/Essays/The_Moral_and_the_Practical.ht\
m