NOW, I've only just learned of Milton Friedman, but I'm glad I did. Here is a guy who could win a Nobel Prize AND be a capitalist. Even though it might have been some years back, that fact still offers a glimmer of hope to us free-market people. His knowledge provides a very convincing case for the free-market. That knowledge and skill at explaining the free-market are on display in a video where young Michael Moore poses the question (to paraphrase):
If the free-market allows Ford to build a car (the Pinto) at the expense of 200 human lives per year, to save $13 per car, is the free-market really right?
On the surface, like any liberal argument, this seems like a no-brainer ethical principle. "Holy cow, of course the free-market is terrible if it allows things like this to go on! I mean, evil Ford letting 200 hundred people die each year just to save thirteen dollars to make each Pinto! The free-market should like be totally banned!!" This is what many people's brains may tell them, and in reality, it is a logical response (maybe not to Michael Moore, who also states in the video he doesn't believe every human life is sacred). However, Friedman begs us to look at this issue deeper. I believe in this exchange, he has effectively explained why the free-market is completely ethical.
Very simply put, the government's role is not to impose regulations over businesses ensuring that every product they make is safe, that every piece of marketing they choose to show to the public is true, and that every decision they make is ethical. The free-market, as Friedman states, has ethical protections that come in the form of the law. Those operating a business are not exempt from the laws that other citizens must follow such as lying, cheating, theft and murder. Anything regulations imposed on business beyond this are un-necessary. It is the consumer's duty to have the ability to protect themselves based on products they think are worth buying.
A point he also makes very clear is that virtually every aspect of life could be life-threatening: getting out of bed, walking down stairs, walking across the street, walking up stairs or driving any car (whether it's a Ford Pinto or not). The point is that while Ford could have spent the extra $13 per car, (possibly) ensuring that 200 lives could be saved each year, it is not up to government to dictate to Ford how they should spend their money. Therefore, the principle of ethics does not lie in whether or not Ford should have saved $13 per car at the expense of 200 lives per year, but whether or not it is ethical to take people's right to choose to buy that car, and if it is ethical to insult a people's intelligence by suggesting they wouldn't be able to decide if they really should buy a Pinto (maybe the government should have made Ford choose a better name for the thing).
The bottom line is that ultimately, the free-market is the most ethical system there is because it ensures people's liberty. One thing I believe is usually missed by those who would argue against the free-market, is that government ultimately takes liberty away from the consumer in the name of their protection. While a government might "protect" people from a dangerous product, the end result is them taking away the liberty to choose between any product just as they did with the incandescent light bulb.
Here is Friedman explaining the free-market to young Moore (CONTENT WARNING: MICHAEL MOORE ACTUALLY SAYS HE DOESN'T BELIEVE EVERY HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED):
No comments:
Post a Comment