Thinking Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right: Making the Moral Case for Separating State and the Economy (Part 1)
Separating state and the economy should be as obvious as separating state and church.
Before starting the “Think Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right” substack, I wrote articles for a since discontinued outlet, SEPARATE! (separatestateandtheeconomy.com). The lead essay “Championing The Moral Case for Separating State and The Economy – What’s That About?” made the case for separating state and the economy on moral grounds as an essential part of moving towards a capitalist society founded on a morality championing rational self-interest, individualism, protection of individual rights, and limited government.
Unfortunately, the United States (and most of the world) is currently moving away from this ideal as collectivists/statists on both the political right and left are embracing tribal authoritarianism and a desire to use government force to expand their political power, damn the consequences. As a result, our individual rights appear more threatened than in a long time.
The battle to gain the upper hand over the collectivists is primarily moral. We must demonstrate to Americans the immorality of violating individual rights: of forcing us to pay for and be enrolled in programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and government (public) education; of forcing us to pay for tariffs and subsidies with our taxes and higher prices at the checkout; and of saddling us with government regulations in every area of our lives.
In this context, I think it’s important to continue to champion the moral and practical goal of separating state and the economy. What follows in three installments is a revised version of the original essay. Since its publication, in the light of the increasing embrace of authoritarianism on the political right, I’ve tempered my optimism that people of established faiths will see the light any time soon, although I’d love to be proved wrong. Let me know what you think in the comments. Enjoy!
+++
“When I say “capitalism”, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
(Ayn Rand, from the essay “What Is Capitalism?” in “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”)
Most Americans understand, explicitly or implicitly, why we have separation of state and church. We agree that faith is a personal matter; that choosing a faith, or no faith, is part of our inalienable individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We acknowledge that accepting a faith must be a voluntary decision, and that faith forcefully imposed by the government is a violation of our rights and therefore morally wrong.
In the United States we have close to a pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire “market” for religious ideas. Different denominations and congregations, faith “sellers,” compete with their faith “products” for prospective faith “buyers.” If a potential buyer of religious ideas finds a particular faith offer compelling—a good investment in his or her pursuit of happiness—a voluntary trade takes place: the buyer invests time and certain monetary contributions in exchange for getting an anticipated set of guidelines to enhance and give meaning to his life, education in the faith in question, new acquaintances and friends sharing the same beliefs, emotional support and reassurance, and so on.
We consider this process, explicitly or implicitly, self-evident, and most of us wouldn’t want it any other way. We may dislike some of the faith “sellers,” and we may think they engage in false advertising and that their “products” are inferior. And we may think some faith “buyers” are being cheated or have bad taste, or even make immoral choices. We may even try to persuade either or both sides to change their mind, and voluntarily withdraw their faith “product” or modify their faith “consumer habits.”
But in the end, we accept these “market imperfections,” because we know that the alternative—some form of government force violating our inalienable individual rights to voluntarily choose a faith, or no faith—is a violation of the separation of state and church, something an overwhelming majority of us unanimously agree is morally wrong.
Making the moral case for separating state and the economy applies the same reasoning to the marketplace for products and services. What you and I produce and consume is a personal matter. Our right to choose a product or service, or no product or service, is part of our inalienable individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Deciding to buy or sell a product or service must be a voluntary decision; any production or consumption imposed or regulated by government force is a violation of our rights and therefore morally wrong.
The only system that preserves our moral right to voluntarily trade products and services is pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. In practice, this means total separation of state and the economy. The government has no more right to regulate our production and consumption of products and services than it has regulating our choice of faith.
One would think that most Americans considered this self-evident, and wouldn’t want it any other way, just as when it’s a matter of their faith. Yet, when it comes to the marketplace for products and services, most of us don’t consider this pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire system, explicitly or implicitly, self-evident. Pick any area of the economy—healthcare, education, agriculture and food, telecommunications, banking and finance, retirement, and so on—and most of us do seem to want it some other way.
When we dislike a seller, and think he is engaging in false advertising or that his product is inferior, we call for the government to step in. The same applies when we think a buyer is being cheated or has bad taste, or even makes what we consider immoral choices; we don’t think it sufficient to persuade either or both sides to change their mind, and voluntarily withdraw their product or modify their consumer habits. We don’t accept such “market imperfections.” No, when it comes to the economy, we think individual rights violating government force is required to deal with the problem.
Consequently, we have asked our politicians to meddle in every aspect of our economic lives in a way that we would find morally wrong if it were about any aspect of our faith. We have permitted them to tax, regulate, fine, coerce and threaten us to such an extent that had it happened in the marketplace for religious ideas it would have been considered fundamentalism of the kind that today is only practiced in Islamic countries.
(Part 2)
"[I]n the light of the increasing embrace of authoritarianism on the political right, I’ve tempered my optimism that people of established faiths will see the light any time soon..."
On the one hand, you have people today freely applying the c-word (communism) and Marxism to the government, which didn't happen in the 1990's, when I first started paying attention to politics. Every day I learn of more people who are organizing to raise awareness and fight back against authoritarianism: things like electronic ID tags for cattle, which, like registration for guns, is just a way to make government's job easier when it decides to confiscate (cull) them. Because emissions. It's been done already in Holland and Ireland. A majority believe now that US elections are manipulated if not outright rigged, and anyone who's heard Mike Benz describe the activities of the CIA and IC knows that election interference is no longer a thing the US does just to foreign countries. Awareness is growing. Is it increasing fast enough? Is it widespread enough? Will it matter without an explicit understanding of the moral issues involved? How many times in human history have the people who change history had that explicit understanding? Ever?
On the other hand, you have this relentless push by a coalition of the administrative state, the intelligence community, universities, corporate media, and NGOs--to take only domestic actors--to extend their tentacles even more deeply. Have you seen this proposed Journalism Competition and Preservation Act? It's straight from Atlas Shrugged: It "establishes a corporate media cartel, which can collectively bargain for payouts from Silicon Valley companies. The latter would not have a choice in the matter. The bill allows for agreements to be forced on them through arbitration," according to the Foundation for Freedom Online.
When "the right" is just a different flavor of statist authoritarianism, there is no "right." There's just the statist left. What everyone else--the normal people, the people who know that this is all wrong, who want a "hands off" state--needs is intellectual ammunition. Fortunately such people are more likely to seek it now than ever, so yes: continuing to champion moral ideas is vital. There's an audience for them and it's growing.
As I have indicated to Don, perhaps a topic for discussion at our next luncheon would be a change in moral focus in the arguments for individual rights and political freedom - i.e., the "separation of economy and state."
I am alluding to the fact that "moral agency," the fact that we each possess it and the power of its exercise, logically dictates that we are responsible for the choices and results such agency mandates. Judea-Christain theology recognizes and asserts such agency as proper, valid, good, etc.
While us advocates of freedom have been ceaselessly arguing about "rights" since before Jefferson profoundly "marketed" them, perhaps the better argument (politically- not necessarily philosophically, although I remain undecided) would be to begin with responsibility? JC's begin there and only move on to the "rights" necessary to fulfill such responsibility when, kicking and screaming, are forced to by logic. The "logic" that has forced JD theology to be dragged into the universe of reason for over 2000 years while maintaining only remnants of their faith, now left with but the existence of the supernatural as the remaining foundational one.
Very few of them, though I assume more so among their leadership, will overtly allow the morphing of the supernatural into the superational. At least my experiences with my wife's family indicates this to be the case. I look forward to discussing such things at our next gathering.