If you peruse this site, sooner or later you’re going to come across a phrase. It’s a phrase that, frankly, irritates me a little. That phrase is: “free market.”
Now, I don’t want to convey the wrong idea. Readers are probably already thinking that I am somehow against the idea of the free market. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s the phrase itself that I don’t like.
I’m not sure, exactly, why the word irritates me. In my mind, it conjures up several ideas that I find counterintuitive. First, it practically begs the imagery of people wheeling and dealing in a heartless environment where the “haves” exploit the “have nots,” where self centeredness is an ideal or a goal unto itself, where relationships are sacrificed on the altar of Mammon and building wealth is the highest pursuit in life.
Secondly, the phrase “free market” is often mistakenly connected in people’s minds with “capitalism.” Capitalism is not the free market, and the free market is not capitalism. Quite the contrary, corporations owe their very existence to government privilege, and could not exist without government. Nonetheless, in most minds the two words, capitalism and the free market, are inextricably linked.
But I think the main reason I find “the free market” irritating is because it is too often presented as an alternative to government, and a utopian alternative at that. This is a dangerous concept. The free market is most decidedly not an alternative to government. Let me explain.
The role of government is fairly simple: It exists for the sole purpose of using violence against people that do not obey it. As George Washington expressed it, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” Government prefers to use this force sparingly. It prefers that individuals willingly cooperate, (in effect, policing themselves) so as to spare it the embarrassing unpleasantness of using force against its own citizens. But when push comes to shove, violence is the only way government knows to enforce its decrees. Since government itself produces nothing, it must also rely on others to pay its bills. And since it provides nothing of value, (unless it has co-opted a legitimate service from the private sector,) it must then coerce these same individuals by threatening violence against them if they refuse to pick up the government tab.
The free market, then, is not an alternative to government. Rather, government is a parasite on the free market. Alternatives to government are street gangs or the Mafia, anything that would step in with violence to force people to do something they do not wish to do. The free market is the absence of such coercion, consisting of the natural interaction of people and groups absent the threat of violence.
It is important to realize that the free market is not a utopia. It is not a panacea for everything that ails mankind. Absent the parasite of government, men could easily choose to act in the way that I described earlier: the haves could exploit the have nots, men could choose to care only for themselves, destroy relationships, and worship money as their idol. But they can do that, even with the parasitic government in place now. In fact, in many ways it is easier for men to act in that way with government, as unprincipled men have always been attracted to the power that the government wields, finding it a convenient tool in the exploitation of others.
But a free market unhindered by government does give an advantage. Under the current system, people see things happening with very little effort: roads are built and maintained. Fire Departments are sustained. Libraries are built. Children are educated. This happens without any thought or planning on the part of most individuals. Unless they resist the temptation, then, individuals can become complacent and fail to realize that nothing gets done without a human being making it happen. Without an all-powerful regime that creates the illusion that things happen without effort, then, people are forced to take responsibility for their own actions. And this sense of personal responsibility tends toward self-improvement and growth.
I’ve often wondered why these principles, understood by great thinkers for centuries, have not resulted in a lasting, principled change worldwide. But the answer seems plain to me: too many people have focused on changing the world, and neglected cleaning up their own backyard.
As I speak with people here in Keene, I notice that a large percentage of the people with whom I communicate feel that there is something wrong in Concord, in Washington D.C., indeed, in the whole world. Many fear that we are slipping more and more towards tyranny. And these same people want to change things. But they want to change things in Concord or Washington or Iraq. But they don’t see that any lasting change around the world must begin where we have the greatest power to make the change: here in our backyard. Here in Keene. As Ghandi once said, “We must be the change we wish to see in the world.”
The problem is that people often think of political change merely in terms of voting. Some people tend to think, “if only I could select a better/smarter/more honest/more compassionate leader, then things would be better.” But good people are either corrupted by the system, or more commonly chewed up and spit out. The system is not good. It is evil and violent. So it eats good men alive. They cannot change it, because its very nature is violent.
What is needed is a change in perspective, a change in the very way we perceive power.
Hopefully, this site will present some good suggestions about how we can accomplish this in the coming months. No one has a monopoly on good ideas. But as we go forward, working in our community to bring about a change towards a nonviolent society, hopefully a lively interchange can occur as we gradually realize the extent to which violence has permeated our society, and work to undo that damage.
For now, I want to present an idea. Well, not so much an idea, as a theme which hopefully will encompass many ideas – a theme which in the coming months we can expound upon, develop, and nurture to great effectiveness. That theme is the revolutionary concept of “Just say No!” … to government, that is.
Governments may make whatever laws they wish, but a law cannot be enforced if the people refuse to abide by the law. A law which is not respected is not enforceable. All too often, we comply with onerous laws simply because we wish to avoid the violent consequences that government doles out on malcontents and scofflaws. However, the ability to “Just say No!” to a bad law is the single most powerful way that we can make a difference here in Keene. The government does not really want to use violence. It wants you to back down. When you say “No!” in a nonviolent way, you force the government to decide what to do: Either it must back down, or else it must demonstrate what government is all about by using violence against you. Neither option is really what government wants to do. The government loses legitimacy when it incarcerates peaceful civilians who are engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience. Thus, I hope to explore some ideas for civil disobedience in this blog in the upcoming months, ideas which can be implemented right here in Keene.
I look forward to working with everyone in this great city who wants to join us for this nonviolent revolution.
In Liberty,
Caleb
