In Pete
Buttigieg, Democratic Capitalist,
Reason’s Zuri Davis writes “The good news: Capitalism is working its way back
to the Democratic mainstream. The bad news: This capitalism comes with a whole
lot of government.” Davis is referring to Democratic 2020 presidential
candidate Pete Buttigieg, who is running under the label Democratic
Capitalism:
Buttigieg told CNN it's generally assumed that those who support
capitalism also support democracy. In his view, though, democracy and
capitalism are "coming into contention" with one another.
"It was very alarming to hear recently one of the president's
economic advisers said that between capitalism and democracy, he would choose
capitalism," said the South Bend mayor. "I would say the reverse
ought to be true, that at the end of the day we prioritize democracy. And, you
know, having that framework of a rule of law, fairness, is actually what takes
markets to work."
But capitalism has always been in “contention”
with democracy, with good reason. They are opposites. The first is based on
freedom based on individual rights, with people governing their own lives. The
second is majoritarianism--that is, top-down government control by elected
political elites.
Davis takes heart that a Democratic candidate is
introducing the capitalist label into the Democrats’ politics in a positive
way. But pro-capitalists shouldn’t take heart. Granted, the term “democracy” is
so vaguely understood that it’s hard to know precisely what Buttigieg means by
the term. But he is running for president, so I’m taking at his word that by
“democracy,” he means Democracy. That being the case, Buttigieg’s democratic capitalism it’s just
a trojan horse for democratic socialism--which means, Socialism.
Another Reason columnist, Brittany Hunter, has a
better grasp of what’s at stake. In What
Should We Make of Peter Buttigieg’s “Democratic Capitalism”?, Hunter observes:
[Buttigieg’s] views are not all that different than those of other
candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. A true believer in
individual rights and private property would never sacrifice the free market
to the will of the majority. [my emphasis]
Do not confuse democracy with the democratic process in a
constitutional republic. If by “democracy” we mean the limited electoral
authority in a constitutional republic, there is no conflict between capitalism
and democracy, since the freedom of the individual is not at risk. However,
capitalism is incompatible with genuine democracy, which places no constraints
on the government’s force over individuals. In any conflict between force and
voluntarism, force will win--which means, in any conflict between democracy and
capitalism, democracy wins, making capitalism nonfunctional.
Freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to live your
life regardless of anyone else’s vote, so long as you respect the same rights
of others. In the proper understanding of the terms, democracy can exist
without capitalism, but not the other way around. Capitalism, the system of
inalienable individual liberty, cannot survive genuine democracy, the system of
majority rule.
Related Reading:
Recommended for further study: on democracy and
freedom, see Timothy Sandefur, The
Conscience of the Constitution, especially Chapter
One, “Democracy and Freedom”; on capitalism and freedom, see Andrew Bernstein, Capitalism
Unbound: The Incontestable Moral Case for Individual Rights; and on the connection between rights and politics, see Tara
Smith, “Moral
Rights and Political Freedom.”
No comments:
Post a Comment