—————————————

Thanks for replying. First, I think we need to get some common ground here. I haven’t per say read Hayek strictly, though I have read and understood on, some general level, the principles of free-market libertarians, such as Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman. So yes, I do not have that kind of extensive background and no doubt, there may exists substantial differences between Hayek, Rothbard and Friedman but I still suspend my support for the proposal of a free-market ideology. Secondly, which is very important, you and i agree to a significant extent on one thing: governments are bad and dangerous. More crucially, it is centralised authority and power we are opposed to. However, as we both mentioned, I differ with respect as to the notion that governments should be abolished than restructured. Thus, don’t use any current models of government as a support of my argument. So far, none exists to date, and the movements I support have been demolished in history or are still in their infancy. Yours, on the other hand, are to some degree thriving.

I should also remark that it makes no sense, to me, to say “whatever flaws corporations have, governments have it worse. Or vice versa.” Both have serious flaws, and so far, I haven’t heard as to how you would wish to rehabilitate the authoritarian aspects of the current corporate structure. Maybe you do, and i certainly think it is possible, along with a minimal government institution, that way some of my concerns would be assuaged. But in a broader scheme of things, I don’t have faith that people living according to free market principles, have any intrinsic concerns that they should get together and solve social issues together. It’s a “dog eat dog world”, literally.

You are a lawyer (or close enough heh), and you are right that systems of law can be remodeled to the ideologies of narrow elites. But corporations are another form of private power, which can exercise much greater power if the systems of government are displaced. The current ‘libertarian’ (in the European sense) lawyer in Victoria, Brain Walters SC, is someone who knows all too well the dangers of corporate power. He is now assisting in the defence of one defendant in the Gunns 20 lawsuit, again to me, a clear demonstration of how corporate power can indeed take away liberty and property.

I agree with you. Throughout history, there will and always will be attempts by some part of the majority to oppress the minority, and in light of this, it is further reason I do not wish to see economic power divested in a free-market environment. I don’t expect the minorities to be rescued from big corporations. I don’t expect corporations to rescue small businesses. One shortsight I should have mentioned, is that you are right: economic freedom and social freedom are not mutually exclusive. They never were. That adds to my perception that when the systems of economics are allowed to run rampant, with no checks and balances, all the more social freedom will shrink. And personally, market forces aren’t natural to me. You have refered to concept of the “spontaneous order”, something that I had taken notice for a long time and I can’t ascribe to. When there isn’t some form of check on a enormous and chaotic field such as the market (and likewise, I would argue on the environment and etc.), that places the social needs of the community at stake, then there will be some imbalances. And worse, they will be legitimized.

It is akin to the “natural selection” cycle but simply supplanted in economics, away from the field of biology, which to my mind, is unsuitable. Further, the principle that “without competition, there will be no creativity” is a fallacy to me. Creativity is borne from the breaking out of rules, or re-inventing properties within the confines of laws. It has nothing to do with competition, and it would be sad to think that humans are always in dire need to compete with each other so that they can stay “creative”.

I think social ecology and environmental issues should not be discussed through market processes. Social ecologists and environmentalists have, for years, talked about how environmental resources are been exploitated by corporations because of narrow economic interests. True, the government is the one giving them the helping hand, but the problem was never the government who might have to rely on policy makers whose interest is for their community members. The corporations’ interest is for themselves primarily, though they claim the benefit supposedly extends to the broader community, but once they start to co-opt educational institutions and other forms of expertise, then we aren’t being objective here as to what their goals are directed to. Also more importantly, no serious person concerned about the environment will place their faith in technology to rescue ourselves from environmental woes. No piece of technology, as far as we know, is going to repair that great big hole in the sky. And free-markets don’t guarantee everybody will have access to purchasing environmentally-friendly measures. If anything, people should be expected to moderate their production and consumption which is against a fundamental tenet against the premises of laissez-faire capitalism (i.e. the need to expand). When people are compelled to save the Earth than earn a million bucks, I don’t think there isn’t going to be some creative thinking on technology and distribution of services.

The power of rent-seeking will only be excerbated in a free-market world, even if people have to rent themselves to the government now (i.e. in a free-market world, the owners of capital will be our new rulers). There may not be anything remotely close to political competition in Singapore, but it’s existence is certainly found almost everywhere else (however, I do concede that this isn’t, ipso facto, an effective deterrent against power too).

I will put it this way: suppose everything you say is true, and I accept that corporations have a far higher legitimacy to expand and disseminate, and governments are reduced to operate only according to certain functions (i.e. protection of private property and etc), and that creativity is actually the result of competition, well, who is going to account for the people who are supposedly not as creative, have non-desired labour skills to offer (or at least be punished financially ), or are excluded from the market due to other factors (e.g. prejudice, racism and etc)?

Lastly, as we operate on fundamentally opposite positions, to me, it would be impossible for both of us to jump onto the “other camp” in a sudden. I don’t have anything against you, and I do see that you have strong faith in the law of economics to relieve economic and social issues, and possibly increase the scope of human freedom. The ideas you place your trust in are what I am against, not because I don’t think it’s impossible to implement (with the rate things are moving now, it is closer to reality), but they are principles I don’t believe in: namely 1) free competition = natural ‘justified’ hierarchial order 2) a decentralised system of control (or non-control) where public discourse about values and ethics are absorbed and appropriated through the market sphere 3) the excerbation of, what it seems to me, the harmful aspects of individual freedom at the cost of social needs , local, regional and global.

I am however surprise that the u brand the other alternatives as more socialist. As far as I know for WP , the rumoured biggest opposition party, after Low took over from JBJ, it had underwent significant changes in both personnel and party structure. WP also had not publish any manifesto or etc since Low took over. So although it had a socialist backgrd (but hey which party formed in the 50s aren’t?), I don’t think it is fair to brand them as worse than SDP before they state their new platform.

I am not sure about other opposition parties, but do tell me more why u feel that they are worse.

An open letter to Wannabe Lawyer