Posted by
Andrews on Monday, March 09, 2009 10:43:24 AM
Often what people see, or think they see, is not truly the facts, but rather a specific perspective on those facts. This is, obviously, a pretty pedestrian observation, that people can have distorted views of reality. However, though it sounds pedestrian, in reality it is much more important than most people realize. Why? Because, while almost everyone will pay lip service to the fact that
OTHER PEOPLE can have distorted views, they rarely recognize that they may themselves be seeing reality through any sort of filter. Yet, because of their choice of words, their particular viewpoint, or other distorting factors, they themselves are just as deluded as those they acknowledge as having a slightly skewed perspective.
I wrote on this before, in context of the housing market, and wrote about how the constant emphasis on "loss of value" made us overlook any potential positives from declining housing prices, so I will not revisit that example. Instead let me look at the question of "greed".
Obviously, "greed" carries a negative connotation. We have all been raised to think "greed" is a base motive, something to be avoided. And that lies at the root of the opposition of some to the free market. Seeing the pursuit of material gain, or worse, the elevation of "greed" as the singular goal of the market, many come to imagine that the free market is itself evil incarnate.
But even those who support the free market are caught up in this same perspective. Listen to the arguments and you will hear them dancing around their fear of elevating "greed". They will argue that the free market brings the most benefit to their fellow man. They will argue that it promotes cooperation. And when all else fails, they will argue that, though there are higher goals than material well being, the free market does a good job of promoting material well being. And those are true, and valid arguments, but they are not he primary benefits of the free market.
Now, let us look at the free market if we remove the fear of greed. What if we stop calling the acquisition of goods "greed' and instead call it "self-reliance" or "independence"? What if we refer to it as "providing for one's family" or "saving for the future"? Once you eliminate the concept of "greed", the system stops requiring so many dodges, so many circumlocutions,and we can admit that the free market provides the best framework for advancing one's material well being.
Of course material well being is not the highest aspiration, but so what? We don't feel the need when describing a restaurant to say "well, filling one's stomach is not as important as spiritual fulfillment, but other than that the meal was delicious", so why do we have to do that when talking of the free market? Of course the free market provides no spiritual benefits, but it is not supposed to. The truth is, the only reason we add such disclaimers is a residual guilt over pursuing "greedy" ends.
Nor is the free market the only topic on which we allow this self-defeating argument, in which we adopt the opposition's assumptions without knowing it. When we talk of "the environment", that term alone smuggles in many environmentalist assumptions. The same with "clean water" or "clean air". And the same also when we talk of "social services" or "public welfare". In topic after topic, we allow the left to set the terms of the debate.
Want proof? Think of how many right wing arguments have started by describing how the free market makes everyone more wealthy, how a minimal government ensures everyone's wealth, and in general terms, how a free market, minimal government out-welfare-states the welfare state. Why? The benefits of a minimal state is that it protects individual rights, and that is the function of government. Yes, it has many other benefits, but that is not the purpose. The purpose is protecting the individual, and that should be our focus. But instead we end up
conceding the argument to our opponents, admitting the state exists as some sort of super-charity, and thus lose the high ground the moment we open our mouths.
And that, truly, is the danger of all these hidden assumptions, not that we believe things without realizing it, though that is a risk, but that we basically adopt the arguments of the other side without knowing it. And, once we have done so, once we have conceded their points, we might as well not bother to argue, we have already thrown the game away.