As I remarked in my previous post, Sir Bob Geldof is an annoying gentleman but capable of moments of lucidity. (I was a bit rude about him in my previous post. Sorry Bob). As an act of charity to the fellow, here is a quotation he might like to ponder:
“I see in the free trade principle that which will act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe- drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creeds and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace… I believe the effect will be to change the face of the world, so as to introduce a system of government entirely distinct from that which now prevails. I believe the desire and the motive for large and mighty empires and gigantic armies and great navies… will die away… when man becomes one family, and freely exchanges the fruits of his labor with his brother Man.”
Those words were uttered by Richard Cobden about 150 years ago, a man who saw a congruence between the ideals of personal liberty, concern for the welfare of one’s fellows, and the free market order. For him, like his great Victorian contemporaries like Sir Robert Peel, free trade was a progressive cause to be championed in the interests of the little guy, and not the cause of big powerful interests. It is a message that urgently needs to be understood by those who, no doubt from fine motives in a few cases, rail against global capitalism.
If the case for the free market is to be more widely advanced, we have to appeal to the sense of idealism and concern for the downtrodden that animated our ancestors and could still appeal to the decent folk on the left. It is worth a try, anyway.
Great post Johnathan. I find my own thoughts are much more aligned to that kind of thought and language than I am to so much of the similar argument being put forth only in terms of self interest and the profit motive.
Of course we all want to make good profits for ourselves but we only succeed where we provide value to others. I am sure those who dream all day long of making huge fortunes make less money than those who are constantly dreaming up new ways to help others.
Yes, it is an inspiring quote. It’s sad that Cobden is almost forgotten.
No “decent folk” still harbor leftist convictions, at least none over 15 years old. And anyone “railing against global capitalism” can have no good motive, for ignorance and a refusal to know what you’re talking about are not noble. The myth that “idealism” motivates any on the left is dangerous and muddle-headed. Fear, guilt, power hunger and confusion, yes, but not “a concern for the downtrodden”. Not really.
In my opinion, two of the greatest causes of poverty in the developing world are European governments (with their protectionism) and African governments (with their corruption and oppression). So Sir Bob wants to bully western governments into taking more money from ordinary people (money that could have been invested in Africa or given to charities helping to alleviate poverty in Africa) and giving it to African governments! I have only 4 words to say about this craziness… Not in my name!
I think perhaps you mean “at least, none I know.”
Misguided they may be, but I know several decent people of a leftist persuasion who really do have a genuine desire to help the less fortunate and who think some form of socialism is the way to do this.
EG
Euan Gray is dead right. Of course many on the left today are assholes, but to be brutally frank, the same applies to the other side. Many people support socialism, or at least some idea of collectivism, out of a desire to help their fellows. Of course I think they are wrong but treating such folk as all uniformly venal and stupid is, well, stupid.
What we need to do on the libertarian side of the ideological picture is to explain to decent folk why their ideals are best served by the values of liberty, open markets, property rights, etc. Remember, a lot of libertarians are former socialists.
If we don’t try and engage people in this way, then we will end up just talking to ourselves. And frankly, what is the point of that?
Most socialists and leftists are merely misguided libertarians. I used to be one, and the key is to make them understand what real liberty looks like.
i correct myself, not most but a good many.
I see. Those people who think – for considered and detailed reasons – that the state should centrally direct most or all economic activity REALLY think that the state should do exactly the opposite, but just don’t know it? Forgive me, I am unconvinced of your logic.
Is it just me, or is there a hint of conflict between “make them understand” and “liberty”? Why not just let them be?
I understand that quite a few libertarians are ex-socialists. This makes the earlier discussion on “Marxism of the Right” somewhat more pertinent. I suspect that the ex-socialists are the same libertarians who are tied to a dogmatic world view, who see ideology as more important than pragmatism, who have an apocalyptic view of the opposition and who consider that economic rules apply to non-economic aspects of life. I suspect also that those libertarians who don’t think like this are the ones who come from a more conservative (or Conservative) background.
EG
I’m backing the “trade not aid” campaign.
India is doing well, China is doing well. As far as I know, neither has aid money (India made a bit of an issue after the Tsunami to say “we can look after ourselves”). In fact, China is lending to the USA.
Giving money to Africa is like putting fuel on the fire. Governments can kick back and do nothing, because the aid money does their jobs. They will spend it corruptly (anyone who thinks the “strings attached” will be enforced is crazy). Five years from now, I doubt we will be trumpeting major successes in Africa, except in governments that cast off their shackles and promote business.
“Saint Bob” has done them no favours. A concert about African aid could have helped promote African music – a modern industry. Instead, it’s all about farming, like economies based on farming will be able to produce modernisation.
I suspect that the ex-socialists are the same libertarians who are tied to a dogmatic world view, who see ideology as more important than pragmatism, who have an apocalyptic view of the opposition and who consider that economic rules apply to non-economic aspects of life. I suspect also that those libertarians who don’t think like this are the ones who come from a more conservative (or Conservative) background.
No, your suspicions are quite wrong.