Money, Greed, and God--Part VIII

The Artsy Myth

In the seventh myth, which Richards calls the Artsy Myth, in his book Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem, the discussion is about personal preferences which some wish to see others similarly adopt or hold. Usually these preferences are aesthetic judgements (preferring rock to hip-hop, for example) and then the personal property rights economy gets blamed for “promoting” hip-hop and "making" it popular instead of rock or classical or country music--or whatever is one's particular preference.

Not only are arguments of this sort confusing aesthetic preferences with the pros and cons of different economic structures and ideologies—but the arguments are often implicitly elitist. Someone has view that a a certain policy, option, or good is superior (and better for mankind) than another, and wants to see it either adopted by others or imposed upon others. Because the free choices of the majority (as expressed through popular demand in the free market) go the other way, blame is placed upon the system that both allows and encourages people to choose that way—that is, the system of personal property rights and free trade. Usually, the next move by the disgruntled is to call for some rules or regulations to make people conform and behave the way they "ought to".

An example would be the “buy local” food movement. Some people hold the view that food grown locally is better (whether nutritionally or aesthetically or environmentally) than food grown offshore and transported internationally. Since free trade has resulted in mass produced, low-cost food being imported from around the world, and since the majority of people prefer this to locally grown food, free trade and the system of personal property rights gets blamed for doing great damage. But a basic principle of justice intrinsic in the personal property and free trade economic system is that each person has a sovereign right of choice about what is best for them. Adults do not have powers or prerogatives to restrict the choices and preferences of others without their consent.

The Artsy Myth presupposes that some (an enlightened elite) have a right to choose for others because they know better, or have a more enlightened set of values, than others.

An irony with respect to this myth is that it is the personal property rights and free trade economic system which can most effectively produce and deliver what the enlightened elite wants, provided it can persuade enough other people that they too should share its view. We read an analysis recently of supermarkets and their stocking of locally produced organic food in the United States. Ironically, Walmart (that big, evil "globalized" monster!) proved to have the widest range of locally produced food (that is, organic food produced within one hundred kilometers of the respective stores) at the lowest prices. The reason this has come about is that Walmart has recently worked out that there is a growing market demand for such food. Accordingly, they have promulgated a policy where each local Walmart store can contract with local growers and producers to supply organic foods in season, thus meeting the preferences, tastes, and demand of their customers. An upshot has been an unexpected revival of locally produced foods. Note a rule, law, regulation, tax or other minatory device in sight!

This is not to say that every economic system based on personal property and free trade will never produce tacky, wasteful, or less-than-aesthetically pleasing outcomes. Of course at times a personal property right system will and does—which is to say that people's tastes can be tacky, vulgar, and crude in the eyes of others—at least for a while, until the novelty has worn off and folk re-think and re-assess. But this is a human problem, not a fault with an economic system built upon personal property rights and free trade.