Tri-Debate Part II

Shianux's reply: DINAPW- Replies, Rebuttals and Refinements
Related Post by coup de grace: An Open Letter to Wannabe Lawyer

I am pleased that Shianux has replied to the commentary on his earlier article, as I expected he would, and certainly he has clarified, to some extent, the logic and reasonings behind his arguments. I am afraid that while I am enlightened about his position, and further on how free-market fundamentalists (though Shianux does not posit such a term) see economic issues and social freedom, I am hardly persuaded to change my original position. I should probably state that this debate can probably continue forever, and I will simply do my best to sum up our differences, and leave the reader to continue his own exploration of the topic. As I mentioned, debating on economic theory is not one of my strongest point, and I will simply dwell into the area I know best. Mainly, what are the consequences for a society dictated by free-market principles?

I think the biggest line of difference, no doubt is Shianux's contention that the corporation is not a "pro-dictatorship" device, and in order to contrast that, he puts the government as a much more powerful institution. However, I think again, here the line of reasoning isn't sustainable. The implicit assumption is that "Get rid of the government, or at least their interference in the market and you will achieve justice and freedom. In other words, control should be abolished." This principle is totally unsustainable to me, even if governments were in some way, abolished or at least through free-market policy, paralyzed enough to deem them useless, what becomes of the law? The very problems that exist right now is not that corporations don't have control over governments, it is precisely that governments are subordinate to the corporation's greed for profit. Do corporations not have the power to take away life, liberty and property? They do, though again the domain can be different, which is through market power (though they are smart enough to co-opt political power as well). It is incredulous to expect corporations to wrestle power benevolently and that consumer power is the antidote to corporate misdeeds. Did Exxoon Mobile get put out of business, despite its abuse of power? Is Nestle, Cargill and ADM suffering from business profits for their child labour abuses? Anyone remember Enron? Did anyone think the Enron crisis was due to less government intervention or too much? Ever heard of SLAPPs? I think the amount of examples of corporate crime and deviance is enough to convince anyone that corporations are hardly a benovolent device, or at least restrained adequately through current measures, much less an invisible market.

I suspect that the counterargument would be that corporations are working in cahoots with governments, and thus it is the presence of governments that are to be blamed. That's not a fair line of reasoning, as it is through public participation and pressure that has actually forced corporations to address their misdeeds and violations of human rights. But the reforms that are initiated through public pressure usually end up becoming "white-wash" or "green-wash", and substantial reforms are not established unless the government steps in to either legislate or force the corporation to take action.

In fact, who are the public groups that are pressurizing corporations to take action? Labour Rights Groups. And these are the very groups that are going to be serving against the needs of the corporations to maximise profits. What has been the principle consequences of policies enacted by the WTO, World Bank and IMF? What forms of " freedom" have been spread by these global financial institutions? Why do labour rights groups continue to wrestle with their free market policies? Because they do recognise that corporations have the power to radically alter their lives. And that alteration has spelt more loss of freedom and human rights.

Corporate power is real. In fact, no matter what one makes of governments, they are at least an institution that is publicly accountable to the people. Their role has always been to serve the people to some degree, even if we have enormous discontentments against their self-serving roles. But the government is the very foundation we should be reforming, to ensure that public citizens are able to take full control of their lives and society. You can't reform the corporation without at least tampering with the instituitions of the state, and that's where direct action should be focused.

I believe, just as much as Shianux does, that real world evidence and pragmatics should also built up our arguments. To me, the most funamental ethos of living in human societies has been ignored in this debate: power. Our ways of living, whether in the social, economic or political sphere, and our freedom will always be controlled, restrained and modified to some degree by structures of authority and hierarchy. Corporations and governments are both instituitions that wield that power to constraint our freedom, and closer and closer, we are finding them to hold objectives less different from each other. In other words, although Shianux's world of non-governmental interference is approaching closer and closer, we still aren't witnessing the very benefits that free-market theorists advocate. Certainly, the Third World is yet to witness their "golden goose", because it hasn't and never will.

Now, that doesn't mean I make out all corporations to be evil institutions that are beyond redemption. There are many measures one can take to rehabilitate their their structural properties, but these efforts can only be enforced by a central authority, that want of a better word, is the government. Ethical shareholders possess little power, when they are confronted with a boardroom that has majority of members pursuing their own self-interests. Likewise, rehabilitating corporations may involve ensuring shareholders are responsible for the actions of their companies, instead of absolving them from liability. Another alternative is always small-family businesses. In this sense, I should have clarified with reference to 7-8's statement that "If you are pro- business, then in a way you are pro- corporation, and hence pro- dictatorship." I don't agree that being "pro-business" indicates that you are "pro-dictatorship". Trade and private enterprise has always been an enduring aspect of human civilisation, and by no means an eradictation of the activity promises a new future. Rather, it is imperative to study the best forms of process and measures to regulate private enterprise.

Let's also be clear about the concept of freedom. It is a paradox to argue that private property rights are any more, in principle, gems of freedom as compared to state ownership. Both forms of rights constraint freedom, and the corporations' right to amass more land, in service of their goals, is a more frightening picture than state governmental ownership who at least has to account for sharing that land with its people. Rather, the conglomeration of public land would be the most appropriate form of ownership, as that would ensure public communities act according to their own interests if they wish to see a large Wal-mart in their space or a national park. The public community should be deciding for themselves what, how or why the land would be used instead of decreeding it to the mandates of a corporation who has no cause to pander to their needs. Given the enormous power of the corporation, a small public community has no means to straighten their accountability.

It all boils down to this: Shianux's notion of individual freedoms versus my notion of individual and communitarian freedom. Taking away governments and reorganizing human societies to live according to market principles will indeed, expand individual freedom but at a cost that is more paramount than before. Imagine the private commodification of human rights, security, food, water and shelter. People in Bolivia are already frustrated with the corporations who have sat there, with little to none governmental interference, and taken away their access to public water and even rain water. Maybe one day, some schmuck may own a corporation, and maybe through his/her own personal ethics, not pursue such socially harmful policies, but that's a sign of blind faith, and in fact hardly reliable. In fact, the irony is as Shianux puts it: "If the CEO is incompetent, make him/her bear the cost of their ineptitude. Stop paying them, or make them repay their gains, or even charge them with criminal sanctions." Exactly, who has that power to charge criminal sanctions or stop paying them? Certainly, people to some extent but more than than, a self-governmental system made up of the people themselves.

Communitarian principles and freedom are just as important in their own right. Does anyone think measures to deter global harming is going to be successfully implemented by corporations who have no accountability to the public community, local or global? Their only interest is to shareholders, who already are individuals who use their freedom to forcefully extract as much resources to own for themselves. The gross inequality in this world is due to the unrestrained power of people, such as Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates and other CEOs, who utilize much of the world's limited resources for profit gains. Sometimes, I think people (especially those in Singapore) forget that a real world exists that only has a limited set of resources, and whether you like it or not, you can't have it all for yourself. How we go about designing a fair system of distribution is certainly a difficulty question to tackle, but in principle, we wouldn't want to increase the very foundations of the problem: namely, to allow more individuals hold more private power to own these resources.

Personally, I understand one central tenet of Shianux's argument: we both see the current government system as flawed, authoritarian and intrusive into the lives of ordinary people. I fully agree that some radical reforms are much needed, and I would also come close to abolishing this system of governmentality. But I differ with Shianux in respect to what that remedy is. Asides from the idealistic issue if a government could ever be successfully overthrown/demolished, the solution, to me, is to ensure people have more say in the organization of their own society, and if that includes a need for a government, so be it. However, that system should not be owned by any set or class of elites, who have narrow interests to serve and nonetheless, fend off themselves from public scrutiny and accountability with power of any kind, social, economic, or political.

Afterthoughts: Shianux has explicitly stated that he is a believer in Hayek's economic ideals. It goes without saying that there exists this concrete divergence between us, and while I have no sense of hostility towards his position (and hopefully, vice versa), I understand that this chasm won't be reconcilated through blog entries. These differences are much more fundamental and cuts between different philosophies of human knowledge, human nature and social organisation. Thus, I will simply state that the world will, in my opinion, be a much more scary place than as it is today, should free-market policy take rein in this world. In my world, that would involve the commordity of security, weapons, violence, health care, water, food, shelter and possibly air. I see a world where people believe in some abstract notion of price mechanics, invisible 'free' markets, and abusing economic freedom to punish the social freedom of the have-nots; imagine a world where subjective desires (i.e. a taste for fast food, Britney Spears music, and glossy diamonds extracted from mining fields utilizing child labour) have acquired a firmer status than before; and where those who struggle in the bottom ladder (yes, hierarchies will still exist) continue to question the justifications for their oppression (their answer would be because they aren't valued for their productivity thanks to the subjective tastes of the majority); and if anyone is still in doubt, those who are unsatisfied with the system will only find greater access to acquiring means (weapons for the highest bidder) to challenge those in power (well-deserved or not).

I apologise if this is a caricature of what a free-market world is supposed to look like; it is, but the potentialities in living in such a world grows only a few steps closer if one believes in ideals and principles that, to my mind, are seriously neglecting the complexities of human existence.

Postscript: I gave more thought as to if there were any present capitalist corporate structures I respect, and the closest is Brazil's Ricardo Semier whose version of industrial democracy has been called either a form of anarco-socialism or cutting-edge capitalism. And certainly Ricardo is able to state that "...the basic issues of the free market are there, which is - tell us how much time you want to work, tell us how much you need to make, tell us what you need in exchange, how you gratify yourself by doing something like this, and this does away with the political ideology issues which of what ism does this fall under because its just respecting anthropological issues instead of political ideas." Perhaps this is supposed to be the ideal model that is followed with the principles of free markets, and as I said, there is certainly scope to incorporate these forms of individual freedom into bureaucratic structures. My skepticism though, is that one is still left with the question of how private structures of power should moderate community needs and social issues, in other words, we still must contend with the consequences of the expansion of private power on public sphere.