In my opinion, the power of States should be restricted to safeguarding
the natural (i.e life and liberty), legal and property rights of individuals.
This is in favor of the Lockean/libertarian view of the role of States. Citizens
should be able to choose freely and make decisions without government
influence. For example (in the case of Pakistan), if a person wishes to drink
alcoholic beverages or to practice a religion other than Islam in a public
setting, they should be able to do so. Rights such as freedom of expression,
freedom of speech and freedom to freely choose are basic human rights. By
placing restrictions, the State infringes upon these rights and as a result fails
to serve and protect public interest. Hence,
limited State involvement is constructive as it leads to greater community
welfare. It also leads to the creation of a ‘free market economy’. Adam Smith
was the first to introduce this idea of a free market with minimal government
interference. In such a system driven solely by demand and supply, market
pressure would eliminate bad products and failing/corrupt businesses leading to
greater service quality and innovation. As the government cannot intervene to
save failing businesses, only ‘the fittest’ would survive which would
consequently enable the economy to flourish.
In conclusion, the role of 'State' should be reconsidered universally to give as much power to it as is necessary to ensure that the benefits it provides are greater than the burdens bore by its citizens because of its existence.
3 comments:
I agree with your basic idea that a state should not infringe on the personal rights of an individual, however at the same time we need to realise that one persons freedom may begin where another persons freedom may end.
I disagree with your argument that minimal state involvement leads to better welfare, a clear example of this is USA, the economy of which is deemed to be the closest to a pure free-market economy. Drug use is very high in the USA, thus negating your argument that a market driven solely by demand and supply leads to the elimination of harmful products.
There is a distinct difference between the meanings of 'bad' and 'harmful'. "Bad products" are those products that are not adding any or much value (compared to products with similar characteristics but by a different brand) to the lives of those consuming them. For example, if both producer A and B are selling fertilizers but the ones sold by A are more effective than the ones sold by B then the demand for A's fertilizers will increase and B's fertilizers (being the 'bad product' in this case) will weed out of the free market.
When this happens, producers pay more attention to providing good quality products so that their produce is not weeded out, competition increases which is healthy for the economy as well as society, and only desirable products are left to be sold in the market. These are the characteristics of a free market system.
That being said, all drugs including medicinal drugs are harmful if taken in excessive quantities. Just like soda (e.g Coke) is harmful to your health if you have a 1.5 litre bottle every day (hint: diabetes). Coke should also be categorized as a 'harmful product' then.
You take a classic libertarian perspective towards how a state should be. But remember, theory and reality are not one and the same. If the state does not regulate the economy, then this will allow for the rise of monopolies, which in turn serves to hurt business. In theory no government intervention is great. In practice, it leads to corporate hegemony that ultimately hurts both the state and the citizens.
Hassan, I like your comment "one persons freedom may begin where another persons freedom may end." This is very true, especially as our societies are currently structured.
Mahnum complicates the perspective of good and bad products. Good and bad are indeed relative. Even the idea of consumer choice as being qualitatively good is debatable as well.
Post a Comment