"Economic life is difficult or impossible to distinguish from the rest of life, and one’s freedom to buy or sell or lend or travel or work is difficult to distinguish from the rest of one’s freedom"
Emma Rothschild
The concept of a commercially-oriented society has been hugely debate throughout history. Commercial society is often believed to veil a real freedom that has never been achieved in human history, but questions remain in our mind regarding the degree of such freedom and its relation to how commercial a society is and the conditions such as commercial society.
This essay will start with definitions of the key concepts of freedom and commercial society. This section is critical since the essay’s arguments and understanding will be heavily based on such definitions. Then, the next section will deal with the dialogue between the ideal and the reality of the concepts. In general, the essay hypothesizes that to some extents current commercial society jeopardizes the real freedom, because the line that separates the economic realm and the political realm – as proposed by Adam Smith - is virtually vague. This argument is based on an assumption that there is an unfair market structure that is widely practiced by the commercial societies. This market structure leads a vast transformation of the nature of the relation between various agents in this kind of societies, i.e. workers, and capital providers, which ordinary people are hardly able to understand. Controlling of that structure in the hands of relatively few people tends to create domination and power that spreads from the realm of economic to political. In extreme cases, the economic power is able to control the politic realm. As a result, freedom from and freedom to seem difficult to imply because of high constraints and domination by hands a few people over the majority.
Freedom from and Freedom to
Freedom is an abstract idea that has been a central topic of debate throughout human history. There are different definitions with regards to this notion. Throughout generations, the word freedom seems to be a magic word that accompanies human history to achieve enlightenment and modernity. The word is also very difficult to be explained and depicted since diverse definitions occur with their philosophical and historical backgrounds.
In general, freedom does not exist in an independent entity, but must be related to other external factors. In an analogical definition, it contains colour which has many spectrums. Each spectrum reveals on its perspective. To support this idea, Isaiah Berlin, for example, constructs two kinds of freedom, negative freedom and positive freedom. Negative freedom is a freedom from constraints, restriction, external impediments, and intervention (Schmidtz et al, 2010:3); in other words, it connotes that a man who is categorized as a free man must not be subject to exploitation, domination, repression, or other forms of humiliation. The second is positive freedom. It connotes freedom to do something, to do what he or she wants based on their capacity, talents, abilities, and resources. Thus, the connection between the two is being free to do something and being unrestricted in achieving it (Schmidtz et al, 2010:3). Berlin’s idea places freedom as a very important concept of quality that cannot be disturbed and jeopardized by any external forces.
Meanwhile, T.H. Green observes that freedom is not merely freedom from any restrictions, but it should be related to a notion of responsibility: “we do not mean a freedom that can be enjoyed by one man at a cost of a loss of freedom to others” (Schmidtz et al, 2010:8). Green’s idea, it can be argued has similarity with Herbert Spencer who said that it is unjustified to possess a property without constraints, because at some point it will lead one party to abuse the other party’s rights (Rosen, et al, p.195). Constraints here could mean many things: it might be a form of limitation of someone’s freedom, or it might be related to the interest of the community. As a result, freedom in the above explanation is related to other consequences.
Both kinds of Berlin’s freedom (freedom from and freedom to) are very essential to be implemented in the communal life. An individual is part of a society, hence, freedom must be considered on a collective aspect. As a result, the active participations of individual in making a symbiotic relationship between individual and society are inevitable. Because of that, participation of any member of a society in all aspects of life that affects their life in essence must be considered as a profound principle to secure the real freedom of individual members of a society.
Commercial Society
The proponents of Commercial Society argue that it is a profound achievement of human history. It was born from the womb of capitalism. It often refers to the West which is widely assumed very advanced in many aspects especially economic sphere. If we reflect on the past, the age of reason has triggered a scientific revolution that leads to technological progress and inventions. When capitalist economic theory incorporates with technology, it creates machineries that produce massive goods and services which are not only provided to a small community, but to a global community. It sets up an engine of growth through financial institutions to boost economic interconnections by developing appropriate infrastructures i.e. land transportation, airplane industry, telecommunication system. In such a situation the classical burden of the economy – scarcity - has seemingly been resolved (Schmidtz et al, 2010:Ch.4). Above all, the commercial society creates extraordinary affluence (Rasmussen, 2008:162).
In commercial society as often argued, people are freer. They have many alternatives to choose whatever they want: they can choose a thousand of alternative jobs, they can live longer through health technology, they can make any commercial transactions without constraints, finally they live in an abundant world in all aspects of life (Schmidtz et al, 2010:Ch.4). As result, this society more or less creates economic prosperity, prevents exploitation of deliberate limitations of social life, leads to triumphs of liberty and freedom (Schmidtz et al, 2010:Ch.4).
Finally, to achieve real freedom, commercial society needs certain prerequisites. These pre-conditions has been drawn by Adam Smith that it should be a clear division between economic realm and political realm (Grayling, 2008:153).
The Reality of Commercial Society and Its Relation to Freedom
So far, the arguments about the commercial society that brings real freedom take a very optimistic view of the future. In that view, Smith believed that capitalism is a good system for a human being. In that sense, it is obvious that Smith is typical of an enlightenment leader who had a very energetic effort in a sense of the ideal (Grayling, 2008: 148), although the practical aspects of such an idea are sometimes difficult to be implemented.
In general, the arguments of commercial society only unfold surface and visible effects, and it seldom touches very complicated consequences within current commercial society itself. The opponents of commercial society often argue that Smith’s argument on this society seems a kind of cost-benefit analysis, not an essence or a philosophical foundation (Rasmussen, 2008:160). It might be argued that the assessment on commercial society relies heavily on the commercial approach. It other words, it only sees the unprecedented accumulation of wealth, which is believed creates prosperity in the form of money that potentially leads to freedom. Even though the proponents of commercial societies are not directly pointing out that the explosion of wealth increased positive liberty, but their arguments arrives in a conclusion that average people can and generally do live far richer, freer than average people in pre-commercial societies (e.g. Schmidtz et al, 2010:126). The other consequences that might be occurred are rarely stated by the proponents of commercial society, which potentially tend to undermine the real freedom of society.
The real capitalism that has been dreamed by Adam Smith is different from the capitalism that is currently implemented. In an apologetic assessment, he stated that the commercial society is far from perfect, but it is better than all other forms of society which he considered less perfect from commercial society (Rasmussen, 2008:159). Of course such an assessment was in a situation of Smith’s era in which the economic structure was not as complex as today.
For Adam Smith, capitalism can only happen in a society that has a clear division between the economic realm and the political realm (Grayling, 2008:153). Smith strongly argues that the capitalists who dominate the market are not automatically entitled to power in a political realm (Grayling, 2008:153). This is a result of Smith’s criticism on the former system of pre-commercial societies where the economic realm and the economic realm were not clearly separated (Grayling, 2008:154). Before Smith wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776, social realities depicted that there were a very common situation that a dominance power in the market controlled the society through financial interests, speculations, concentration of properties, accumulations of vast wealth in the hands of a relative few (Grayling, 2008:150). He was very concerned on his social environment especially when the government incorporated with big merchants to create an illegal symbiotic relationship in the economic field in form of exclusive trading rights, regulations which profited a few group of merchants (Grayling, 2008:152). That was an unaccepted condition that must be replaced by an alternative structure. By doing separation of two realms, he expected to create a rule of the game that must be attained to avoid certain privileges that in the future potentially jeopardize the harmony of a society.
In such a condition, the capitalists who controlled the market were believed exercising their power and influences in the political realm which resulted on the monopoly and jeopardized the real freedom of those societies.
Smith supports a freedom which contains responsibilities and constraints. It is clear when he states that in a political realm, a government has three main roles: “national defence, the protection of each member society from the injustice or oppression of any other, and the erection and maintenance of those public works and public institutions (including education) that would not repay the expense of any private enterpriser” (Grayling, 2008:153). Even tough, there is a rule of game in commercial society that they must not usually be interference by any government, but if it contains an injustice that potentially oppresses ordinary people then the government must act to protect the interest of its people. As a consequence, the real freedom can only happen in a commercial society that has obtained certain prerequisites: a clear division of economic realm and political realm. In that sense, I would agree that this kind of societies is the best way to achieve prosperity of human beings in the realm of economy, but the above idea is still far away from our situation.
In our current time, what has been worrying by Smith seemingly metamorphoses into sophisticated forms. It is not only a matter of illegal symbiotic relationship between the two realms, but economic realm has seemly been achieved the highest place in the social structure. In other words, the economic realm is often considered as the chief consideration in a greater level of human relation.
There are many aspects that can be used to examine the practice of current commercial society in relation to the real freedom. One of them, which is considered very important and relevant case for the purpose of this essay, is the freedom to compete in labour markets and to the exchange and contract. Emma Rothschild makes a good point about the freedom of economic life which is considered as a very important in the entire life of human being, “Economic life is difficult or impossible to distinguish from the rest of life, and one’s freedom to buy or sell or lend or travel or work is difficult to distinguish from the rest of one’s freedom.” (Rasmussen, 2008:167). Because of the greater part of human life is economic in character, thus ensuring and securing economic freedom is an important key to ensuring the real freedom of human life.
One of the arguments about commercial societies that it provides people an access to markets particularly labour markets (e.g. Rasmussen, 2008:167). This situation is believed as a crucial step of freeing human being from constraints and brings human being to economic freedom such as the freedom to compete in labour and product markets and to the exchange and contract (Rasmussen, 2008:167). Furthermore, they argue that people can freely choose a million of jobs they want. In that situation, it is argued that abundant of jobs thus creates the real freedom. Unfortunately, the argument of free access to markets is not accompanied by the argument about the real relation between markets and labour.
Some of counter arguments on the impact of labour market has been provided by Rousseau, for example, when he stated that the structure of commercial society influences its people to have little social or personal unite, this happens because of the prevalence of great inequalities and because of the weakness and ignorance produced by reliance on commercial relations only. (Rasmussen, 2008:26). In other words, he mentioned that the great dependent on commercial factors, i.e. commodity, money, technology, has created people ignorance even on their own nature. He has been step further by arguing the impact of commercial society, but there is an important spot that did not mentioned by Rousseau that is the relation between labourers and capital providers. This relation is very important, since both of them is believed as the essence of industrial society and is considered as a factor production in the theory of economics.
Market through capital providers needs labour to produce goods and services. Market will provide capital, and the labour will provide effort, skills, and entrepreneurship. The fair relationship between the two will support the existence of a commercial society because of the consent of the governed is a prerequisite of a legitimate trade (Schimidtz et al, 2008:129). In that sense, the real freedom is not merely as a matter of what workers can chose different works freely in the market, but also as a matter of essence relationship between them or what workers can express and get an equal treatment within the commercial societies.
There is inextricable connection between workers and capital providers. The relation between the two is not always as harmonious as imagine by the economic theory. In a complex situation, the structure of industry seems not allowing the labours to play in an equal function in that structure. Most of economic institutions that derive commercial society have a strict hierarchy of top-down control. In this hierarchy, a worker often becomes a subordinate position. In that position, it is difficult for workers to express their freedom in that environment and furthermore in the society. The result is even more devastating that had imagined by Rousseau. The people’s weaknesses are not merely affected by their reliance on commodity and technology, but also on their defencelessness on the oppression of the capital providers. In other words, the freedom from and freedom to are seemingly difficult to be achieved. In the above situation, the real freedom of ordinary people looks seems fragile and artificial.
The real commercial society is hardly to be achieved, if governments ignore to protect the interest of the majority. In a situation where there are exploitative activities in the market, according to Rousseau can be settled neither through state intervention nor through any kind of invisible hand (Rasmussen, 2008:27). At this point, I would argue that such exploitation can be resolved by state interventions. As earlier argued by Adam Smith when he states that the state has functions among others is the protection of each member society from the injustice or oppression of any other. The commercial society which is imagined by Adam Smith is a perfect commercial society in which there is no distortion, exploitation, oppression among the agents of the society. If this market becomes imperfect, then the government should take place to neutralize such an abuse of power.
In a poorest condition of commercial societies, the situation is even worsts. The lack of government’s interest to protect the majority tends a few elite would create a sophisticated way to control the workers. One of its ways is to control money. Money is an important element to describe the existence of commercial society, but the discussion about it is beyond the focus of this essay. Just a very brief explanation is needed to support an argument about one of the ways to jeopardize the freedom of majority is that the inventions of commercial society in the form of economic institutions, i.e. banking sector, capital market, and money market, has created unprecedented accumulation of money in a relatively few people. Financial institutions have a right to create money through a very complicated process that is hardly to be understood by ordinary people. The emergence of the financial institutions’ domination is inextricable to be explained with reference to the government position. Niall Ferguson who wrote the Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700 – 2000 even extremely opines that there is a symbiotic relationship between government, parliaments, national debts, central banks and even stock markets. The relationship is the square of power which the great western empires have been based (Ferguson, 2001:15).
Conclusion
The idea that the amount of real freedom possessed by ordinary people tends to vary in proportion with how commercial their society is is inevitable. The achievement of commercial society is undeniable in the forms of affluence than pre-commercial society. In the reality, exercising this idea tends endangering human beings, unless there is a certain proposition to be obtained to secure rule of the game. The chief of that proposition is the separation of the economic realm and the political realm.
If the line that separates these two realms is vague, then it would create mishandling this kind of societies that ends with the domination of a few hand people over the majority.
References
- A. Grayling (intr.), 2008, the Ideas that Made the Modern World, Encyclopædia
- D. Schmidtz and J. Brennan, 2010, A Brief History of Liberty, UK:Wiley-Blackwell
- D. C. Rasmussen, 2008, The Problems and Promises of Commercial Society: Adam Smith’s Response to Rousseau, Pennsylvania: the Pennsylvania State University Press
- M. Rosen & J. Wolff (eds.), 1999, Political Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Britannica, Inc.
- Niall Ferguson, 2001, the Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700 – 2000, New York: Basic Books
This essay will start with definitions of the key concepts of freedom and commercial society. This section is critical since the essay’s arguments and understanding will be heavily based on such definitions. Then, the next section will deal with the dialogue between the ideal and the reality of the concepts. In general, the essay hypothesizes that to some extents current commercial society jeopardizes the real freedom, because the line that separates the economic realm and the political realm – as proposed by Adam Smith - is virtually vague. This argument is based on an assumption that there is an unfair market structure that is widely practiced by the commercial societies. This market structure leads a vast transformation of the nature of the relation between various agents in this kind of societies, i.e. workers, and capital providers, which ordinary people are hardly able to understand. Controlling of that structure in the hands of relatively few people tends to create domination and power that spreads from the realm of economic to political. In extreme cases, the economic power is able to control the politic realm. As a result, freedom from and freedom to seem difficult to imply because of high constraints and domination by hands a few people over the majority.
Freedom from and Freedom to
Freedom is an abstract idea that has been a central topic of debate throughout human history. There are different definitions with regards to this notion. Throughout generations, the word freedom seems to be a magic word that accompanies human history to achieve enlightenment and modernity. The word is also very difficult to be explained and depicted since diverse definitions occur with their philosophical and historical backgrounds.
In general, freedom does not exist in an independent entity, but must be related to other external factors. In an analogical definition, it contains colour which has many spectrums. Each spectrum reveals on its perspective. To support this idea, Isaiah Berlin, for example, constructs two kinds of freedom, negative freedom and positive freedom. Negative freedom is a freedom from constraints, restriction, external impediments, and intervention (Schmidtz et al, 2010:3); in other words, it connotes that a man who is categorized as a free man must not be subject to exploitation, domination, repression, or other forms of humiliation. The second is positive freedom. It connotes freedom to do something, to do what he or she wants based on their capacity, talents, abilities, and resources. Thus, the connection between the two is being free to do something and being unrestricted in achieving it (Schmidtz et al, 2010:3). Berlin’s idea places freedom as a very important concept of quality that cannot be disturbed and jeopardized by any external forces.
Meanwhile, T.H. Green observes that freedom is not merely freedom from any restrictions, but it should be related to a notion of responsibility: “we do not mean a freedom that can be enjoyed by one man at a cost of a loss of freedom to others” (Schmidtz et al, 2010:8). Green’s idea, it can be argued has similarity with Herbert Spencer who said that it is unjustified to possess a property without constraints, because at some point it will lead one party to abuse the other party’s rights (Rosen, et al, p.195). Constraints here could mean many things: it might be a form of limitation of someone’s freedom, or it might be related to the interest of the community. As a result, freedom in the above explanation is related to other consequences.
Both kinds of Berlin’s freedom (freedom from and freedom to) are very essential to be implemented in the communal life. An individual is part of a society, hence, freedom must be considered on a collective aspect. As a result, the active participations of individual in making a symbiotic relationship between individual and society are inevitable. Because of that, participation of any member of a society in all aspects of life that affects their life in essence must be considered as a profound principle to secure the real freedom of individual members of a society.
Commercial Society
The proponents of Commercial Society argue that it is a profound achievement of human history. It was born from the womb of capitalism. It often refers to the West which is widely assumed very advanced in many aspects especially economic sphere. If we reflect on the past, the age of reason has triggered a scientific revolution that leads to technological progress and inventions. When capitalist economic theory incorporates with technology, it creates machineries that produce massive goods and services which are not only provided to a small community, but to a global community. It sets up an engine of growth through financial institutions to boost economic interconnections by developing appropriate infrastructures i.e. land transportation, airplane industry, telecommunication system. In such a situation the classical burden of the economy – scarcity - has seemingly been resolved (Schmidtz et al, 2010:Ch.4). Above all, the commercial society creates extraordinary affluence (Rasmussen, 2008:162).
In commercial society as often argued, people are freer. They have many alternatives to choose whatever they want: they can choose a thousand of alternative jobs, they can live longer through health technology, they can make any commercial transactions without constraints, finally they live in an abundant world in all aspects of life (Schmidtz et al, 2010:Ch.4). As result, this society more or less creates economic prosperity, prevents exploitation of deliberate limitations of social life, leads to triumphs of liberty and freedom (Schmidtz et al, 2010:Ch.4).
Finally, to achieve real freedom, commercial society needs certain prerequisites. These pre-conditions has been drawn by Adam Smith that it should be a clear division between economic realm and political realm (Grayling, 2008:153).
The Reality of Commercial Society and Its Relation to Freedom
So far, the arguments about the commercial society that brings real freedom take a very optimistic view of the future. In that view, Smith believed that capitalism is a good system for a human being. In that sense, it is obvious that Smith is typical of an enlightenment leader who had a very energetic effort in a sense of the ideal (Grayling, 2008: 148), although the practical aspects of such an idea are sometimes difficult to be implemented.
In general, the arguments of commercial society only unfold surface and visible effects, and it seldom touches very complicated consequences within current commercial society itself. The opponents of commercial society often argue that Smith’s argument on this society seems a kind of cost-benefit analysis, not an essence or a philosophical foundation (Rasmussen, 2008:160). It might be argued that the assessment on commercial society relies heavily on the commercial approach. It other words, it only sees the unprecedented accumulation of wealth, which is believed creates prosperity in the form of money that potentially leads to freedom. Even though the proponents of commercial societies are not directly pointing out that the explosion of wealth increased positive liberty, but their arguments arrives in a conclusion that average people can and generally do live far richer, freer than average people in pre-commercial societies (e.g. Schmidtz et al, 2010:126). The other consequences that might be occurred are rarely stated by the proponents of commercial society, which potentially tend to undermine the real freedom of society.
The real capitalism that has been dreamed by Adam Smith is different from the capitalism that is currently implemented. In an apologetic assessment, he stated that the commercial society is far from perfect, but it is better than all other forms of society which he considered less perfect from commercial society (Rasmussen, 2008:159). Of course such an assessment was in a situation of Smith’s era in which the economic structure was not as complex as today.
For Adam Smith, capitalism can only happen in a society that has a clear division between the economic realm and the political realm (Grayling, 2008:153). Smith strongly argues that the capitalists who dominate the market are not automatically entitled to power in a political realm (Grayling, 2008:153). This is a result of Smith’s criticism on the former system of pre-commercial societies where the economic realm and the economic realm were not clearly separated (Grayling, 2008:154). Before Smith wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776, social realities depicted that there were a very common situation that a dominance power in the market controlled the society through financial interests, speculations, concentration of properties, accumulations of vast wealth in the hands of a relative few (Grayling, 2008:150). He was very concerned on his social environment especially when the government incorporated with big merchants to create an illegal symbiotic relationship in the economic field in form of exclusive trading rights, regulations which profited a few group of merchants (Grayling, 2008:152). That was an unaccepted condition that must be replaced by an alternative structure. By doing separation of two realms, he expected to create a rule of the game that must be attained to avoid certain privileges that in the future potentially jeopardize the harmony of a society.
In such a condition, the capitalists who controlled the market were believed exercising their power and influences in the political realm which resulted on the monopoly and jeopardized the real freedom of those societies.
Smith supports a freedom which contains responsibilities and constraints. It is clear when he states that in a political realm, a government has three main roles: “national defence, the protection of each member society from the injustice or oppression of any other, and the erection and maintenance of those public works and public institutions (including education) that would not repay the expense of any private enterpriser” (Grayling, 2008:153). Even tough, there is a rule of game in commercial society that they must not usually be interference by any government, but if it contains an injustice that potentially oppresses ordinary people then the government must act to protect the interest of its people. As a consequence, the real freedom can only happen in a commercial society that has obtained certain prerequisites: a clear division of economic realm and political realm. In that sense, I would agree that this kind of societies is the best way to achieve prosperity of human beings in the realm of economy, but the above idea is still far away from our situation.
In our current time, what has been worrying by Smith seemingly metamorphoses into sophisticated forms. It is not only a matter of illegal symbiotic relationship between the two realms, but economic realm has seemly been achieved the highest place in the social structure. In other words, the economic realm is often considered as the chief consideration in a greater level of human relation.
There are many aspects that can be used to examine the practice of current commercial society in relation to the real freedom. One of them, which is considered very important and relevant case for the purpose of this essay, is the freedom to compete in labour markets and to the exchange and contract. Emma Rothschild makes a good point about the freedom of economic life which is considered as a very important in the entire life of human being, “Economic life is difficult or impossible to distinguish from the rest of life, and one’s freedom to buy or sell or lend or travel or work is difficult to distinguish from the rest of one’s freedom.” (Rasmussen, 2008:167). Because of the greater part of human life is economic in character, thus ensuring and securing economic freedom is an important key to ensuring the real freedom of human life.
One of the arguments about commercial societies that it provides people an access to markets particularly labour markets (e.g. Rasmussen, 2008:167). This situation is believed as a crucial step of freeing human being from constraints and brings human being to economic freedom such as the freedom to compete in labour and product markets and to the exchange and contract (Rasmussen, 2008:167). Furthermore, they argue that people can freely choose a million of jobs they want. In that situation, it is argued that abundant of jobs thus creates the real freedom. Unfortunately, the argument of free access to markets is not accompanied by the argument about the real relation between markets and labour.
Some of counter arguments on the impact of labour market has been provided by Rousseau, for example, when he stated that the structure of commercial society influences its people to have little social or personal unite, this happens because of the prevalence of great inequalities and because of the weakness and ignorance produced by reliance on commercial relations only. (Rasmussen, 2008:26). In other words, he mentioned that the great dependent on commercial factors, i.e. commodity, money, technology, has created people ignorance even on their own nature. He has been step further by arguing the impact of commercial society, but there is an important spot that did not mentioned by Rousseau that is the relation between labourers and capital providers. This relation is very important, since both of them is believed as the essence of industrial society and is considered as a factor production in the theory of economics.
Market through capital providers needs labour to produce goods and services. Market will provide capital, and the labour will provide effort, skills, and entrepreneurship. The fair relationship between the two will support the existence of a commercial society because of the consent of the governed is a prerequisite of a legitimate trade (Schimidtz et al, 2008:129). In that sense, the real freedom is not merely as a matter of what workers can chose different works freely in the market, but also as a matter of essence relationship between them or what workers can express and get an equal treatment within the commercial societies.
There is inextricable connection between workers and capital providers. The relation between the two is not always as harmonious as imagine by the economic theory. In a complex situation, the structure of industry seems not allowing the labours to play in an equal function in that structure. Most of economic institutions that derive commercial society have a strict hierarchy of top-down control. In this hierarchy, a worker often becomes a subordinate position. In that position, it is difficult for workers to express their freedom in that environment and furthermore in the society. The result is even more devastating that had imagined by Rousseau. The people’s weaknesses are not merely affected by their reliance on commodity and technology, but also on their defencelessness on the oppression of the capital providers. In other words, the freedom from and freedom to are seemingly difficult to be achieved. In the above situation, the real freedom of ordinary people looks seems fragile and artificial.
The real commercial society is hardly to be achieved, if governments ignore to protect the interest of the majority. In a situation where there are exploitative activities in the market, according to Rousseau can be settled neither through state intervention nor through any kind of invisible hand (Rasmussen, 2008:27). At this point, I would argue that such exploitation can be resolved by state interventions. As earlier argued by Adam Smith when he states that the state has functions among others is the protection of each member society from the injustice or oppression of any other. The commercial society which is imagined by Adam Smith is a perfect commercial society in which there is no distortion, exploitation, oppression among the agents of the society. If this market becomes imperfect, then the government should take place to neutralize such an abuse of power.
In a poorest condition of commercial societies, the situation is even worsts. The lack of government’s interest to protect the majority tends a few elite would create a sophisticated way to control the workers. One of its ways is to control money. Money is an important element to describe the existence of commercial society, but the discussion about it is beyond the focus of this essay. Just a very brief explanation is needed to support an argument about one of the ways to jeopardize the freedom of majority is that the inventions of commercial society in the form of economic institutions, i.e. banking sector, capital market, and money market, has created unprecedented accumulation of money in a relatively few people. Financial institutions have a right to create money through a very complicated process that is hardly to be understood by ordinary people. The emergence of the financial institutions’ domination is inextricable to be explained with reference to the government position. Niall Ferguson who wrote the Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700 – 2000 even extremely opines that there is a symbiotic relationship between government, parliaments, national debts, central banks and even stock markets. The relationship is the square of power which the great western empires have been based (Ferguson, 2001:15).
Conclusion
The idea that the amount of real freedom possessed by ordinary people tends to vary in proportion with how commercial their society is is inevitable. The achievement of commercial society is undeniable in the forms of affluence than pre-commercial society. In the reality, exercising this idea tends endangering human beings, unless there is a certain proposition to be obtained to secure rule of the game. The chief of that proposition is the separation of the economic realm and the political realm.
If the line that separates these two realms is vague, then it would create mishandling this kind of societies that ends with the domination of a few hand people over the majority.
References
- A. Grayling (intr.), 2008, the Ideas that Made the Modern World, Encyclopædia
- D. Schmidtz and J. Brennan, 2010, A Brief History of Liberty, UK:Wiley-Blackwell
- D. C. Rasmussen, 2008, The Problems and Promises of Commercial Society: Adam Smith’s Response to Rousseau, Pennsylvania: the Pennsylvania State University Press
- M. Rosen & J. Wolff (eds.), 1999, Political Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Britannica, Inc.
- Niall Ferguson, 2001, the Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700 – 2000, New York: Basic Books
No comments:
Post a Comment