Liberty, justice, and shopping
Back in my undergraduate days, the hard left at the university would say that liberty is just code for the privilege of wealth. I never bought it (if you’ll excuse the expression). It has always struck me that liberty is every man’s friend who would use it lawfully.
I saw this illustrated recently in what one might say is a trivial matter, but it is in the small things that the great principles of God’s creation order are often visible. Think of the lilies of the field.
This summer I have been researching a project. As I have not been at the college much, the library has not been at hand. So I went to Amazon.com to see what the market was charging for the titles I needed. Then the fun began! For the past month I have been delighting myself buying a steady trickle of books at prices that would thrill a Scotsman’s heart. For just $4, I bought George Gilder’s 1980 classic, Wealth and Poverty . . . in hardcover . . . with a dust jacket . . . not a mark in it . . . delivered to my door.
Not long ago, a booklover would have had to live near a concentration of bookstores and make a special trip to hunt through their stacks of shelves, one store after another. There was a unique pleasure in that. But the results, while often surprising, were hit and miss if you had a particular title in mind. And it might take years of prowling.
But by using the internet, where large retailers like Amazon bring small re-sellers together from across the country, I can often find the item I want when I need it (likely), and at a nationally competitive price, even perhaps at a bargain. At a conference I attended in 2007, a speaker emphasized the importance of Winston Churchill’s Thoughts and Adventures. At the break, I went online, found it for $8 (hardcover, dust jacket, pristine condition). Click. Bought. Within a week it was at my door. Amazing.
What has this to do with liberty? In this commonplace experience I notice three examples of the justice and goodness that ordered liberty allows, in this case through a free market.
First, the market provides broadly for people’s needs. This online marketplace and these retailers developed because talented people were free to apply emerging technologies to address people’s needs in pursuit of personal prosperity. Jeff Bezos gets his prosperity in abundance, and I get my books on agreeable terms. Everyone is happy.
Second, the market is not a respecter of persons. The market doesn’t care if I am rich or poor; awkward or cool; black, white, or Asian. In fact, the national market allows people of humbler means to get what they want at lower prices than they would likely otherwise have to pay.
Finally, the market provides a kind of distributive justice. It puts things into the hands of people who should have them, albeit, like everything in this world, imperfectly. This is a rare form of justice. In my case, it put a book previously gathering dust in Texas for 30 years into the hands of a New York reader who could put it to immediate use.
Of course, liberty bestows greater blessings than these, including the inherent pleasure of directing one’s own affairs. But liberty can be a blessing only if it is used lawfully. Those who would live free must have an eye to both the moral law of God and the civil law of man. Government establishes legal infrastructure, enforces contracts, and punishes those, like Bernie Madoff, who prey on their neighbors instead of serving their advantage, like Jeff Bezos.
Liberty as exercised in an ordered but free marketplace is part of God’s good design for human well-being. It’s just a part. It’s not sufficient on its own. But no discussion of its shortcomings can proceed in fairness without first recognizing these great goods.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top9 Comments to “Liberty, justice, and shopping”
I havent bought a book in an actual bookstore in over 5 years. I often wait for movies to wind up on Amazon. We just bought the Kevin Bacon film “Taking Chance”.
We recently discovered repairpal dotcom.
If you need particular auto work done, Repairpal lets you find a garage AND read previous customers’ reviews of how they were served (or not).
I still recall when businesses had the Better Business Bureau sticker on their front door. The internet (Angie’s List and other service rating websites) lets everyone who care to learn know in advance if they will get the service and expertise they pay for.
Report comment to moderator
The ELECTRONIC ebooks that many people have turned to made me think of future of books.
I have read complaints of people’s ebooks being deleted from their supposed ebooks on-line storage without their knowledge.
If you switch to a different reader you might NOT be able to move your old books to the new reader.
If your reader crashes, you might lose all your books. (Sorry, you have to re-purchase them.)
After reading ALL of that it made me think about the gov’t controlling your ebooks. And if books are no longer printed on paper–SAVE the trees–will printed books go away with moth and dust?
Report comment to moderator
You should also check out http://www.abebooks.com.
They have 140 million books, mostly used, and a great search function.
While I have little doubt the author would have been singing Madoff’s praises before his downfall, that guy should serve as an example of the need for strict regulation, and zealous enforcement of laws restricting his freedom to prey upon others.
And the idea that somehow the “free marketplace” is designed by a god is pretty silly.
Report comment to moderator
The really interesting interplay is between religion and a free marketplace of ideas. From a starting point of “I am a zealous god and thou shalt have no other gods before me” emerged millennia of inter-sectarian slaughter, as each religion tried to annihilate those who had different ideas and violently suppress “heretics” who challenged relgious “truth”. It’s not just Christianity but all religions which insist on this kind of fierce suppression of thought and expression.
Of course back in the days the bible and Koran were written the only free market was the market in human beings…so a little revisionism may not be a bad thing!
Report comment to moderator
Innes,
Like you, I’m thankful for Amazon, and join you in viewing it as something of a model for how a market can function effectively. Part of its effectiveness is based on the fact that the traded entity is tangible. Tangibility lends to transparency, as reasonable people can generally assess whether or not a seller’s description is accurate. Further, it is difficult to exercise monopoly power over tangible property because the costs of maintaining the monopoly will eventually outstrip any monopoly-derived profits. (Consider, for example, Judge Hand’s analysis in the Alcoa case.)
Our financial markets, in contrast, revolve around intangible property, i.e., forms of property that have no intrinsic value outside of a legal/institutional framework that vests rights in them. Thus, transparency is not as straightforward. Further, monopoly is more readily achieved, as there is generally no added cost to maintain the monopoly.
It’s worth noting, therefore, that there is no such thing as intangible property, in general, without the willingness of the government to intervene for the benefit of those who possess rights in intangible property under the law. Thus, it’s not unreasonable also to expect government to ask, in exchange for such protections, that submit themselves to regulations that attempt to force intangible-property markets to mimic, as closely as possible, the features of tangible-property markets.
In recent months, I’ve heard plenty of so-called conservatives decry government intervention into the marketplace. In most instances, they are referring to markets in intangible property (e.g., health indemnity markets, financial markets, etc.). These folks seem to forget that such markets would barely exist without government’s willingness to create and enforce legal rights in intangible property.
I agree that Amazon provides a good model. But when we’re speaking about markets in intangible property, we need to ask how the law can best establish a market that mimics the beauty of Amazon. Sadly, this is a matter of constant fine-tuning.
If the law leans too far in favor of rights-holders, those with greater wealth will have power to achieve greater wealth and power by windfall without having to rely on superior skill, foresight, and industry. Meanwhile, innovation (and the economy) will lag because those with superior skill, foresight, and industry are not receiving a sufficient reward for their efforts. For example, since the 1980s in the US, science and engineering salaries have risen at only 1/2 the rate of inflation. Therefore, a lot of would-be researchers have taken up careers in law and banking (where, during the same period, salaries have increased at 2-3 times the rate of inflation).
On the other hand, if the law creates too many limitations on intangible property rights, there is no value in possessing them–even if they can be readily gained by superior skill, foresight, and industry.
I agree that the word “fairness” is a bit problematic. I prefer the traditional conservative notion of economic justice, wherein the economic system is judged by whether it properly rewards those who exercise superior skill, foresight, and industry without conferring windfalls upon those the lazy rich or the lazy poor.
Any kind of windfall profits should outrage us, as this represents a gain that would not be possible in a tangible-property market, such as Amazon. Windfalls are a signal that some have used their political power to force the market to confer rewards upon themselves without having to exercise superior skill, foresight, and industry. For some reason, though, we conservative Christians tend to be more tolerant of market manipulation when it is carried out by the wealthy. On the other hand, we are a bit too readily outraged when it is carried out by the poor, and run to the streets decrying “Socialism”. Perhaps we fall victim too easily to the notion that wealth is the evidence that someone possesses superior skill, foresight, and industry. While wealth may be a better indicator of such than poverty, the ideal market, like the one on Amazon, should be no respecter of one’s current economic status. If the market is working effectively, the wealthy should lose much of their wealth as soon as they stop exercising superior skill, foresight, and industry.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, Fascinating stuff. Of course, thoughts expressed in a 300-600 word column are inevitably incomplete, and I always review the comments for useful additions, critiques, or qualifications, which occasionally I find. This is the sort comment I was hoping to unearth. I will keep this in mind and look into it. I like your oft repeated phrase, “skill, foresight, and industry.” Francis Bacon, my chief research interest, exalts people with these qualities, and deprecates “the lazy rich” in the aristoracy. Bacon was one of the great architects of modernity, and prepared significant foundations for modern economic thinking in his Essays.
Report comment to moderator
RSD’s comments were thoughtful and on a par with one of my fave Town Hall writers (George Will and Jeff Jacoby are tied for that title).
Very valid comments about intangible and tangible property markets. Since our currency is really dependeent on future expectations of its value (and not tied to a tangible good like gold) I will rethink the whole concept of intangible financial goods.
Arcadia, some time back Marvin pointed out (and I agree) that true Any Randian market capitalism [which not all conservatives laud] demands that I as a producer of any consumer good or service do a better job of satisfying consumers demand than any of my competitors. I sorta like the idea that roofers, mechanics and booksellers are all trying to best serve my wants or needs.
I think we can criticize the free market as the late JK Galbraith did. His idea was that the big firms buy advertising and distort or create demand which might not otherwise exist.
Report comment to moderator
I liked the piece overall. Some of my comments to your prior posts were probably too rash.
I believe that the phrase “superior skill, foresight, and industry” originated with Judge Learned Hand. I’m a big fan of Judge Hand, and of his modern-day equivalent, Judge Posner.
Report comment to moderator
The coolest thing about http://www.abebooks.com & http://www.alibris.com that I’ve found is the ability to search by publication date. So when you want to find that book written between 1850-1900, you can! (You have to use the advanced search).
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!