You Can't Outlaw Stupidity
There is a popular notion today that endless new laws must be enacted to constrain and control one side of the (formerly) free market (i.e., the sellers, often generalized into a single class or category of evil "robber-barons," "big corporations," or "greedy capitalists."), for the sake of "protecting" the other side of the (formerly) free market (i.e., the buyers, often generalized into a single class or category of "innocent victims").
The commonly typified scenario, then, is one of harmless consumers (buyers) being unfairly and helplessly victimized by immoral, predatory businesses (sellers).
The error inherent in this notion is the false assumption that one side (i.e., the buyers or "consumers") have some exclusive, unilateral "right" to participate in the market without risk, personal responsibility, or duty (e.g., to do any research, ask questions, pre-read contracts, teach their children, learn from their parents, etc.).
[Let's make it clear right up front that a truly free market, by definition, is the ideal "capitalistic" environment for exchange — both buying and selling. Both the seller and the buyer are capitalists, and both are greedy, in that each wants the best advantage he can get from any transaction. Let's dispense with the caricature of all sellers, and only sellers, as greedy capitalists. If anyone is ever "victimized" by another's "capitalism," it is also — always — equally by his own capitalism. And if anyone is ever "victimized" by another's "greed," rest assured that his own self-interest for the best possible advantage in the transaction (i.e., his own "greed") also played a role. His apparent failure to get what he wanted doesn't necessarily render the other party's "greed" more "evil" (or even more "capitalistic") than his own.]
This alleged "right" to participate in the market without risk or personal responsibility is purely an arbitrary invention of the popular imagination. However well-intended the assumption may be, it often turns out be driven far less by a genuine sense of fairness than outright laziness, jealousy, and (concealed?) greed. If some number of people organize themselves into a company (or, God forbid, a corporation) and prosper from their combined endeavors in the market, it's just a matter of time before one or more "victims" emerge to complain that the group somehow "profited" at their "expense."
To be sure, there are times when unethical and underhanded tactics are invoked, but these are already commonly addressed in common law justice. Things like genuine fraud, failure to execute one's part of a contract, and theft don't need new "consumer protection" laws, price controls, or government agencies for their correction. In fact, these things only serve to muddy the waters of justice by putting unwarranted distance between all parties in the market and their direct, personal responsibilities for their own choices and actions, while making the market itself generally less free — for everybody.
Buyers, incidentally, also can (and do, though perhaps not often enough) organize themselves for the purposes of self-education, sharing information (good or bad) about sellers, and taking combined legal action against sellers who have defrauded them, as a facet of a healthy free market at work.
The greatest threat to the modern consumer is his own naive and baseless presumption of a "right" to make decisions and/or take actions driven essentially by stupidity and/or ignorance — without having to deal with the consequences. The old Latin maxim "caveat emptor" ("buyer beware") will always be relevant in a free market, because no one (least of all government!) can truly guarantee anyone else a "risk-free" experience in the market.
The best person to protect you is you. Nobody cares more about your advantage in any given transaction than you do. Nobody has more to gain from that advantage than you. And nobody has more to lose than you. So why should anybody else have to do your homework or guarantee you won't suffer for not having done it yourself?
So the next time someone you know gets — for example — buried by a mountain of high-interest credit card debt, before rushing to blame the "greedy capitalist corporation," consider first the "victim's" greedy insistence on having something without paying for it and the "victim's" willfully becoming — and remaining — a party to a contract involving obscene interest rates. And ask yourself exactly why that "victim" is somehow "entitled" to act with such stupidity and ignorance without having to deal with the consequences.
Then ask yourself whether you would prefer to see that "victim" (and therefore in some measure the whole consumer community) truly learn from his mistake, gaining valuable maturity and wisdom, or the inevitable alternative — a "nanny" government invoked to "protect" him (at the expense of the whole consumer community) from the consequences of his choices — ultimately resulting in a nation of perpetually irresponsible, unaccountable, (and still) stupid babies.
The commonly typified scenario, then, is one of harmless consumers (buyers) being unfairly and helplessly victimized by immoral, predatory businesses (sellers).
The error inherent in this notion is the false assumption that one side (i.e., the buyers or "consumers") have some exclusive, unilateral "right" to participate in the market without risk, personal responsibility, or duty (e.g., to do any research, ask questions, pre-read contracts, teach their children, learn from their parents, etc.).
[Let's make it clear right up front that a truly free market, by definition, is the ideal "capitalistic" environment for exchange — both buying and selling. Both the seller and the buyer are capitalists, and both are greedy, in that each wants the best advantage he can get from any transaction. Let's dispense with the caricature of all sellers, and only sellers, as greedy capitalists. If anyone is ever "victimized" by another's "capitalism," it is also — always — equally by his own capitalism. And if anyone is ever "victimized" by another's "greed," rest assured that his own self-interest for the best possible advantage in the transaction (i.e., his own "greed") also played a role. His apparent failure to get what he wanted doesn't necessarily render the other party's "greed" more "evil" (or even more "capitalistic") than his own.]
This alleged "right" to participate in the market without risk or personal responsibility is purely an arbitrary invention of the popular imagination. However well-intended the assumption may be, it often turns out be driven far less by a genuine sense of fairness than outright laziness, jealousy, and (concealed?) greed. If some number of people organize themselves into a company (or, God forbid, a corporation) and prosper from their combined endeavors in the market, it's just a matter of time before one or more "victims" emerge to complain that the group somehow "profited" at their "expense."
To be sure, there are times when unethical and underhanded tactics are invoked, but these are already commonly addressed in common law justice. Things like genuine fraud, failure to execute one's part of a contract, and theft don't need new "consumer protection" laws, price controls, or government agencies for their correction. In fact, these things only serve to muddy the waters of justice by putting unwarranted distance between all parties in the market and their direct, personal responsibilities for their own choices and actions, while making the market itself generally less free — for everybody.
Buyers, incidentally, also can (and do, though perhaps not often enough) organize themselves for the purposes of self-education, sharing information (good or bad) about sellers, and taking combined legal action against sellers who have defrauded them, as a facet of a healthy free market at work.
The greatest threat to the modern consumer is his own naive and baseless presumption of a "right" to make decisions and/or take actions driven essentially by stupidity and/or ignorance — without having to deal with the consequences. The old Latin maxim "caveat emptor" ("buyer beware") will always be relevant in a free market, because no one (least of all government!) can truly guarantee anyone else a "risk-free" experience in the market.
The best person to protect you is you. Nobody cares more about your advantage in any given transaction than you do. Nobody has more to gain from that advantage than you. And nobody has more to lose than you. So why should anybody else have to do your homework or guarantee you won't suffer for not having done it yourself?
So the next time someone you know gets — for example — buried by a mountain of high-interest credit card debt, before rushing to blame the "greedy capitalist corporation," consider first the "victim's" greedy insistence on having something without paying for it and the "victim's" willfully becoming — and remaining — a party to a contract involving obscene interest rates. And ask yourself exactly why that "victim" is somehow "entitled" to act with such stupidity and ignorance without having to deal with the consequences.
Then ask yourself whether you would prefer to see that "victim" (and therefore in some measure the whole consumer community) truly learn from his mistake, gaining valuable maturity and wisdom, or the inevitable alternative — a "nanny" government invoked to "protect" him (at the expense of the whole consumer community) from the consequences of his choices — ultimately resulting in a nation of perpetually irresponsible, unaccountable, (and still) stupid babies.
posted by Mudrostovich | 10:22 PM
|
0 comments
