Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "Does The Free Market Corrode Moral Character?"

My fellow black moderate-conservative feminist argues no: "To appreciate just how effectively the free market strengthens moral character, it is helpful to glance at economic systems that undermine or openly reject it. Everywhere Communism has been tried, for instance, it has resulted not just in corruption and sub-standard products but also in fear, apathy, ignorance, oppression, and a general lack of trust. The Soviet Union and pre-reform China were morally as well as economically bankrupt. Or consider the feudal order typified by Saudi Arabia. There we see an absolute monarch, a religious hierarchy that reinforces the ruling family's hold on power, and several classes of serfs: the oppressed Shi'a minority, the vastly exploited underclass of immigrant workers, and women, who are confined and abused. The stagnation and oppression of Saudi society make it utterly immoral in the eyes of a classical liberal [a la Adam Smith or Milton Friedman]."

The Somali-born former Dutch parliamentarian writes: "I can see why critics find it difficult to detect morality in a market system that allows young girls to earn vast wealth for swaying and warbling on TV and young men to become obscenely prosperous because they can hip-hop to drug-induced rhythmic heights. A legitimate debate also exists between proponents of entirely free markets and those who suggest that vital services such as health-care and education require a measure of government oversight. To my mind, the extent of government welfare services in Western Europe is excessive and counterproductive; it discourages innovation and rewards dependency, corroding moral fiber and individual responsibility by encouraging people to become lazy and dependent on the state for things they could (and should) do for themselves. In a free-market society, where liberty comes first, individuals tend to be more creative and to innovate; in welfare states that assign priority to equality, the natural resourcefulness of human beings is perverted. To become successful, you must learn how to 'work the system' rather than how to develop a better product. Risk is avoided, and individual responsibility is thwarted. Although superficially the system may appear fair, it promotes mediocrity and a sense of victimhood, and it discourages those who want to excel."

She zeroes in on free market economies versus planned economies in addressing social issues: "Are the rich always greedy? There are many wealthy, decadent, and vapid people in America. But there are also many very active philanthropists, and indeed, thanks to some of the wealthiest people in the country, there is a marked improvement in public awareness in the fight against various epidemics. The goal of wiping out malaria, for instance, might sooner be achieved by private investors than by states or UN bureaucrats. These fortunate men and women also take pride in their contributions to such cultural goods as libraries, concerts, museums, and, lately, a cleaner planet. The very active individual philanthropy that characterizes America may be a function of the tax code, but that is interesting in itself: a well-framed free market can be more effective in improving the common good than a bloated international bureaucracy operated by governments."

More commentary from Ms. Hirsi Ali: "For those seeking moral perfection and a perfect society, a free market is not the answer. In the course of history, the search for perfect societies — that is, the failure to acknowledge human imperfection — almost always ended in one or another form of theocracy, authoritarianism, or violent anarchy. But for those who seek to work with human flaws of every stripe, and to increase the sum total of individual happiness, the free market, combined with political freedom, is the best way."