Yesterday I wrote here about J.D. Vance’s rejection of free market ideals. Some may find this strange because there is a fallacy in the air about the supposed relationship between the market and freedom. If I can buy what I want, I’m free. If I seek to ban the sale of a thing, I am unfree. It’s weird on the face of it. And it’s only the long-term massive propaganda that causes us not to think about it.
Plus, it’s really complicated and requires understanding that man is very much a contradictory being. That different desires and attitudes meet in one person and can be in conflict. That his heart can be passionate about different ideals that are not always completely compatible. The customer Petr Hampl chooses cheaper apples (Czech or foreign) and does not care about the consequences. Citizen Petr Hampl wants to protect Czech farmers because he realises that their eventual collapse would have disastrous consequences for all of us. The priorities of Petr Hampl’s customer are to some extent influenced by his political attitudes (so I prefer to buy a more expensive Czech apple, but it must not be too expensive again) and the priorities of citizen Petr Hampl are to some extent influenced by his customer attitudes (so I think about my wallet when making political decisions). In any case, the relationship is complex and it is not true that I am more free in one part of my personality than in another.
This is not a new discovery. The Prussian philosopher Hegel described it this way – albeit using more complicated terms – 200 years ago. Sometimes one is driven by a desire for personal gain, sometimes by civic attitudes. According to Hegel, the component of the personality that asserts itself through politics is the nobler. I’m not entirely sure about that.
Nevertheless, it would be good to return to this division. Above all, we need to get rid of the stupid superstition that the market equals freedom. The reality is that the market is a great tool for solving some problems. Nothing more, nothing less.