Are ‘capitalism’ and free choices inherently moral or immoral?

That debate drones on. We now are forced to distinguish between ‘justice’ and ‘social justice’, where the latter is said to trump the former. Which is highly convenient for those who do the trumping and assert to themselves the unique right to proclaim what is or is not ‘socially’ just, plus the right to address ‘injustice’ through More Government.

Yet we far too rarely hear the full-throated case for the morality of capitalism. For that mechanism which turns the creativity of individuals into wonderful new products and processes which benefit everyone for years to come, the industrious and lazy and honest and dishonest alike. What moral obligations do those who can not create have towards those who can and do create?

The European Union at its heart reflects tension between market disciplines and the so-called ‘European social model’, as expressed in part by ‘European solidarity’. This latter idea is never really pinned down. It seems to suggest that those countries who for whatever reason have difficulties or lag behind have an overriding moral claim to generous and unrelenting support from those more fortunate than themselves.

But what is the precise nature of that moral claim? If rich EU member A agrees to help not so rich EU member B, is it entitled to put firm conditions on that support?

What if they are not then met? What if EU member B wastes that support but clamours for more? Should EU member A throw yet more money at EU member B, or instead direct it at even less rich EU member C, which so far is behaving responsibly?

Is morality between countries different from morality between people? If so, why?

‘Solidarity’ came up all the time in Poland after the Kaczynski twins came to power as President and Prime Minister in 2005/06. Drawing on the rich imagery of the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland which helped bring down European communism, the Kaczynskis loftily used the solidarity brand to define their own approach to Polish and European politics.

Anything they disliked was denounced as a mean-spirited lack of said ‘solidarity’. Poland’s clamour for EU funds paid for by other countries was self-evidently just – anyone suggesting that the EU pot might not be able to accommodate Polish demands, or that Poland would not spend such sums properly, was condemned for behaving like the greedy Sheriff of Nottingham.

Latterly such Polish rhetoric is more muted, now that Greece is urging EU partners to show ‘solidarity’ as it runs out of borrowing room. More money for Greece which has wasted a lot of its generous EU investment funds might well mean less money for Poland, which hasn’t (yet).

Despite its grim legacy of decades of communism, Poland is now one of the EU’s best run countries. As the CATO Institute has put it:

Poland’s normally diffident, free-market prime minister, Donald Tusk, said last month: “Who would have thought we would see the day when the Polish economy is talked about with greater respect than the German economy?” In fact, the Poles have a long way to go to reach Germany’s level of prosperity, but they clearly are learning from the mistakes of others, most notably keeping the growth in government spending under control…

The Poles are on track to become part of the Eurozone. (They have been members of the European Union and NATO for a number of years.) If the Eurozone countries start the precedent of bailouts for their irresponsible members — thus saddling the taxpayers in the responsible countries with the debts of the wastrels — would the responsible Poles want or choose to become part of such a club?

Indeed. Because, right at the very heart of every political theory and economic principle, lies some or other assumption about human nature.

Remember the Bible parable of the Prodigal Son? He squandered his fortune but saw the error of his ways and crept back home. He was warmly welcomed by his father, who explained the significance of his repentance to an older brother unimpressed by the precedent being set:

“This brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”

The moral core of this story turns on the fact of his sincere repentance – and an unambiguous willingness by the wastrel to work hard to put things right. The Bible does not say that the wastrel is ‘entitled’ to carry on sponging off his relatives indefinitely – that they have to show him limitless ‘solidarity’.

As we look at Greece’s manoeuvres to persuade partners and markets to lend them yet more money to help stave off self-induced Disaster, the issues boil down to this:

• Is Greece serious about repenting its erstwhile wasteful ways?

• Is Greece capable of sustaining the sort of brisk standards now being set by Poland?

Even if the answer to one or both questions is a loud clear No, we may see other EU countries scrambling round to find some way to help. Not to express ‘solidarity’. But rather from terrified self-interest – if Greece crashes, what else could be dragged down?

Whatever. We can rely on our leaders to be much more relaxed about spending taxpayers’ money than they would be if their own money was at stake.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Charles Crawford, a former British Ambassador turned blogger and policy pundit, looks at how UK policies shape global events – and how global events shape UK policies. For more information or to contact Charles Crawford, click here. [twitter]

Charles Crawford Open Posts