The Free Market vs. Democracy (or Plutocracy vs. Mob Rule)

One person's freedom is another person's tyranny. Take, for example, the concepts of of the "free market" and "democracy."

People who promote the benefits of the free market often say, "Let the market decide." For example, they say that it's better to maximize private ownership of property so that the people will decide, with their dollars, the best use of that property. Why should national parks exist? If the people decide that it's best to keep some parts of the country in a natural state, then admission fees to the parks will produce a higher profit than alternate uses of that land, thus representing the "will of the people." Other examples include non-smoking restaurants, nutrition labeling on food products, and transportation safety. If the public really wants these things, they will "vote with their dollars," and the products and services that best meet these needs will survive. In this view, the best way to reform government - which does not represent the will of the people the way the market does - is to simply take functions away from the government and put them in private hands. However, critics view excessive reliance on the free market as a form of tyranny, called "plutocracy," where the shape of society is determined disproportionately by people (and corporations) with the most money to spend. They believe that money is not the best vehicle to decide what is best for society since the free market approach benefits a minority at the expense of the majority.

Promoters of democracy think differently about what the "will of the people" means. Instead of the "one dollar, one vote" rule of the market, they prefer the idea of "one person, one vote." Government, then, is simply the necessary mechanism that we use to create a society that people actually want. The best way to reduce government corruption, in this view, is to reduce the influence of big money (and the special favors it buys, like government purchases, subsidies, and so on) and to increase the participation of ordinary people in making the rules. If the majority of people want national parks (or smoke-free restaurants, nutrition labels on food, or transportation safety) that the market does not produce on its own, then citizens will express this with their individual voices, without regard for how much money they are willing or able to spend on the issue. Critics view extreme forms of democracy as a tyranny (or "mob rule") because it gives undue influence of the majority over the minority. These critics believe that individuals will selfishly vote for what is in their personal interest that others are forced to pay for.

Although in individual cases, we may have to choose one or the other approach, they are not mutually exclusive ideas for society as a whole. Most people would say they believe in the free market and democracy. Maybe the answer is that some things are best left to the market and others are best left to government, with understandable disagreement and debate on the criteria for each.