34 Philosophy Now ●August/September 2019
???
distribution, and this in turn can fuel violent reactions.
A Third Way would recognise that the right balance ought
to be maintained between markets, the state and the commu-
nity. Risk should be appropriately rewarded, since the economy
needs to be sustained with creativity and self-sufficiency; but not
to the detriment of rewarding hard work. Salaries should be pro-
portionate to the hours worked and responsibilities shouldered,
rather than a form of status signalling. A Third Way would also
address the severe limits to our present democracy. Perhaps the
ship of state can only be steered well by knowledgeable elected
representatives, but there should also be alternative ways for cit-
izens to be involved, consulted, and have a say on political deci-
sions. A Third Way would insist that the key to our wealth and
happiness lies in measures to truly improve quality of life for all,
such as lifelong education, fast transportation, reduction of crime,
lower working hours, and time to relax in natural paradises and
pursue artistic activities. Such an objective can be reached if the
Third Way is based on a philosophy where every human being
is treated with equal dignity and respect. Tolerance of a diver-
sity of views should go hand in hand with J.S. Mill’s Harm Prin-
ciple (people’s freedom should only be limited to prevent them
doing harm to others). Human rights should be based on a strong
ethical system that also addresses the future problems arising as
medical progress keeps overcoming problems of sickness, ageing,
mortality, and reproduction. Our future development has to be
primarily guided by ecology. The environmental destruction
that has been wrought on Earth is the price we have been paying
for freedom and technological progress. When it comes to water,
energy, food, waste, climate, protection of natural resources,
habitat and biodiversity, a Third Way that rises above the pre-
sent ideological divide is urgently called for.
IAN RIZZO
ZABBAR , M ALTAA
‘Third Way’ between rapacious capitalism and coercive
communism? The answer is Enlightenment humanism.
This philosophy celebrates the flourishing of individuals, rec-
ognizing that the only thing that can ultimately matter is the
feelings of beings capable of feeling.
An important part of human flourishing is finding meaning.
Most of us want to do that as freely as possible. This doesn’t
mean disconnecting from society. Indeed, being embedded in
social structures is part of how we flourish and find meaning.
So we want a balance between freedom to do our own thing and
the societal ties enabling us to relate to others.
Communism pretty clearly got that balance wrong. Not only
was it overly coercive, it also failed to give people the material
prosperity needed for real flourishing and enjoyment. A free
market economy does do the latter. The past century has seen
around a sixfold increase in the real incomes of average people
worldwide. It wasn’t thanks to socialism. Moreover, free market
economics is not some system dreamed up by ideologues. Rather,
it’s the default way people deal with each other in the absence of
artificial constraints. It’s normal life. Its inherent logic is win-win
- any uncoerced market transaction leaves both parties better off,
or else both would not agree to it. Repeated over and over, that’s
how life improves. The ‘unfettered capitalism’ that’s implied in
the question is a straw-man notion, contradicting other funda-
mental precepts of human society. Thomas Hobbes gave us the
concept of the social contract – the idea (to paraphrase) that we
give up our freedom of predation upon others in exchange for
protection against predation by others: hence laws against theft,
murder, and other harms. The same applies to businesses, like-
wise subject to laws or regulations restraining predatory or harm-
ful conduct, including environmental destruction.
Again, the bottom line is to create the societal structures most
conducive to human flourishing. Experience and rationality point
to a society ruled by laws protecting us from harms by others –
including capitalists – while otherwise leaving us as free as possi-
ble: free to pursue economic advantage, which makes society
richer; and free to pursue happiness in our individual ways.
FRANK S. R OBINSON
ALBANY, NYA
ccording to Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler in their 1958 book
The Capitalist Manifesto , the fundamental point at issue between
capitalism and communism is which value is to rule in society. With
capitalism it’s justice (‘What is justly gained is justly held’), with com-
munism it is charity (‘From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need’). In the crunch, capitalism sacrifices charity
to justice, communism sacrifices justice to charity.
A mixed economy represents an effort to have the best of both
worlds. But despite the ongoing efforts of Western governments,
our current version of capitalism has led to what American green
entrepreneur Peter Barnes calls “three pathologies: the destruction
of nature, the widening of inequality, and the failure to promote
happiness despite the pretence of doing so” ( Capitalism 3.0: A Guide
to Reclaiming the Commons , 2006). So were the communists right?
No. The form of government best suited to a free society is
democracy, and capitalism is the only economic system compati-
ble with this form of government, as Kelso and Adler show. The
task is to improve capitalism so that the capital is held in ever more
hands and the pillaging of nature is minimized. Barnes proposes
that the next stage of capitalism can achieve this by adding a third
economic sector to the existing private and public sectors. This
new ‘trust sector’ makes use of the ancient concept of legal trusts
to place the various ‘commons’ of the world – land, sea, air, even
culture – in trusts. While the beneficiaries – the citizens – draw
income from the trusts (as Alaskans now draw an annual payment
of petroleum royalties from the Alaska Permanent Fund), the nat-
ural resources in them are protected by the fact that access can be
gained only via the trustees, who are bound by law to act only for
the long-term benefit of the trust’s beneficiaries.
If we wish to live in a society that’s free and just, it will need to
be a capitalist one. The Third Way, then, will need to be the next
version of capitalism, the economic system which has created the
greatest surge of innovation and wealth ever known. And a wealthy
society can afford charity without having to sacrifice justice.
PAUL VITOLS
NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C.T
he capitalism expounded by Adam Smith leads to unrestricted
markets resulting in severe poverty as well as causing devas-
tating changes to the ecosystem including climate change. To be
fair to Smith, he believed that unrestricted markets would favour
smaller businesses, since they would be more innovative and more
nimble to take advantage of opportunities. He didn’t foresee the
lengths to which large companies would go to stifle competition.
Socialist dictatorships fare no better, as they severely dampen the
incentive for people to progress through their own efforts. This
results in economic disaster in which the majority of the popula-
tion suffers hardship or worse, as well doing the ecosystem noQuestion of the Month