What precipitated this blog entry was this "The Only Fair Is Laissez-Faire."
A narrow mindset associates laissez-faire only with economics. And there is also a narrow mindset within economics that insists that the realm of ethics has to be kept separate. The consequence of such a mindset is a small understanding of something that is monumental.
This can also be seen in religion where something monumental is made into something small and very limited. The literalists - those who have constricted meaning into some small ego-driven interpretation - miss out on a great deal of the potential magnificence and probably end up influencing others, causing them to miss out too. Such a narrow mindset in economics is one of the reasons we are living in the Dark Ages of economics.
Why is laissez-faire "the only fair"? Of course without compulsion the choices made are voluntary; which is fair. But what also happens is the dynamics within a voluntary, non-coercive civilization is conducive to the natural evolution of ethics. And so not only are the voluntary choices in laissez-faire perceived as fair (and actually are) but the ability to ascertain what constitutes fairness is also evolving. Consequently, understanding of fairness is continually being refined and its expression within a laissez-faire framework advances civilization.
Follow me on Twitter @DivineEconomy
If you know of anyone interested in ethics and
or liberty and justice, please send them this