Another chapter for the series: “Manufacturing consent“
“What if… the Welfare State was just an illusion?
What if… a Large State doesn’t mean better life quality but more taxes, bureaucracy and less liberty instead?
What if… each one of us could be free to make our own choices about our retirement, union contribution, our children education till the person we live with?
What if… we were the best managers of our own money and wouldn’t be forced to deliver 40% of everything we produce to the Government?
What if… the best consumer protection were the free competition, not the State intervention?
What if… the fight against unemployment would be through entrepreneurship and not creating more Labor Laws?
… ” (free translation from New Party’s video)
Oooooh the individual liberties… (thoughtful dreaming sighs)
People from New Party (yes, there is a new political party in Brazil called “New”) and they have what I shall call a neo-enlightenment ideal. It is something like Renaissance Era, but, in this case, they want to recover an ideal of liberalism… that ideal typical from the 18th century.
Damn Labor Laws and Large State structures, isn’t it?
The neo-enlightenment liberals would be calling Adam Smith a Bolivarian leftist should they discover that he argued that free labor movement is a pre-requisite to their so sanctified “free market”.
The worker must be totally free to send their employers to hell – whenever they don’t have good wages, benefits, and working conditions – and freely find another job in order to the “free market” to work.
“The whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock must, in the same neighbourhood, be either perfectly equal or continually tending to equality. If in the same neighbourhood, there was any employment evidently either more or less advantageous than the rest, so many people would crowd into it in the one case, and so many would desert it in the other, that its advantages would soon return to the level of other employments. This at least would be the case in a society where things were left to follow their natural course, where there was perfect liberty, and where every man was perfectly free both to choose what occupation he thought proper, and to change it as often as he thought proper. Every man’s interest would prompt him to seek the advantageous, and to shun the disadvantageous employment.”
(Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X)
And I quote Noam Chomsky’s lines from “Requiem for the American Dream” documentary:
“And, of course, the capital is free to move. Workers aren’t free to move, labor can’t move, but capital can.
… free circulation of labour is the foundation of any free trade system; but workers are pretty much stuck.”
And what is the only way to level the balance between workers (weakest side) and employers/capital (strongest side)?
Strong Labor Laws, Unemployment Benefits, Social Securities and so on… that Roosevelt’s New Deal thing called Welfare State.
P.s.1: let me make myself clear here: I’m not attacking New Party, it’s the opposite actually, I’ll ever support it’s existence for the sake of political pluralism. Here I’m criticizing their ideology.
P.s.2: they suggest that the Party doesn’t receive public money, only private donations from natural person affiliates and supporters. As far as I know this is a lie (please correct me if I’m wrong!), since Brazil has something called party public fund, which is a public money given to all regularly registered and existing Parties.
P.s.3: Despite of that, New Party has some good premises about politics: their polititians, if elected, shall reduce their own benefits and give back citizens more political power.
P.s.4: I could answer all the video’s questions, but this post would be too big… and we know that most people are not too fond of reading long articles, don’t we?