 |
| Less in substance, more in rhetoric. |
The case of ACCFA versus ACCFA workers is an interesting
look at how the notion of government intervention became so ingrained in
Philippine law as to be taken for granted. The 1969 Supreme Court decision is
full of citations of local and foreign sources that reinforce the role of government
beyond the maintenance of peace and order, particularly in economic affairs.
By the time the 1987 Constitution was written, it was simply assumed that the
state had no limits in serving ‘the public interest.’
Justice J. Makalintal says:
“The growing complexities of modern society… have
rendered th[e] traditional classification of the functions of government [crime
prevention, protection of property, etc.] quite unrealistic, not to say
obsolete.
“The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and
initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally, and
only ‘because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than
is any private individual or group of individuals,’ continue to lose their
well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the
government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the
increasing social challenges of the times.
“Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is
undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Here of course
this development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the [1935]
Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion of
social justice.”
MARKET HATE IS OLD HAT
What’s surprising about the 1969 decision is that it
still makes an issue of ‘laissez-faire or not laissez-faire’ at all. A decade
earlier, president Ramon Magsaysay was already a big hit with his “those who
have less in life should have more in law” crap. The 1935 Constitution, Article II, Section 5, spells out the social justice policy clearly. But it appears that even in this intellectual shithole, lawyers
and judges were still aware of the concept of the absence of government in the
economy, or limited government.
Not to say that Makalintal’s argument for state
intervention holds any water. In the first place, how does social ‘complexity’
equate to the need for government? Do economic principles change in a more
complex society? What’s more, is government
any better a tool for coping with such complexity than free enterprise? Indeed,
the fact that individuals’ preferences and actions are so complex makes central
planning all the more difficult, if not impossible.
FAULTY PREMISE, FAULTY CONCLUSION
To even accept a role of government at all is to necessarily
defy people’s wills which otherwise manifest as self-bettering economic action.
By subverting this actual will of the people, government thus breeds social conflict, the very class antagonism that many seek to
remedy via government.
And to even assume that some sectors such as electricity
or mining require government monopoly, is the beginning of Makalintal’s error. Because
when these agencies and franchises screw up, or when government regulations
limit competition and decrease quality of goods, laissez-faire is blamed, and
the scope of government intervention widens so as to prevent such ‘exploitation.’
(MY) FINAL WORD
The notion of social justice became popular due to the faults
of the state, with the free market as scapegoat. Given that we have a whole
century of bullshit legislation and jurisprudence biased against the market, it
will probably take at least seven generations for Filipinos, and humanity in
general, to be weaned off glorification of the state.
HAYEK FOR THE ROAD
“If
we wish everybody to be well off, we shall get closest to our goal, not by
commanding by law that this should be achieved, or giving everybody a legal
claim to what we think he ought to have, but by providing inducements for all
to do as much as they can that will benefit others. To speak of rights where
what are in question are merely aspirations which only a voluntary system can
fulfill, not only misdirects attention from what are the effective determinants
of the wealth which we wish for all, but also debases the word ‘right’, the
strict meaning of which it is very important to preserve if we are to maintain
a free society.” ― From Law,
legislation and liberty, Book II.
No comments:
Post a Comment