Let consumerism rule
Intrinsic to the idea of a free market is the supremacy of the consumer and the ability to choose. This is also true of democracy, although in this case the consumer is known as the voter. When consumers, either in economics or politics, have the freedom to choose, markets and political systems are at their most efficient.
Not surprisingly, though, the supremacy of the consumer is often at odds with the agenda of business and government. For proof, one need only look to those industries, often state-owned and highly inefficient, that cry out for protection. These businesses are looking out for their own skins, not what is best for their customers.
For such businesses, the idea of unfettered consumer choice is terrifying. It leaves their success or failure in the fickle hands of customers who will only judge them on the basis of quality, price and service. Suddenly political pull and protective trade barriers aren't important. In such an environment, many businesses just can't compete.
The same is often true of politicians who do not trust the electorate or seek to impose their own philosophies on society no matter how unpopular or unwanted they are.
Such opponents of choice, whether they be in business or government, often decry the trend of consumerism. Such was the case recently with the government plenipotentiary in his report on family issues. In it, Kazimierz Kapera criticized the Polish media for popularizing, among other things, consumerism.
Somehow, consumerism and the ability to choose threaten the Polish family, in Kapera's view. What his report was really saying was that families are perhaps choosing lifestyles and values that are not in keeping with his.
Whether the choices being made by these families are good or not is, in our opinion, not the business of government. If a person works hard to earn a living, they should have the ability to choose how they dispose of that income and how they live.
The free market and the consumer at the heart of it threaten politicians such as Kapera because they are based on people deciding what is best for them. These consumers are not dependent on politicians, the church or barons of industry to tell them which way to go, as was the case in times past.
And that is really the true symbol of a free market and democracy at work.
Politicians such as Kapera and businesses that want to avoid competition at any cost should realize that increasingly society will be driven by consumers - and they will expect results. At the end of the day, opponents of consumerism will have to learn that the government is there to serve the people, not vice versa and that companies only have the right to exist so long as consumers think they're worth having.
Not surprisingly, though, the supremacy of the consumer is often at odds with the agenda of business and government. For proof, one need only look to those industries, often state-owned and highly inefficient, that cry out for protection. These businesses are looking out for their own skins, not what is best for their customers.
For such businesses, the idea of unfettered consumer choice is terrifying. It leaves their success or failure in the fickle hands of customers who will only judge them on the basis of quality, price and service. Suddenly political pull and protective trade barriers aren't important. In such an environment, many businesses just can't compete.
The same is often true of politicians who do not trust the electorate or seek to impose their own philosophies on society no matter how unpopular or unwanted they are.
Such opponents of choice, whether they be in business or government, often decry the trend of consumerism. Such was the case recently with the government plenipotentiary in his report on family issues. In it, Kazimierz Kapera criticized the Polish media for popularizing, among other things, consumerism.
Somehow, consumerism and the ability to choose threaten the Polish family, in Kapera's view. What his report was really saying was that families are perhaps choosing lifestyles and values that are not in keeping with his.
Whether the choices being made by these families are good or not is, in our opinion, not the business of government. If a person works hard to earn a living, they should have the ability to choose how they dispose of that income and how they live.
The free market and the consumer at the heart of it threaten politicians such as Kapera because they are based on people deciding what is best for them. These consumers are not dependent on politicians, the church or barons of industry to tell them which way to go, as was the case in times past.
And that is really the true symbol of a free market and democracy at work.
Politicians such as Kapera and businesses that want to avoid competition at any cost should realize that increasingly society will be driven by consumers - and they will expect results. At the end of the day, opponents of consumerism will have to learn that the government is there to serve the people, not vice versa and that companies only have the right to exist so long as consumers think they're worth having.
