Creationism and Free Markets

Religion and politics can make even stranger bedfellows than politics alone.

One of my favorites is the Free Market and Creationism combo of the Christian Right. But then wasn't it transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?" The inconsistencies between free market ideology and creationism are seldom examined, but require a very, big mind to have room to keep them separate.

The benefits of free markets were first described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. He showed how men and women, each individually selfish, could compete with each other in producing (and consuming) goods in an unregulated market. The result would be an improvement in the overall good of the community, just as if the individuals had been acting out of community spirit. This non-obvious result, that selfish behavior could have a positive result for the whole community, was called the Invisible Hand.

Right wing Christians, or at least pundits who pretend to be Christian, love free markets. They love private wealth, and their basic Christian doctrine can be summarized as "every man for himself." Out of the random transactions of free markets is born capitalism, and from capitalism comes everything good in the lives of free market pundits, Christian and pagan alike. They hate central planning by governments. They hate the strong-arm five year plans of the old Communist regimes. They even hate the gentler planning by Democratic governments that seek to ameliorate some of the situations where the Invisible Hand has not worked out quite so well for a few ten millions of American citizens.

Not all right-wing economic commentators are Christian, or even Creationists, but plenty are or pretend to be. Creationism is the opposite of free market ideology. Its mildest form, Intelligent Design theory, states that complex things, like the earth and its creatures, must have been created by an Intelligence, i.e. God. It rejects the scientific observation that complex things can be created over time by natural processes, also known as the theory of evolution (by natural selection).

The more fundamental Christian belief is that the world was created exactly as described in the Old Testament of the Bible: a particular God (not Allah or Zeus, or even Gunputty, mind you) created the world and all of its creatures in seven days. Since this has no basis in science, or even in pragmatic observation, Intelligent Design theory was designed to offer an alternative to the theory of evolution in U.S. public school system biology classes.

The difficulty of applying the Creationist mindset (the need for a dictatorial controlling intelligence to get anything done) to the economic system of the United States of America is a blessing. Things seem to happen in the economy without God sticking his nose into our business.

Adolf Hitler did not like quantum physics, but he was okay with natural selection. Hitler was Roman Catholic, and he did like controlling Germany's economy. I think the mutual hatred of Catholic and Communist leaders in that era had much to do with their mutual desires to run command economies. All the Catholic dictators of Europe of the 1930s and 40s, Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini, Philippe Petain, and Hitler ran command economies, just like Joseph Stalin did in the U.S.S.R., then the only communist nation.

Protestant Christianity, in its diversity, has a long historical association with the merchant class. The Catholic Church mostly sided with the aristocracy during the formative centuries of the modern epic. The merchant class does not like to be dictated to. Hence its ideology of individualistic interpretation of the Bible and support for republics or, if necessary, democracies.

The divide, then, is not so wide. Creationism is an assertion of Biblical authority. Protestantism is associated with the idea that the business of Christianity is business. Christian businesses (including preachers and pundits) need to appeal to their target market. So they promote Creationism to further their own self interest. Free markets also promote their self-interest because the people with the most money to give (buying advertisements to sell over-priced gold on radio shows, for instance) are still mostly from the merchant (business people) class. It is all about self interest. If there were gods, they would probably want nothing to do with it.

Ruinous Competition: Doctors and Healthcare

According the free-market theorists, the best of all possible economic worlds is one in which there is no government regulation. First developed coherently in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, this theory was based on practical observations of a society, England, that had been high regulated by a monarchical government working with feudal institutions that tried to determine most people's occupation by their status at birth.

Business men and trade-guilds that had done quite well for themselves in the past found it hard to make a profit, or even a living, once anyone could compete with them. In a free market, if a profit can be made in a certain occupation, new people will enter that occupation until competition for customers results in profit levels becoming unattractive. We call that ruinous competition.

Certain industries require quite a bit of capital to enter, so even back at the dawn of this new era, around the time of the American Revolution, profits could be made in those industries without the help of government restrictions on entering the business. Just as a beggar cannot enter the farming business without the price of at least a down-payment on a piece of land, so a laborer or small merchant would not have the capital to set up an iron-mill or buy a coal mine. So even under the growing free market system, larger enterprises had some shelter from ruinous competition.

The United States of America began as a sort of natural free-market area, and people generally benefited from that (neglecting here the use of slave labor and violent capture of Native American Indian real estate) for some time.

In the course of the 1800's, however, mainly at the level of individual states, those who did not want to be exposed to ruinous competition developed a strategy. Aside from the practice of the law, which was always limited by the government, it was argued that professions having a direct impact on the health and safety of the public needed to be vetted by the government. For instance, it was argued that not anyone could simply declare themselves to be a medical doctor. And again, there was some truth to it, although in the 1800's it appears that trained medical doctors were so ignorant of basic biology that many were just as dangerous to the public as the so called fake doctors, or charlatan (originally, sellers of Roman Catholic indulgences, but a term that came to be applied to untrained healers).

Allowing only doctors licensed under the authority of the government, and making sure there was always a shortage of such licensed doctors, would allow the group to charge more than the free market value of their medical services. In short, to overcharge the sick. This was the purpose of the American Medical Association, formed in 1847. The AMA did some good things, which don't concern us here. What they did on the economic front was require that medical practitioners be licensed (and they set up boards of their own members to decide who would qualify for a license) and they also licensed medical schools. In licensing such schools they carefully studied the demand for doctors and made sure that not enough doctors were graduated to meet the demand.

Now of course practically every profession, from cutters of hair to real estate agents to accountants and carpenters, requires a license. Some professions have not been as successful at keeping their numbers small and profits high as the doctors have done, but the general idea is there. Barriers to entry, no free market, no ruinous competition. Those who work without license are sucked dry by the fees of those who are licensed to work.

Those doctors who scream for free markets and against "socialist" government health care plans should take a good look at themselves and their ill-got millions. Because of the government preventing the operation of free markets in doctoring, in the 1950's and 1960's the term millionaire-doctor was synonymous with doctor.

If doctors don't want socialized medicine, we should open up doctoring to anyone who feels they can heal. Pharmacists should be able to make diagnoses and sell basic drugs without a doctor's prescription. For that matter doctors should be able to sell drugs in their offices, rather than having to write a prescription. People should be able to self-diagnose, if they wish to take that risk, and get any legal drug without a prescription.

If someone puts out a shingle and causes harm, they could be sued for malpractice. If they claim to have graduated from a medical school, but did not, they could be charged with fraud. If the government wants to certify people, or the AMA wants to identify their members, that is fine, but there should be no rule that you have to go to the AMA men or government men.

What do you say, Republicans and Tea-Party people? Are you really ready to give free markets a chance? I'm certainly ready to hang out a shingle, if the Republican run government is willing to let me. I'll start a medical insurance company too, a coop that benefits the members. That should put some pressure on Anthem et. al.

Note: many doctors have come out for Universal Health Care. For instance see Physicians for a National Health Care Program.