Non
Whilst exiting a bookstore yesterday I noticed the headline that France had voted “non” to the European constitution. It was only this morning that I realized that it was ridiculous that I had not actually read any of the constitution, given its potential importance to my life. My only real argument against the constitution before reading it was that it represented centralization of government. Since I believe that our own government is already too centralized, I am certainly against any further centralization. At first the articles seemed to be very libertarian in principle, it began to look as though I might be starting to change my mind, after all, my own personal view is happy to admit that centralized capitalism is much more preferable to local socialism. However, Article I-3 (3) immediately placed a firm “non” into my mind.
“The Union shall work for a Europe of sustainable development based on balanced economic growth, with a social market economy aiming at full employment and social progress…”
This to me sounds like the perfect constitutional arrangement for the development of a socialist state, why not a free market economy, the social market economy has far to much leeway for rent seeking*1 which is not present in a free market. Where is there room for the individual freedom if “social” progress is the aim? Almost any removal of economic freedom, and therefore political freedom can be justified through this article provided it can be called social progress. Whist it is very nicely worded, it is still worrying. Certain rewording of some articles and exclusion of others*2 could change my view of the document, but currently I do not like it.
*1 When a company, organization, or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp
*2 rewording or exclusion of the following articles (this is only a brief list of the most important points).
Article I-3(3),
Article I-9(3)[“can be better achieved” from whose point of view],
Article I-26(2)[ “one must be a woman” for true equality, one must also be a man],
Article I-29(2)[“price stability” at whose expense].
“The Union shall work for a Europe of sustainable development based on balanced economic growth, with a social market economy aiming at full employment and social progress…”
This to me sounds like the perfect constitutional arrangement for the development of a socialist state, why not a free market economy, the social market economy has far to much leeway for rent seeking*1 which is not present in a free market. Where is there room for the individual freedom if “social” progress is the aim? Almost any removal of economic freedom, and therefore political freedom can be justified through this article provided it can be called social progress. Whist it is very nicely worded, it is still worrying. Certain rewording of some articles and exclusion of others*2 could change my view of the document, but currently I do not like it.
*1 When a company, organization, or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp
*2 rewording or exclusion of the following articles (this is only a brief list of the most important points).
Article I-3(3),
Article I-9(3)[“can be better achieved” from whose point of view],
Article I-26(2)[ “one must be a woman” for true equality, one must also be a man],
Article I-29(2)[“price stability” at whose expense].
posted by Dan at 12:25 PM
1 Comments:
Article 1:3 point 4: "In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall...contribute to...free and fare trade, eradication of poverty and protection of human rights..."???? Let's see the outcome of the Gleneagles gathering before we judge this one...
Post a Comment
<< Home