capitalism leading to a better type of democracy where political
participation is improved, and the features of the free market economy
lead to more human rights.
An example of how this is applied in reality is in opposition to
Berger&rsquos viewpoint that the best guarantor of human rights is
democracy16. When one looks at the market economy, the cosmopolitan view
seems to be one of giant coronations that tyrannize the people of that
country in the pursuit of efficiency, with very little attention paid to
human rights, but that is not true. One aspect of what these critics say
is true, specifically the fact that the corporations are all trying to
maximize returns on their investment. However, this will actually raise
the standard of living by eliminating the inefficiency of the welfare
state, and will give those who are not working the incentive to work. For
those who work hard, the market rewards them with affluence. This managed
to free the US and the UK from their economic problems in a movement
known as the New Right. Also, if there is an area of high unemployment,
the corporation will see that situation as a cheap labour pool and will
set up operations to exploit this. The down side is that these people
have no choice but to work for this company, the positive side is that in
working at their assigned task, they will have acquired skills and
experience they can use toward finding a job elsewhere. Also, with
democracy alone bearing the responsibility of providing human rights, one
must take into account the tyranny of the majority. Where this line of
argument connects with human rights, is in the fact that capitalist
societies in history have a higher standard of living than non-capitalist
societies.
The capitalist economy also serves the interest of human rights by
protecting the individual&rsquos interests. The buyer is protected from
the seller, in that he or she has the choice to go to other sellers, and
the same protection is offered to the seller because he or she can go to
other buyers. The same type of protection works for all economic
relationships, such as employee to employer, because of all the other
employers for whom the employee can work (ceteris paribus). The market
does this task impersonally without the need for an all powerful state17.
The market also reduces the number of issues upon which the government
must decide, therefore freeing up energy to pursue human rights, and not
spend too much time and money trying to control the economy.
The argument thus far has given a fair treatment of the arguments both
for and against the decoupling of capitalism from democracy, as well as
explored the true nature of the relationship between the two concepts.
Primarily the fact that capitalism facilitates the control of the
democratic process, and that in the end, capitalism will lead to a more
liberal form of democracy. This argument has had to evaluate evidence
from both sides, as well as attempt to build a common frame of reference
in which the two concepts could be evaluated, while minimizing the risk
that any authors argument would be taken out of context. After all is
said and done, what really matters is that these two concepts have
dominated the realm of political thought for hundreds of years, and when
understood in terms of each other, have served to guide the actions of
the most powerful and influencing nation-states the world has ever seen.
Perhaps the best way to end this brief treatment of capitalism and
democracy is to cite Friedman&rsquos axiom which reads; “economic freedom
is an indispensable means toward political freedom, and economic freedom
is in itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so it is an end
in itself”.