Far too often, those who support the free market adopt the wrong framework for their arguments. Indeed, in many instances advocates of the free market accept the framework of collectivists/statists. We won’t be successful in arguing for the free market is we embrace the framework of those who seek to destroy the free market. Winning policy debates is fundamentally an issue of framing public policy issues in the proper way.
A framework has two essential components: values and method. Values are the goals we seek to achieve with a policy. Method determines what facts we will consider and how we will evaluate those facts. If we want to make the best policy decisions, then we must identify and embrace both the proper values and the proper method.
Collectivists assert that the alleged well-being of the group, such as the poor or “people of color,” should serve as the standard of value. If they believe that a policy will benefit the group, then they support it. Advocates of the free market often accept the alleged well-being of the group, such as the community, as the standard of value but disagree on which group should be favored. If they believe that a policy will benefit their favored group, then they support it. Policy debates then become a disagreement over which group should benefit. If we wish to effectively defend the free market, then we must reject the group—any group—as the standard of value.
Properly framing public policy issues requires us to identify the essence of the free market. The free market protects the freedom of individuals to produce and trade, to acquire and use the values that sustain and enhance their lives. The free market protects the freedom of individuals to live for their own personal happiness, not the alleged well-being of the group. The proper standard is not the group, but the freedom of individuals—all individuals—to pursue their own well-being.
If the group serves as the standard, then policies are evaluated on the basis of the perceived benefits or harm to the group. And so, policies such as rent control, a “living wage,” or zoning are judged to be good because they benefit tenants, low-income workers, or homeowners. However, if individual freedom is the standard, then rent control, a “living wage,” or zoning are judged to be bad because they restrict individual liberty. The value that we select as our standard will ultimately determine which policies we support and which we oppose.
If we are clear by what we mean by freedom, we are much more likely to convince others that individual freedom is the proper standard. If we make it clear that freedom means an absence of coercion, not a license to engage in any whim or desire, then we can establish a standard that many people will accept. And then, our discussion will focus on a shared goal rather than competing goals.