Last night our friend Yuval Levin gave a Bradley Lecture at AEI titled “Recovering the Case for Capitalism.” I really enjoyed it and I thought it was a very refreshing take on the merits of capitalism. At some point, I should be able to link to the video or the text of the thing (and C-Span was there). In the meantime, some rambling and poorly organized thoughts.

Yuval’s case for capitalism is at odds with much of what we hear these days. He emphasized Adam Smith’s view that capitalism inculcates good, albeit modest, virtues such as reliability, honesty, frugality, diligence, etc. (Sorry I can’t quote anything directly as I didn’t take notes and don’t have the text). For Smith — and Yuval — the market is a public good, a community enterprise, that government is supposed to support and maintain because it is a bulwark of public order and the source of progress and prosperity for all of society’s citizens, rich and poor alike. This differs from the conventional wisdom on the right and the left in important ways, which I don’ have the time or space to list.

Yuval believes (or I think he does; all of this is open to correction by him), that what we need is not a reformation of capitalism, but of the culture. The solution to capitalism’s problems do not reside in the realm of economics, but outside of it. I think he’s very much right on that, but we can leave that to another discussion.

During the Q&A I asked Yuval a two-part question. First, I noted that his take on capitalism differs markedly from the loudest voices on the right these days. Today, what you might call Randian rhetoric is ascendant. Capitalism is cast as the only way to allow for the free exercise of our rights and individual liberty. So, the first part of my question was, Do you think this is the right way to make the case for capitalism and, second, do you think it’s correct?

Yuval’s answer was very interesting. In short, it was “No” to both. And I guess I have a problem with both Nos.

As a matter of tactics, it seems pretty misguided to throw away the rights-talk. Americans love their rights, even if they don’t always understand the difference between negative and positive rights (they love their right to free speech and their “right” to Medicare). Indeed, the Left has succeeded in selling many of its goodies with rights talk (e.g. Health-Care Bill of Rights, Passenger Bill of Rights etc) for a reason: It works.

Yuval is very sympathetic to the populist backlash against Obamaism. He makes a great case that capitalism is and always has been about democracy. But there’s a disconnect there. The populist backlash against Obamaism is significantly fueled by the folks who see the government as violating their right to commit capitalistic acts between consenting adults (apologies to Nozick). I see no reason, as a matter of strategy, for conservative intellectuals to tell those folks they have it wrong.

Moreover, as a matter of philosophy, I don’t think they have it wrong either. Yuval knows more about Smith, Locke, and Burke than I ever will. So I won’t try to deploy those guys at him. But it seems to me that a fundamental right to property is, and must be, at the core of a conservative understanding of liberty, government, and economics.

I really like the utilitarian case for capitalism that Yuval offers, but I don’t see how it’s possible to put into practice without accepting a pretty broad individual right to commit capitalism, which depends on a robust conception of property rights. By property rights I mean the right to enjoy the fruits of your labor, among other things. Defining property and the limits of that right can be tricky and contentious. But dismissing that right out of hand is just plain dangerous. Worse, it’s unjust.

If you take away a vigorous emphasis on property rights, Yuval’s understanding of capitalism is even more threatened because an important, dogmatic, constraint on the ability on the government’s right to intervene will have been removed. Everyone understands that if we have no right to free speech, government will intrude on free speech more — even if you make a Yuval-like case that free speech is good for the community. Likewise, government will encroach on markets more if you dismiss the individual’s right to commit capitalism.

Isn’t the better answer a fusionist one? Capitalism is good for communitarian reasons, but it is also just and necessary because of our God-given rights. I don’t see why it has to be either-or rather than both-and.

Now, I may have misunderstood Yuval or he may have misunderstood my question. I really liked his talk over all. But this point as been sticking in my craw since last night. So I just thought I’d try to clear the air.