‘The End of Laissez-Faire’ and the Case for Economic Rights

A century ago, John Maynard Keynes predicted that capitalism’s fiercest battles would be fought over moral questions and not technical ones. Today, Post-Keynesian and other heterodox economists, particularly those associated with Modern Monetary Theory, propose policies such as a universal job guarantee to mitigate deepening inequalities. Yet, neoclassical economics and the laissez-faire model’s appeal endures. This paper identifies a divergence between neoclassical and Post-Keynesian thought located in opposing views of money and the role of the state. Neoclassical economics conceptualizes money as a scarce commodity and medium of exchange and prescribes a limited role for the state. Post-Keynesian economics conceptualizes money as a public good and envisions a prominent role for the state. I argue that these opposing frameworks shape whether economic rights — such as housing, healthcare, and income — are viewed as threats to freedom and democracy or necessary to those ends. Post-Keynesian perspectives offer promising openings for discussions about the importance of economic rights. Yet even these perspectives may share with neoclassical economics a commitment to capitalism, which inhibits a discussion of how economic rights can be justified as a principle. I turn to the concept of need to envision how we might move beyond these limitations.