Commercials, censorship and free speech

Jerry Kirkpatricks In Defense of Advertising – Arguments from Reason, Ethical Egoism and Laizzez-Faire Capitalism uses insights from economists George Reisman and Ludwig von Mises and philosopher Ayn Rand to illustrate why commercials is a vital part of a working market economy, and how and why commercials must be defended on the basis of rational self-interest.

Being rational and self-interested is of course being concerned not only with harm reduction but also being on the look out for the opportunities that provide for a good and flourishing life.

Kirkpatrick demonstrates that a ban on commercials is equal to any other kinds of censorship. The banning on commercials in no less of an attack, than it would be if one were to prohibit the printing of the Muhammad drawings of Jyllands-Posten.

Commercials serve the exact same purpose, as is the reason that we defend free speech in general.

Individual liberties exist to enable the individual to create his own life, and to secure the ability of taking care of one self. These rights are thus about the freedom to pursue ones own idea of what constitutes the good life. As part of this belongs also the right to engage in information and story telling about the product, that one offers on the market place as a producer.

The main point in Jerry Kirkpatricks book is therefore that the area of advertising fully resides within what is covered by the right to free speech; and that those who implement a ban on certain commercials at the same time are exercise censorship.

On pages 109-111 in his book Kirkpatrick gives a short guideline to how one then argues against censorship within the field of commercials. Here Kirkpatrick says that in any debate about new bans within advertising one should always start out by reminding the public, what a ban on advertising is: an act of government censorship – nothing less. A ban is simply state power used against the rest of the citizenry.

Secondly one should remind the public that the citizens have free will, and that they are obviously able to decide for themselves what to buy - even when they are being exposed to particular ads.

Thirdly one has to challenge the idea that certain products have a “value-in-them-selves” or reversely a “disvalue-in-them-selves”. It is thus not fair to say that tobacco or alcohol as such is harmful. These products are clearly not to be likened to poison. In limited dosage these products clearly has a positive value for some people. Also in this respect one has to point to the basic fact of free will and the ability to make ones own choices.

Lastly one have to reject the whole notion that the public have a demand to be informed: There are only individual rights. There are therefore no collective rights, where men of government have a right to take it upon themselves to fulfill these rights of this collective (“the public opinion”). Society merely consists of individuals. These individuals then have the right to engage in all sorts of voluntary relations with each other. Hence when the government prohibits forms of advertising and also when public “information campaigns” are running (away) with tax payers money, one are at the same time dismantling the abilities of the citizenry to engage in the voluntary relations, that are part of the above mentioned pursuit of the good life.

Furthermore Kirkpatricks stresses that argumentation must always be based on basic principles – as in mentioning the question of rights. The central fact that has to be stressed in this respect is quoting Kirkpatrick is that censorship is the initiation of physical force that violates the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Jerry Kirkpatrick also recommends that one focuses on the average citizen set apart from the member of the political elite. In the general public it is often better understood why censorship is harmful and morally reprehensible, than is the case among ”intellectuals”. It is from the latter that initiatives to ban come from in our time.

The criticism of mainstream competition theory

The points above are thus the most crucial in the book. However there is much more to be found in this short masterpiece, particular for those who teach within the field of business and who may even be interested in the ethics of advertising.

In Defense of Advertising – Arguments from Reason, Ethical Egoism and Laizzez-Faire Capitalism Jerry Kirkpatrick thus spend some time revealing mistaken theoretical ideas, that have been used as ammunition to ban forms of advertising. These theories are the same that have also been used to target several major companies in Europe and the US. If one is engaged in the debate regarding competition policies on a broader scale then this book therefore is a must.

Because: - why are commercials under attack? What are the ideas and basic premises that are used as point of departure to increase censorship from the state with respect to the market place? Kirkpatrick traces the various kinds of attacks back to some basic philosophical premises that he demonstrates are inherently flawed. To do this he utilizes the philosopher Ayn Rand. The premises may thus be found later within the field of economics. Here the most uncompromising criticism of the premises are found in the writings of George Reisman and also in the thinking of Ludwig von Mises. Last year Copenhagen Institute reproduced George Riesman’s essay Platonic competition. This essay is also used by Kirkpatrick to show why the so called neo-classic approach towards commercials - which is part of its view on monopolization and a so called “perfect state of competition” - is wrong. A major part of Kirkpatricks concise and tightly packed book is therefore used to target the neo-classical approach towards the idea of competition. This approach is what is used when opponents to advertising, try to justify their acts.

Attached to the idea of the neoclassics that advertising leads to monopoly is the notion of ”determinism”; that is the view, that one does not have a free will, and/or that advertising may lead to an unwanted purchase, and/or that it creates ”artificial needs”. The idea of determinism is of course more explicit in Marxist literature. But is a working factor in neo-classical thinking because one sees the commercial as an isolated element; whereupon one imagine that products that are differentiated by commercials ( and story telling) could be similar, if only advertising and other ”superfluous” elements were not attached to the product ”itself”. The determinism here is about the idea that consumers are fooled into paying an overprice for the product because of advertising (that ideally could be cheaper), while the producer at the same time is being enabled to shut out the potential competitors, and by use of commercials htus creates an ”artificial” barrier for challengers to the established product.

Here Kirkpatrick reminds the reader that consumers in fact buy the whole product as such, including the storytelling (that comes along with advertising) and including the minor variations that exits within the area of the product itself. There are in fact therefore really different products to be identified, where neoclassical theorists would like to see similarity (non-heterogeneity). The fact is also that one is rewarded by the consumers for working actively to differentiate and adapt to certain needs and particular fancies of the consumers (including what kind of non-material image that is attached to the product). One is in fact therefore adding a particular value to the product, that one ”ideally speaking” could theorize were similar, that is: in a platonic kind of world, - but which nevertheless are not similar in reality.

Even small differences therefore also make a real difference. The product differentiation that takes place when one builds up a brand, that one is then able to make more money from than from other seemingly similar goods (for instance within the field of Cola), is thus a sign of competition in the real world, and not of monopolization. In the same way the ability to profit more than others is a sign that one is better to compete than others (including being superior in telling a good story) , and not really about being able to creating a monopoly as such.

First and foremost Kirkpatrick shows how the neoclassicists have created a theory with non-valid premises, that many of the latter even themselves admits are not valid in the real world. He also shows how neo-classicists are trying to adapt reality to theory and not the other way around. In this respect Milton Friedman has supposedly declared that the critique that the premises of (forms of) economic thinking are unrealistic is ”largely irrelevant” (quotation is on page 43). - Kirkpatrick - and George Reisman - effectively shows why this stance is not only scientifically unacceptable, but also why condoning non-valid premises have harmful consequences in the real world. - And as mentioned in the beginning: the banning of advertising is to be equated with censorship.


Platonic competition by George Reisman

More articles by George Reisman

Jerry Kirkpatricks homepage