Someone could say that left journals attacks on Silvio Berlusconi are the result of private interests and competition against a great businessman. Personally, I think that most negative comments on Berlusconi are the result of his own politics and conception of power. Anyway, which cause could lead the British Economist to run also legal risks in expressing strong views on the "lurid saga of Bunga Bunga" and on Berlusconi's financial shenanigans?
I think it's ethics. The Economist is a liberal journal, which underlines the importance of economic freedom, but I think that the moral nature of the liberal tradition, which we can find in the works of Adam Smith, may be the distant root of such approach. Maybe the greatest enemy of freedom is neither the State nor any egalitarian utopia, but the wrong use of power, which can increase the personal wealth of a single individual, but at the expense of the general interest. The market is a set of rules, so I guess that defending its virtues could not coexist with any form of indulgence for someone who "screwes an entire country", as The Economist writes.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento