ABSTRACT
In the first years of the new millennium, the intellectual champions of the free market were riding high. They were buoyed by the election of a US president who promised small government, greater freedoms for entrepreneurs and an end to extensive nation-building programmes abroad. Rather than government intervention, the market, in conjunction with personal liberty, offered the solution to many of the world’s problems. This view (usually known as neo-liberalism, or neoconservativism in its more authoritarian form) was attractive as it tapped into commonsensical homespun truths: through hard work, self-reliance and personal freedoms, individuals would be able to make their own choices in life. Since individuals were likely to behave rationally they would avoid conflict and violence and would encourage their political leaders to avoid conflict. Rational individuals would see economic development as a ladder out of conflict. In short, ‘free markets made free men’ and free men would not be foolish enough to become involved in war (Mandelbaum 2002). As President George W. Bush (2007) put it, ‘prosperous nations are less likely to breed violence’ and the way to defeat violence is to ‘advance peace and prosperity across the world.’
