Based Underground is now a conservative news aggregator AND curated newsletter.
(Lew Rockwell)—Many people oppose the free market because it leads to inequality of wealth and income. It is unfair, they say, that some people have vastly more money than others. Some defenders of the free market respond that these inequalities, while undesirable in themselves, make the poor better off than they would be otherwise, and so should be accepted. Another argument made by defenders of the free market is that restricting inequality would interfere liberty, so that, although inequality is bad, we have to put up with it.
While it is true that inequality makes the poor better off and that restricting inequality interferes with liberty, these are not the best arguments that defenders of the free market should use. They accept that inequality is bad, but we should reject this assumption. There is nothing bad about inequality.
People are unequal in every dimension of their being, including weight, height, muscle build, intelligence, and so on. This just the way the world is. Why should we try to change it? People who attempt this have a grudge against the world. They are not satisfied with the way God created it.
And of course they can’t succeed. As the great Murray Rothbard points out, absolute equality is impossible. No two places on earth, for example, offer precisely the same view.
If we shouldn’t defend the free market by arguing that it decreases equality, what should we do? Fortunately, there are many better arguments available. I’m going to list a number of them, but if you want more details, you should read Murray Rothbard’s Power and Market and Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action.
One of the best of these arguments is that the free market makes possible mutually beneficial gains from trade. If I have something that you want and you have something I want, we can make an exchange, so we are both better off. But what if our exchange makes someone else worse off? This question is a version of the “externalities” or “market failure” argument. The claim is that some of our activities, including trade, impose costs on others. If so, this indicates a failure to define property rights. Once we do so, the so-called “problem” dissolves.
This obviously raises another question. How do people acquire property rights? The best answer is given by Rothbard, further developed and extended by the great Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Everybody owns himself and, given that the earth starts out unowned, he can “mix his labor” with the land and thus acquire it.
Before leaving externalities aside, we should note another important argument. People who talk about externalities want the government to correct them, but what reason is there to think that the government will change things so that the supposedly “correct” amount is produced? There is every reason to think that the government will make matters worse.
There is an assumption that we have been making so far that should now be dropped. This assumption is that in deciding what sort of economic system to adopt, we have a choice. We can pick the free market, socialism, or some intermediate system that is a mixture of the free market and socialism. For any developed economy, this is not so, as Mises proved in his famous article “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” (1920), expanded into his great book Socialism. Mises proved that without free market prices, economic calculation is impossible. Entrepreneurs cannot tell whether their investments are profitable. So, they are unable to use their resources efficiently. If they cannot do this, the economy will collapse into chaos.
Further, there is no third system intermediate between the free market and socialism. Interference with the market fails to achieve the ostensible goals of its supporters. Minimum wage laws create unemployment. Price controls lead to shortages. Faced with failure, the interventionists must either return to the free market or intervene again, in an effort to remedy the defects of the previous intervention. If this is continued, there will be no free market left. The result will be full-scale socialism, which has already been shown to be impossible.
- Preserve your retirement with physical precious metals. Receive your free gold guide from Genesis Precious Metals to learn how.
How did the socialists and interventionists respond to Mises’s conclusive demonstration that their schemes cannot work? They denied the existence of economic laws that restricted what they could do. As Mises says in Human Action, “It is a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the debates concerning the essence, scope, and logical character of economics to dismiss them as the scholastic quibbling of pedantic professors. It is a widespread misconception that while pedants squandered useless talk about the most appropriate method of procedure, economics itself, indifferent to these idle disputes, went quietly on its way.
In the Methodenstreit between the Austrian economists and the Prussian Historical School, the self-styled ‘intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern,’ and in the discussions between the school of John Bates Clark and American Institutionalism much more was at stake than the question of what kind of procedure was the most fruitful one.
The real issue was the epistemological foundations of the science of human action and its logical legitimacy. Starting from an epistemological system to which praxeological thinking was strange and from a logic which acknowledged as scientific–besides logic and mathematics–only the empirical natural sciences and history, many authors tried to deny the value and usefulness of economic theory. Historicism aimed at replacing it by economic history; positivism recommended the substitution of an illusory social science which should adopt the logical structure and pattern of Newtonian mechanics. Both these schools agreed in a radical rejection of all the achievements of economic thought. It was impossible for the economists to keep silent in the face of all these attacks.”
Thus, it’s the free market or nothing. We are fortunate that the only economic system is on that benefits everybody through the chance of making mutually advantageous exchanges.
This point leads to another argument we can use to defend the free market. In the free market, it’s to my advantage that others do well, because they can offer more goods and services to exchange. This will promote peace between nations. Why go to war with people who are making you better off?
Given the abundance of excellent arguments in favor of the free market, there is no need to use argument that accept the enemy’s premise that equality is a good thing. Let’s do everything that we can to support the genuine arguments in favor of the free market, as best expounded by Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.
Afghan Who Plotted Election Day Terrorism Was a CIA Contractor
by Headline USA
It looks like the FBI may have entrapped a former CIA contractor in a plot to commit a terrorist attack on Election Day. The Justice Department announced this week the arrest of Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, a 27-year-old Afghan man, alleging that he was planning an Election…
Last day for the special on long-term storage beef. Save 35% with promo code “JDR” at Prepper All-Naturals.
Genetically Modified Crops: A Growing Threat to Health and the Environment
by Olivia Cook
(Natural News)—Bioengineered foods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are commonly confused with each other, but they have different meanings. “Bioengineered” describes food and products that are enhanced with scientific techniques to add particular traits. In contrast, “GMOs” involve changing the genetic makeup of animals, plants or microbes in ways that…
United Nations Expands into “UN 2.0” to Turbocharge Sustainable Development Goals
by Liberty Sentinel
The United Nations (UN) has not gone rogue, argues journalist Alex Newman on American Family Radio’s show, At the Core , but they have always existed to achieve one goal: one-world government. This goal is not only un-American, but it is unbiblical. Newman and AFR host Walker Wildmon also dive…
Congressman Matt Gaetz Says Epstein Was Killed as Part of a ‘Foreign Operation’
by Modernity
Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz says sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was killed as part of a ‘foreign operation’, but refused to divulge which government was responsible for his death. Gaetz made the comments during an appearance on Benny Johnson’s show. In August 2019, Epstein was found unresponsive in his jail cell…
DOJ Takes Aim at Breaking Up Google
by Infowars
On Tuesday, the United States announced potential plans to request a court mandate directing Alphabet Inc to divest significant segments of its operations, including its Chrome browser and Android operating system. This move aims to dismantle what is described as an illegal monopoly held by Google in the online search…
Is Gavin Newsom Hoping that Kamala Harris Loses the Election?
by American Greatness
Two minutes of airtime during the Democrat National Convention in Chicago gave California Governor Gavin Newsom his latest opportunity to build his national stature. As part of the announcement of Kamala Harris’s clinching of the Democrat presidential nomination during a symbolic roll call of state delegates, Newsom portrayed Harris as…
Is It Time for a Nationwide Ban on Fluoridated Water?
by Natural News
Do community leaders reserve the right to mass medicate every person in their community using the water supply as a vector? What if that medicine was eventually exposed as a POISON decades later? What if that POISON was damaging the brains of children and stunting the cognitive development of the…
GOP Rep. Luna: We Need to End FEMA Migrant Spending and Boost Disaster Relief Funding
by Breitbart
On Wednesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Ingraham Angle,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) stated that FEMA’s funding for migrants should be zeroed out at once and that while there is FEMA money for hurricane victims, we should also boost emergency relief funding “that will go directly to Americans…
Earth’s Continental Crust in America and China Is Breaking Apart
by End Times Headlines
Researchers, who have been studying the dramatic changes in the continental configurations of Earth over the past billions of years, have made a stunning observation: that the oldest continental crusts are disintegrating. According to experts, the Earth’s crust went through expansion and contraction and has transformed not only its positions…
“Line All Those Guys Up and Shoot Them”: Professor Says Men Who Don’t Support Female Candidates Should Be Massacred
by Daily Caller
(Jaryn Crouson, DCNF)—A professor at the University of Kansas (UK) told a class that men who would not vote for a female president should be lined up and shot, according to a video posted on X Wednesday. The university confirmed the professor is employed at UK and made the comment…