Tag: Liberalism

The Impossibility of Socialism

The Impossibility of Socialism

“Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build, it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created.” – Ludwig von Mises

The author is a second year law undergraduate and enthusiast of the Austrian School of economics. You can follow him on Twitter @Hazlitt_3.

This article was originally published on austrianpoliticaleconomy.blogspot.com. Read the original article.

Over a century ago, in 1920, Ludwig von Mises wrote what is undoubtedly the most important essay in the history of the field of economic science, namely: Economic Calculation in The Socialist Commonwealth. In that essay, Mises utterly destroyed the intellectual foundation of the theory of socialism. Mises definitively demonstrated that socialism is impossible in an advanced economy because of the fundamental deficiencies of calculations in kind.

Until the calculation debate of the 1920s, socialist theorists of the Marxian school had failed to pay any attention to the economic problem of resource allocation in an advanced economic society. According to Marx, it was a fact of the inexorable laws of history that socialism would one day usurp capitalism. Socialism was inevitable and therefore it must be workable they thought. In short, the socialist theorists had assumed away the economic problem in their fervent belief in spurious laws of history. 

Before we can see why socialism is doomed to fail, we must first ascertain what functions an economic system must fulfil and how the market economy fulfils them. The task of an economy is to direct scarce resources to the satisfaction of the more urgently felt wants of society’s members. This is true in the case of an isolated individual, such as Robinson Crusoe, and the case of millions of individuals interacting under the division of labour. 

There are, however, two major differences. First, the resources with which Robinson Crusoe deals are minimal. The most versatile resource in his possession is his labour. He also has access to the original nature-given factors of production—land and whatever natural resources he acquires. Because the resources in his inventory would lack a significant degree of versatility, the choices facing Crusoe regarding their use would not be so complicated as to necessitate quantitative calculations about the results of different employments. Secondly, Crusoe is the only intelligent mind appraising the various producer and consumer goods for their utility in satisfying his preferences. For his purposes, calculations in terms of physical output (often called calculations in kind) would be sufficient. Crusoe’s scale of values would operate to determine his actions; objective profit and loss calculations would not be necessary. Contrariwise, these decisions are not as easy to make in a modern economy characterised by an extensive division of labour and intricate exchange transactions.

The greater difficulty of resource allocation can be attributed to the immense array of consumer goods and intermediate capital goods that are capable of being generated by the higher productivity resulting from specialisation and the division of labour. Decisions arise concerning what articles are to be made and in what quantities and qualities they are to be made. In an advanced economy, there is an inconceivable number of alternatives, rendering the task of resource allocation profoundly difficult. For example, steel can be used to make automobiles, but it can also be used to make skyscrapers, refrigerators, washing machines, cargo ships, and surgical scalpels—not to mention the possibility of substitutes. Moreover, in such an advanced economy, there are millions, if not billions, of individuals each acting purposively according to his value scale. It is clear, then, that resources will not be guided to their most fruitful uses if calculations in kind are the only calculations. The allocation of scarce resources would be chaotic and irrational. 

Thus the need emerges for economic calculation. That is, for a means of comparing the results of different resource employments. In this way, resources can be directed to their more important usages. The question arises how are these important usages to be decided. Economic calculation is enabled by the very factor that makes widespread exchange possible: the medium of exchange, viz. money and its concomitant money prices. Money allows for economic calculations precisely because it serves as a common denominator that converts all goods in the market into common terms in the form of market prices. 

It is through the market price system that relative importance is attributed to the multitude of commodities in the market. The money prices that are generated by the market represent exchange ratios between commodities and the medium of exchange. One point that needs stressing is that this does not entail measuring the value of goods. Value is inherently subjective and not capable of being measured. Valuation is manifested in the act of exchange and can therefore only reveal an ordinal ranking of goods; it is never cardinal. Money prices are not measurements of value, they are expressions of valuations. 

Economic calculation permits the determination of money costs and money revenues. Entrepreneurs estimate the total amount of money they must spend on their expenses (hiring workers, buying raw materials, and so forth) and forecast the revenue they expect to receive from consumers when they offer their goods for sale in the market. In brief, entrepreneurs estimate whether their proposed course of production will yield a profit or a loss.

The profit and loss system serves a vital social function. It is the relentless search of entrepreneurs for profit potentials to exploit that results in the shifting of resources from less important employments into employments that better satisfy the more urgent wants of consumers. This is the essence of what Hutt and Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” It is ultimately not the captains of industry who decide how resources will be used to produce goods and services in the market economy—it is the consumers. As Hazlitt states:

“In a free economy, in which wages, costs, and prices are left to the free play of the competitive market, the prospect of profits decides what articles will be made, and in what quantities—and what articles will not be made at all. If there is no profit in making an article, it is a sign that the labour and capital devoted to its production are misdirected: the value of the resources that must be used up in making the article is greater than the value of the article itself.” 

The Impossibility of Socialism 

In the socialist commonwealth, the only possible calculations are calculations in kind. Monetary and economic calculation is only possible in the market economy where there is private property in the factors of production—without private property, the determination of market prices is not possible. As Mises states:

“The paradox of ‘planning’ is that it cannot plan, because of the absence of economic calculation. What is called a planned economy is no economy at all. It is just a system of groping about in the dark. There is no question of a rational choice of means for the best possible attainment of the ultimate ends sought. What is called conscious planning is precisely the elimination of conscious purposive action.”

In the absence of market prices and profits, the socialist planning board has no means by which to rationally allocate scarce resources to the satisfaction of urgent wants. It has no idea what to produce and in what quantities and qualities. The result is utter chaos and invariably human tragedy and disaster. 

While economics is a theoretical science, and the criticism developed by Mises is valid a priori, it is helpful to analyse the historical record and see what happened when the socialist programme was implemented. From 1918-21 the Bolsheviks implemented pure socialism in Russia. The means of production were collectivised and the market and money were abolished. What followed was one of the darkest chapters in human history. Trotsky said they stared into the “abyss.” Russia was plunged into deep privation. It was so disastrous that it was abandoned after a few years to prevent total annihilation. Never again did the Soviets attempt to abolish the market. As Austrian economist Peter Boettke points out, from 1921 onwards, the soviet economy was essentially a controlled or hampered market economy. 

One hundred years have passed since Mises proved the impossibility of socialism and yet fervour for socialism, fuelled by economic illiteracy, never dies. It is incontrovertible that the institution of private property—and its corollaries market prices and profits—are the foundations of civilisation. The attempt to abolish them always results in the tragic demise of civilisation. 



Mises. 1949. Human Action

Mises. 1920. Economic Calculation in The Socialist Commonwealth

Boettke. 2000. Calculation and Coordination. 

Of Liberty and Property

Of Liberty and Property

“We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject, for both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in finding it.” – Thomas Aquinas

Jon McDonald is an energy economist in Texas focusing on the international trade of natural gas and natural gas derivatives. He has a master’s degree in energy economics from Rice University. Follow him on Twitter @jonnymack1010.

Derived from a labor theory, the Lockean theory of private property has received considerable attention. This theory of private property set the stage for what has come to be known as liberty. John Locke’s theory of labor hinges on the idea of self-ownership; that is, no other human being, regardless of status, race, or religion, has the right to own another person. “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.”1 This argument was the leading case against slavery and authoritarian governments following the English Civil War in the 1640s and 1650s. 

The theory of private property is simply an extension of this thought. Self-ownership necessarily implies individual ownership of the mind and body. Anything produced from nature will require the labor of the mind and body. The produce is the ownership of the person engaged in the act of production unless a voluntary agreement is struck between a laborer and employer to trade labor for wages. However, this theory has nothing to do with the value of that produce. Value, which depends exclusively on the purchaser’s subjective wants and needs, is determined by the market.2 The act of labor, itself, towards the production of some good or service does not imply value in the marketplace. This fact may come as harsh to some, but it is unavoidable. 

The term ‘Liberalism’ originally belonged to the philosophy of freedom and private property, of which Locke is considered the founder. ‘Liber’ of Latin origin meaning ‘free.’ The word reflects little of its origin in the United States today. The meaning of ‘liberalism’ was changed to mean something altogether different, and it now refers to government intrusion into economic and social affairs and increasing the welfare state. This new definition was given to us when former US Senator, Joseph Clark Jr., stated in 1953 in the Atlantic, “…a liberal is here defined as one who believes in using the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice… A liberal believes government is a proper tool to use in the development of a society which attempts to carry Christian principles of conduct into practical effect.”3

No matter the definition, modern-day “Liberalism” reflects more closely that of the anti-Christian, anti-private property doctrine of Karl Marx than the New Testament. Jesus Christ did not ask the Romans to tax the wealthy for their exploitation of the working class, infringe upon the private property rights of Roman citizens, or create money from thin air using a printing press to give to the people as “stimulus.” Today’s “liberal” believes that poverty is an unforgivable iniquity brought about by uncontrollable or materialistic circumstances rather than a matter to be overcome through fortitude and perseverance in a free society. This view has the effect of leading many of the unfortunate into desolation and dependency. The modern-day “liberal” solution to poverty is brought through the force of law and the coercive apparatus of the state. Yet, the law in the US has become egregiously perverted. Rather than protect individual property rights and the right to self-defense as the law is originally intended, the law has been given into the hands of the corrupt and unscrupulous at the request of the collective to dispose of and annihilate the person, property, and liberty of others. As such, a law fraught with iniquity cannot drive out iniquity. 

The ‘liberal’ logic is as follows: “Steal from Peter to pay Paul. There, we have now forced you to do your Christian duty.” As if theft and coveting a neighbor’s property in the name of Christian principles were to confuse the Christian observers completely. According to this logic, the only way to absolve the blaspheming poor, who they have never met, is to commit the act of theft. The modern-day conservative is not much more logically advanced with his quasi-fascist corporative schemes and lust for glory on the battlefield in the name and sanctity of democracy. Both sides of the American political spectrum are branches of the same collectivist tree, but we will defer that conversation to a future date.

Freedom is mocked at every corner. The United States government believes all property to be under their ownership to do with as they please, as do the socialists because only the ruling political class knows what is best and morally proper for the entirety of society. Under this doctrine, the natural right to freedom and property is immoral, selfish, or exploitative. The contradictory nature of this logic is difficult to fathom. But it is not the purpose here to discuss the logical and moral fallacies of the socialist order that has flown under the stolen name of liberalism in the US. However, why the socialists must attack the institution of private property will be illuminated.

Life is not a perpetual state of uninterrupted happiness, and the earth is not a utopia. Though this is not the fault of social institutions, people are apt to make them the culprit. The foundation of all civilization, which has given rise to the highest living standards since time began, and during periods of exponential population growth, is the right to private property. Whoever wishes to criticize the problems they witness in society must therefore diagnose the problem beginning at the foundation of private property. Private property is the perpetrator for everything that does not please the critic, especially those that resulted from restrictions placed on private property rights. For instance, slaves were denied the right to private property in respect to keeping and utilizing the product of their labor, the freedom to voluntarily exchange the products of their labor in return for agreed-upon wage rates or prices as well as, and more importantly, the right of self-ownership which forms the cornerstone of private property rights.4 But this fact does not stop the socialists from blaming private property rights and the system which accompanies it, called capitalism, for the abhorrence of slavery. It was the pre-capitalistic era that withheld the natural right to liberty and property for all. Liberty and property were to be owned by the aristocrats and the elites. It was not until the pre-capitalistic era ended that the infant mortality rate, the scorn of all the ages, began its rapid rate of descent. That the infant mortality rate has dropped to its current level is perhaps the greatest achievement ever known to the history of mankind. 

The typical procedure in the socialist line of thinking is to imagine how great everything would be if only they had their way. They fantasize that if all those who object to their ideas for society were non-existent (deceased, enslaved, or brainwashed), everybody would be better off. All those who condone slavery never imagine themselves as slaveholders or slaves. The exhorters who preach democracy to the masses never imagine themselves as dictators, but they often dream of themselves as advisors to an enlightened economic dictator. No socialist crying out against the so-called “capitalistic exploitation” of the working class aims for the position lowest on the ladder, to be under the oppression of another or among the underprivileged. The fantasies and daydreams of life by the socialist critics of private property is the only life of value, and they will strike down those who oppose their delusions of utopia by violent means if necessary. There is no room for private property or self-ownership if the allocation of all of society’s resources, including the direction of labor, are to be determined by the moral codes of the voters that make up the Majority in a system with democratically held means of production and democratically determined resource allocation. When this becomes common practice, we would soon find our moral compass to be shot full of holes.

Regardless of the economic system, there will always be detractors for each end-use and allocation of the scarce resources available. But this does nothing more than to emphasize the importance of recognizing the beneficial functions of profit maximization, competition, private property, and opportunity costs for the efficient allocation of those scarce resources. To work around this fact in promoting their utopia, the socialist will go so far as to say that scarcity does not exist, as if an infinite supply of wheat used in bread production would magically grow itself at no cost in the socialist heaven. What is considered profitable for private individuals versus the community or society will not always coincide in any system, whether the means of production are owned collectively, by the state, or by private individuals. Among economists in the early 20th century, many understood that the socialist system could not operate entirely differently than the capitalistic one without completely crashing. Even if it were indeed true that it could, one cannot simply assume that a socialist society would always do what is right while continually condemning capitalism’s system of privately held means of production and property rights for deviating from accepted moral standards. It is worthless to pay attention to the daydreams of the socialist. In his dream, everybody will obediently submit to his commanding vision immediately and right on time. 

Suppose we work under the assumption that the equal distribution of total output, under some arbitrary standard set by some altruistic group of economic planners, was a sufficient mechanism to increase the livelihood of each member of society. In that case, we must ignore simple mathematics and statistics. This, however, is not the crucial point. The socialist assumes that labor productivity will be equal if not greater in his system and that a socialist system will automatically eliminate unnecessary and unwanted expenses. This erroneous assumption is due to the ignorance of the fact that the quantity and quality of the goods produced are not independent of the way production is carried out in a capitalistic economy. 

Every stage of production in every sector of the economy has not only innumerable antecedents unknown by any one individual and procured through the division of labor but, more importantly, the special interests of those engaged in the production process tied closely with the productivity of the labor performed during the process. On the first point about the antecedents, it is easy to confuse a socialist with something as simple as a pencil.5 To this end, no socialist can confidently quantify, regardless of mathematical prowess, the future number of pencils required in the economy to determine the number of bulldozers necessary for graphite mining. These calculations arrive via the price mechanism and the profit and loss system. To establish prices, one needs a market. For a market, one needs private property rights. For profit and loss, one needs prices. On the second point, each member in a capitalistic economy must exert his best effort since his wages are determined by the subjective value his labor provides to the output, and every entrepreneur must strive to innovate to accurately meet the demand for his products at the lowest cost.6 Such incentives disappear when the collective determines the allocation of resources for the “common good,” and these incentives are why the capitalistic economy based on private property rights produces the wealth it commands. 

Wherever private property rights are upheld, liberty reigns and a prosperous society follows. Private property rights constituting the material factors of production are not a restriction of freedom. On the contrary, it ensures that property can be held even by the most common of all men without violation and gives him complete command of all his economic affairs. A wealthy businessman may have a range of economic influence in society but, in a system that upholds private property rights, it is never complete control over the whole life of a person. The liberty found under private property rights is the mechanism that stimulates a nation’s most innovative men and women to exert themselves, free of involuntary coercion, to serve others to the best of their abilities.


1) Locke, J. (1689). 1st and 2nd Treatise of Government. Pantianos Classics.

2) Menger, C. (2007). Principles of Economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute.

3) Clark, Jr, J. S. (1953, July). Can the Liberals Rally? theatlantic.com. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1953/07/can-the-liberals-rally/376242/

4) Mises, L.V., Raico, R., Goddard, A., Spadaro, L. M., & Greaves, B. B. (1985). Liberalism : In the Classical Tradition (3rd ed.). Foundation for Economic Education/ Cobden Press.

5) Read, L. E. (2015, March). I, Pencil. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/

6) Mises, L.V., Raico, R., Goddard, A., Spadaro, L. M., & Greaves, B. B. (1985). Liberalism : In the Classical Tradition (3rd ed.). Foundation for Economic Education/ Cobden Press.

The War on Reason

The War on Reason

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.” – Friedrich August von Hayek

Jon McDonald is an energy economist in Texas focusing on the international trade of natural gas and natural gas derivatives. He has a master’s degree in energy economics from Rice University. Follow him on Twitter @jonnymack1010.

It is true that history gave us some philosophers who believed, through the power and process of human reason, they could predict the future of mankind as if it were as simple as watching the hands on a clock or the sun rise and fall. They claimed they were granted this power by a higher authority. Through their own arrogance they sought to produce absolute eternal truth. These utopian philosophers prepared schemes for paradise on earth but neglected the fact that what they believed to be eternal truth was just their own hubristic creation. The belief in this divinely awarded position led them to promptly establish absolute moral codes binding on all men. To free themselves from criticism, they raised themselves above fallibility and incorporated the intolerance and violent oppression of those who would dare disagree with their philosophy. Only these philosophers knew what was best for mankind so they sought dictatorship for themselves or for those who would put their ideas into practice. Only their ideas could end suffering. 

History gave us Georg Hegel and Auguste Comte. Hegel from Germany and Comte of French descent. Hegel knew everything in the universe that could be known. His doctrine held that to fully know anything required the knowledge of everything. He said the “truth” was revealed to him by Geist, or “The Absolute Spirit”. Though a brilliant thinker, nobody could interpret his work. Some took it as a reason for the autocratic dictatorship of the Prussian Church while others interpreted it as the reason for atheism and revolution. Comte said he could predict the future and he thought this entitled him to the position of supreme lawmaker. Comte worked to establish a new religion to replace Christianity and picked out a woman to supplant Mary. Comte was insane.1

The war on reason was borne out this line of thinking. It was not the result of careful self-examination, modesty, caution, or humility on behalf of the utopian philosophers nor was it caused by the failures of the natural sciences. The economic freedom which emerged as a by-product of the political freedom obtained in the late 17th and 18th centuries gave rise to the freedom to maximize knowledge towards the application of human needs. The result was the marvelous growth of science which ultimately changed the face of the world. It would be pointless to attack the technological improvements of the human race over the course of history as they speak an undeniable language of great progress and human ingenuity. Those who would wage the war on reason took aim at another target – Economics.2

The war took shape out of the conditions which existed in the 19th century. The classical economists – Say, Smith, Ricardo, and Bastiat among others – had laid socialism in its grave. They were yet to find the solutions to the classical system as drawn by Jevons and Menger, but they had done enough to expose the delusions of the socialist utopians. The communists were finished. There was only one way left open that could resurrect the collectivists ideas. They could attack reason and replace it with magical intuition.

History would choose Karl Marx to propose this solution.

Based on the omniscience granted to Hegel by Geist and the mysticism of Comte, Karl Marx gave himself the ability to predict the future for all of humanity. Karl, being the supreme knower of all things, was better informed than Hegel and Comte on the plans of Geist. In Marx’s vision of the future, the final outcome of humanity’s evolution must be the establishment of the socialist utopia. Socialism will inevitably arrive as time progresses as if it were natural law, he declared. Since every stage of human history improves upon the previous, the ultimate result of mankind’s evolution will be socialism and it will be perfect. Socialism is the highest form of civilization that man could ever achieve. Time is all that is necessary to bring about our socialist destiny and time will arrange everything for the best. There is no reason to listen to the advice of mere mortals. 

Marx still had one more hurdle in his path. The critique of the economists stood in his way, but he had a solution in mind. Human reason, he claimed, was insufficient to find truth. Universal logic and truth do not exist. Marx, replacing Hegel and Comte as the chief exhorter of “truth”, asserted that the different classes of society formulate logic in fundamentally different ways simply because the different classes have different incomes. Proletarian logic is different than bourgeois logic, he claimed. The bourgeois mind cannot produce anything other than an apology for their capitalistic exploitation of the proletariat. Therefore, bourgeois logic is irrelevant, and the proletariat class will soon abolish all classes to convert the earth into a socialist heaven. Marx stated that whatever the mind produces is ideology which can only demonstrate the selfish interests of the theorists own social class. To Marx, universal truth and reason were not available to the human mind. Yet, according to the supposedly higher mind of Marx it was universally true that socialism was mankind’s destiny.

Fittingly, some members of the bourgeois were granted the ability to logic like the proletariat. By the work of some unspecified miracle, Marx was endowed with this special ability. Karl Marx, the son of a wealthy lawyer and married to a Prussian noble, was a member of bourgeoisie awarded the knowledge of the logic of all class’s past, present and future. His collaborator Frederick Engels, a wealthy textile manufacturer, was also granted this special privilege – an obvious coincidence. That Marx and Engels both attained a wealthy status by what they called “capitalistic exploitation” by other members of society was irrelevant. They had the approval to determine absolute truth by Geist and were therefore exempt from their own theory. 

In the Marxian universe, everything revolves around the income of someone else as if it were the gravity that holds that world together. The Marxist doctrine is a false prophecy that attempts to teach the world how to properly covet, envy and despise the position of another. Marx asserted that the logical structure of the mind is dependent on class, or, essentially, income and status. Thus, the Marxists reject the economic concept of scarcity as outlined by Lionel Robbins. They reject it not only because the socialist order cannot account for this reality in its operation, but because Robbins rose from the humble life as the son of a farmer to the ranks of a prestigious professor at the London School of Economics. To a Marxist, an economic theory developed by a member of the bourgeois is spurious. The Aryans reject the theories from economists like Ricardo, Rothbard and Mises because they were Jewish. The logic of a racist differs only from Marxian logic in that it ascribes to each race a different logical structure of the mind and holds that all members of certain races, regardless of class, are endowed with this logical composition. 

Now, it is irrelevant for economics to critique the concepts of class and race as prescribed by the Marxists. It is not the purpose of economics to ask a Marxist when and how the logical structure of the mind changes when a member of the proletariat succeeds in joining the ranks of the bourgeois. It is not necessary to ask a racist to explain the logic of people who are not of a single race.

Economics has more important arguments to put forward. 

The belief that simply discussing the background of an author will suffice in the attempt to illuminate the fallacies of a theory is entirely asinine. What is necessary is to construct a system of logic to counter the contested theory to show why the theory contains invalid logic. Neither the Aryans nor the Marxists have ever been able to design such a system. Nor have they been able to demonstrate precisely in what logic the proletarian logic differs from that of the bourgeoisie or the logic of the Aryans from the non-Aryans. If such a system of counter-logic cannot be constructed, a Marxist or an Aryan would have to consistently maintain that certain ideas are false because the author is not a member of the proper class, nation, or race. However, consistency is not their strength. The Marxists and the Aryans will approve any thinker whose doctrines fit their own ideology. Anybody else is their enemy guilty of treason.

In a free market system where individuals with the natural right to choose the pursuits to which they will direct their labor, either for necessity or desire and unobstructed by the arbitrary powers of another, every change in the market setting will affect the short-run interests of several different groups of people. This dynamic makes it easy to expose every single change in the existing conditions as a change which benefitted the “selfish interests of greedy people.” Many authors today fall victim to this low-hanging fruit and Marx did not discover this procedure. It was known long before his time. It never occurred to the supporters of such dogma that where there are selfish interests in favor of certain changes there must always be selfish interests against such changes. It is completely unsatisfactory to explain any event as an affair that favored a special class. The question that is necessary to answer is why the rest of the populace whose pursuits were injured by such an action failed in challenging the efforts of those who were favored by it.3

Every firm in every sector of a free and competitive economy is interested in a higher quantity of sales for its products or services. In the long run, however, there exists a prevailing tendency towards the equalization of profits in the various sectors of production through the process of competition. If the demand for the products or services of a certain branch of industry increases, prices will rise until sufficient productive capacity can be built to meet the rise in demand. The rise in price signals a shortage and an arbitrage opportunity to a profit maximizing agent. Investors rush into the sector attempting to capture a return on capital. In consequence, more capital flows into the sector increasing the productive capacities of competing firms. The dynamics of new entrants and higher production results in lower prices and the competition of new enterprises brings the height of net returns down to a more equal level.

Those at the helm of the already high profitable firms have little interest in the preservation of free competition. They are, however, opposed to new entrants expropriating their profits and would rather keep competition at a minimum to ensure higher prices. On the other hand, they are in favor of government measures which prevent new business from challenging their position in the market. Those who fight for free enterprise and free competition do not defend the interests of the rich. They want the opportunity left open to the unknown entrepreneurs and innovators of tomorrow whose ingenuity will make the life of coming generations more agreeable. They want the way left open to further economic improvements. They are the watchtowers of human progress.

*Special attention was given to the work of Ludwig von Mises in the writing of this essay. The majority of what is written here can be found in Human Action – ‘Economics and the Revolt Against Reason’. My hope was to bring this work back into discussion in a condensed version.

[1] Ludwig von Mises, “Human Action”, 1949. Hereafter abbreviated LVM.

[2] LVM

[3] LVM