In short, a free-market approach is more practical because it is based on human nature and on demonstrated preferences. By contrast, imposed measures go against human nature: Otherwise, they would not need to be imposed.
Rothbard expresses a more practical reason — one among many — why government intervention into the economy reduces utility. In his book Power and Market: Government and the Economy, he debunks the common pro-government view that the average person is unable to make “expert” decisions about his own life. Rothbard writes:
It might be objected that, while the average voter may not be competent to decide on policies … he is competent to pick the experts — the politicians and bureaucrats — who will decide on the issues, just as the individual may select his own private expert adviser in any one of numerous fields. But the point is precisely that, in government, the individual does not have the direct, personal test of success or failure for his hired expert that he does on the market. On the market, individuals tend to patronize those experts whose advice proves most successful. Good doctors or lawyers reap rewards on the free market, while the poor ones fail; the privately hired expert tends to flourish in proportion to his demonstrated ability. In government, on the other hand, there is no concrete test of the expert’s success.
In practical terms, it is the free market that empowers the average person, not government.
Moral superiority
In his essay “Who Should Decide What Goes Into a Can of Tomatoes,” Carl Watner quotes Ayn Rand: “Governments require taxes; taxes require coercion; coercion necessitates the violation of persons and properties, hardly moral or practical alternatives.” Perhaps worst of all, government usurps the right of an individual to decide by imposing laws and standards on those who should decide what to do with their own property, which amounts to deciding what people can do with their own lives. Watner explains his seemingly whimsical title:
So, to return to the question posed in our title: Who should decide what goes into a can of tomatoes? The answer is relatively simple: the owner of the can, the owner of the tomatoes, the insurance company that insures them, and the person who acquires the appropriate knowledge as to what is safe and is not safe, and is willing to take the responsibility for that decision.
Proof of principle
This concept was explored earlier in some depth. In this context, it means a demonstration of a theory’s feasibility. To the question “Can the free market replace government in performing this function?,” a proof of principle answers, “not only can the private sector do so, it already does.” The answer is a resounding and verifiable “Yes!” In a free market, roads will be built; shoes are ubiquitous; pharmaceutical standards were and are exquisitely established.
Finally, when confronted with the question “Who will build the roads?,” it is important to remember a lesson from Rothbard’s “Fable of the Shoes.” The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion, namely, the bottom-line statement implicit in the question; certain goods and services can’t exist — at least, not adequately — without government involvement. The free-market advocate should shift the burden of proof by asking, “I don’t understand why free-market roads would be a problem. Why do you think they would be?”
The bar for proof should be very high. Giving government control over the economy is an act of aggression against peaceful individuals; it is an act of violence. Government agents will confiscate money in the form of taxes and financially destroy or arrest those who don’t comply. Private-sector competitors will be banned or hobbled by regulations that make them less profitable. Those who sidestep the government grip on the economy will be criminalized as smugglers, black marketeers, money launderers, or tax evaders when they are actually traders on the free market who want to use their own money in their own manner. These are only a few of the acts of violence involved in allowing government to control any aspect of economic exchange.
“Who will build the roads?” is not usually the benign question it may seem to be. It forms one of the frontlines of intellectual battle between freedom and government control.
This article was originally published in the August 2024 issue of Future of Freedom.
