Nor Princesses, For That Matter

[Amazon Link]
(paid link)
The original headline on David Bahnsen's article to which I am about to link: "Free Markets Are Easy to Attack When You Misrepresent Them".

True enough. Many, many things are easy to attack when you misrepresent them.

But now (for some reason) the headline merely offers some good and timeless advice: Put Not Your Trust in Princes. It is in response to…

In the December 2022 issue of First Things, editor Rusty Reno starts off with a doozy.

Capitalism is best understood as the modern ambition to order and value all available resources solely on the basis of market principles.

If the intent was to demonstrate the inadequacy of using the word “capitalism” to describe a properly ordered vision for a free society, I might not be so bothered. I have become increasingly animated by my contention that the word “capitalism” is an unwise term for those who believe in the miracle and promotion of a market economy. The not-so-subtle implication that the focus in laissez-faire economics is on “capital” versus “human action” is problematic and plays into the hands of those who believe they can steward the affairs of mankind better than the forces of freedom, individual responsibility, and self-interest can. However, Reno was not trying to make my point about the poor vocabulary of “capitalism.” Rather, he was erecting a purposeful and egregious straw man as the pretext for his article; the more market defenders can be reduced to a materialist myth, the easier it is to discredit them. This does not serve genuine intellectual debate.

I encourage you to read Reno's article (linked above) first, then Bahnsen's further response. As always, try to dodge any paywalls you encounter. (Or you could just, in the immortal words of Iowahawk: "Pay up, sucka.")


Last Modified 2024-01-15 5:22 AM EDT