A True Free Market: Conversations on Gaining Liberty and Justice Through Economics

Copyright © 2015 Stephen Taft.

Author photo by Benjamin Brundrett Wright

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4917-6347-6 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4917-6349-0 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-4917-6348-3 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015904623

iUniverse rev. date: 07/08/2015

Contents

Entrance—Introduction

Chapter 1. Playing the Game, or Not

Chapter 2. The Unfettered No

Chapter 3. Honestly …

Chapter 4. Taxing Issues

Chapter 5. Where Taxes Land

Chapter 6. Land Lauds

Chapter 7. Free Land Ho!

Chapter 8. Some Things in the Air

Chapter 9. Patent Tending

Chapter 10. Disparities and Distributions

Chapter 11. Marginal Matters

Chapter 12. Bodies and Minds

Chapter 13. I’ll Trade You?

Chapter 14. Brother, Can You Spare a Currency?

Exit—Commencement

Acknowledgments

Endnotes

Fellow citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

—Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address

Entrance—Introduction

We have erred in our practice of economics. The most prevalent symptom of it, although mostly unrecognized as such, is our ongoing political battling between capitalism and democracy. Many among us find each doctrine to be threatened by perfections of the other. Rampant capitalism is feared as a threat to democracy, and unbridled democracy is feared as a threat to capitalism. Good citizens have splintered across a deepening divide where politicos toss legislative bombs designed to undermine and recast their enemy’s preferred ideal. Unfortunately, this is not a case of Whatever doesn’t kill you will make you stronger. Either ideal’s failing will leave our nation weaker. It is deeply mistaken policy that has created fuel for this destructive debate. Free markets and free elections are two of our nation’s founding liberties, yet they are at odds, because we have blindly structured our economy to put us at odds about them. We can’t collectively decide whether a parent enduring financial hardship represents a failure of the economy or a failure of the parent. We can’t agree on how much access to the voting booth is enough. And underlying this harsh political division are hopes for bringing incompatible partisan visions of what a fair opportunity is to economic life. This maddening, enduring conflict will rage until we start practicing economics with aplomb.

Free-market supporters see equality of opportunity growing as the role of government shrinks. Their dream is for people to act on their entrepreneurial ideas, to trade and hire with as little interference from government as possible. The mechanics of capitalism, as they see it, are uniquely able to bring discipline and efficiency to the use of society’s resources. It logically follows that any government spending, beyond what’s needed for our most basic requirements, is allocating resources less effectively than the free market would and is hindering our collective quest to maximize the nation’s strength, productivity, and wealth.

However, this philosophy is vulnerable to its inevitable results. A competitive system is going to yield more losers than winners. If victory in economics is defined as the attainment of financial freedom, relatively few can win at our game of capitalism, for the poor and middle classes will always comprise the bulk of us. But, to the free marketers’ chagrin, democracy is also being played here, and majorities can dominate in games of politics.

When the practice of economics spurs a community to see its own as winners or losers, defined by income and assets, a tart politics is enabled. Parties divide over rightfully pursuing the preservation of or the distribution of individual wealth. We side between those two choices—sometimes bickering, sometimes enraged—while the argument affects the entire population of a nation.

Here is where the conflict becomes palpable. Many of us are using one government program or another for day-to-day living. According to capitalism’s champions, aid-dependent people and their supporters represent a threat to our economic strength simply by acting as a voting majority. They demand from government expansive programs for food, welfare, health care, education, and retirement—the very existence of which drain our capitalist energy and add to our national debt. These confident capitalists believe that if the economy were only left alone, without such government interference, the unchained brilliance of a free market would find cures for our economic ills, including sufficient charity for the needy. Therefore, free-market idealists require citizens to take care of themselves, to be responsible for themselves, so that government can be as small as possible.

These wealthy free marketers and their supporters, being a natural minority, have only their accumulated capital to drive politicians to protect the system that works so well for them and to counter the greater number of nonwealthy voters. While they encourage our representatives to vocally support the unhindered accumulation of wealth, they support both bold and surreptitious efforts to suppress the vote of those who would redistribute it. Their political journeymen will rarely hesitate to twist democracy’s technical operations: gerrymandering, limiting voting hours, creating inefficiencies to make select voting lines unbearably long, intimidating those uncertain of their rights with bogus legalities, or demographically challenging the validity of names to shrink voter registration lists, all in attempts to guide the outcome of elections. Free marketers will also buy vast quantities of advertising across all effective outlets to make their point known or to drown out the points of their opposition, and they will defend that spending with the right and glory of free speech. Their motivating good intention is to achieve greater purity in capitalism in order to maximize our economic freedom.

But then there are those who see moral injustices in the cold machinations of capitalism. Such folk demand a leveling of market outcomes, for they believe the uneducated, unskilled, or unemployed are more unlucky than undeserving. They see most financial need arising from unfairness in our system, like short straws given for circumstance, and feel that our community, through government, has an obligation to address such misfortune. These outcome levelers see government programs as critical to bringing economic justice to the nation, righteousness rising as government defines and addresses people’s needs. They, too, will gerrymander and advertise to fight their opponents’ fire with fire, but they will generally support the unhindered voting rights of their natural majority. Such doubting capitalists believe that the free market, if left alone, would run roughshod over all but the wealthy. So they tender most responsibility for compassion to the state, supporting a calculated fairness by having government offer what a coldhearted free market is incapable of delivering. The purity of capitalism is their fear. A robust democracy is their cudgel against it.

Thus, the battle lines for the betterment of the nation are drawn. One side is willing to sacrifice the purity of democracy; the other side is willing to sacrifice the purity of capitalism. Yet both claim to be acting for the sake of economic justice. There’s no agreement on what economic justice means, even though both sides define it with opportunity, nor on how it should be achieved. War for the political upper hand rages ominously, with the two sides striving for seemingly incompatible goals. Successes for one side become diminishments for the other.

This conflict is not a passing fad. It will not be a mere footnote to our age; it will become our contribution to history. We have unwittingly programmed it into our society. So it will remain with us until we choose to upgrade the code to what a better economics offers. Whatever flaws the two sides see in our capitalistic practices, the ironic truth is that this war between free marketers and outcome levelers is not over our fundamental problem. All the time, conversation, and expense of it, will one day be seen as a fool’s errand.

While the drama of politics is what’s most visible through popular media, the roots of our current two-party tensions are found in economics. Most of our domestic issues boil down to debates over taxes or spending. And most of us feel drawn to one camp or the other by our relative confidence in the free market to address the relevant issue. Whether it’s poverty, education, or health care, we either trust the free market to solve it or we don’t.

This book argues that both our confidences and our doubts are misplaced. Our warring politics is not over the merits of a true free market but over the merits of what we have: a poorly designed market. The real issue, the one we don’t debate, is that our very idea of capitalism has been tainted by mistakes made in creating it.

It’s not so unreasonable to think we fervently believe something in error. We used to think the Earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the Earth, that gods threw lightning bolts, that money could be made of wood, and even that under a dependable climate, the value of a tulip bulb could equal the value of a home. Clearly, ours is not an immutable reality. Our constant power and obligation is to newly understand and then alter our path.

It’s therefore quite common to wonder what might be wrong with the world we’ve given ourselves. So, what if capitalism doesn’t have to be an enemy of the poor? What if democracy doesn’t have to be an enemy of the rich? What if the rich could gain greater wealth without concern for others placing claims on their success? And what if the poor could take care of themselves while needing nothing extra from the state? Could it be that the flaws causing capitalism’s weaknesses are rote adaptations from so long ago that they only seem to be economically natural, and that we are now blind to the humanity and freedom that capitalism can actually offer?

As the dialogue to follow explains, our acceptance of taxing capital is what will continually pressure our economy to fray and our politics to splinter. It creates an economic desperation in some of us that is a source of unwitting exploitation by the rest of us. And because it perpetuates cyclical instability, it’s not an efficient way to fund government. Taxing the result of work is a de facto distortion to our economy. It distorts both the relative value of products and the relative value of work. Obviously, taxation is necessary to allow government to function, but a tax becomes part of the economic playing field. Therefore, it can only be economically neutral when it falls on the field; that is, the earth on which our competition is played. Yet taxing capital, what results from our work, is not today seen as a problem.

The other unseen flaw that will be explained is our concept of ownership. We see ownership in anything that our laws allow to be sold. But economic principles are clear in that, of the three economic building blocks—land, labor, and capital—only capital can be individually owned. What existed prior to work belongs to our community, to all of us. Laws that lack appreciation for this cause capitalism its stresses and stumbles. Individual claims on land, for example, are critical to allow our economic imaginations to flourish, and government’s clear role is to manage and protect this right. But when laws misidentify the proper recipient of land’s value, significant economic distortions occur that become costly to all of us, owners and nonowners alike.

It’s as if our economic lives today are floating on the ceaselessly chaotic and churning wake of a great ship named Economy. We bob up and down almost randomly, almost helplessly. We can see the ship, but we’re blind to its design below the surface that creates the wake on which our economic fates are riding. We can’t even see the steering mechanism to glean what recessionary course we might be taking until a downturn is already fact. We can absolutely do better.

Good design stems from human will, smartly applied to the laws of nature. A building, for example, cannot stand for long when designed in ignorance of physics. When physics is misapplied, the building crumbles. A farm cannot thrive when it is run in ignorance of agriculture, for when the basic needs of plants are not tended to, crops die. And a free market cannot thrive when constructed in ignorance of economics. When its fundamental forces are unappreciated in our lawmaking, the market fails. We have seen buildings collapse, and we have learned to build them better. We have seen crops die, and we have learned to better understand their needs. We have also seen markets fail, but we have not yet learned the nature of a true free market. We have tweaked our economic rules or applied new laws from political expedience, intuitive habit, or fear. Then we have proclaimed that great lessons have been learned. But in reality, we have only learned to wait for markets to fail again. We have not been quick to understand why cycles of economic dread persist among us or why our birth circumstance, more than anything, determines our economic fate.

If economics is the dominant means by which we interact with strangers, then economics is the framework for society’s freedom. Freedom’s economy must embody two conditions: that opportunity not be a zero-sum game and that every transaction can be declined without incurring harm to one’s household. Harm is not the rejection of an opportunity to make a million dollars; rather, it is the possibility one won’t then be able to feed one’s family or keep them warm on a winter’s night, without accepting help. Such concern is a form of desperation that has no place in a true free market.

Economic freedom doesn’t mean that the successful must provide food or heat to the able-bodied poor. It does mean that the designers of a free economy, our lawmakers, must make sure that all able-bodied persons can care for themselves without requiring payments from a boss or a government. Economic freedom means that one can choose to have a boss or not, choose to be a boss or not, without needing welfare for saying no or from failing.

This might sound to some of us like pining, idealistic pabulum. Others might react viscerally at the perceived impossibility. But there is a history to human thought that as strongly disagrees. There are currents of optimism in our chronicles that lean toward the potential for freedom. These are the currents I have sought to follow and to expand upon.

Soulful economists have long been concerned with maximizing our overall well-being. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Henry George, Karl Marx, Ludwig von Mises, and John Maynard Keynes are some who have held legitimate concerns for our human dignity. And they arrived at some starkly different conclusions on how to best address it. Mises is seen by some as a capitalist’s capitalist, who saw capitalism as a pathway to freedom. Marx is often seen as a communist’s communist, who saw capitalism burdening men with suppression. Both rightly define capital as something of potential economic utility. But they also accepted as fundamental that taxes are equally valid on what capital we have made as on what we have not. So they missed a major distinction. Rather than having seen beneath the common practice concocted by our foilable beliefs, what they each saw as fundamental was not fundamental enough.¹

It is when we form a rudimentary community, and begin to depend on each other for goods and services, that economic forces first emerge. We secure food. We build shelters and gathering spots. We learn to hone different talents among us. The recognition of efficiency and need reflects a drive to improve our lives. It’s in our essence as people. So we trade, seeking greater ease and variety for our days.

As the great power in trade was appreciated, we learned that the conditions for it could be tweaked for the sake of favor. Nations formed different economic systems by altering rules over its very potential, yielding dramatically varied results. Still, our human attributes are universal and constant. They will flow between us when we live with any dependence on each other, irrigating our interactions with an economic water that takes the shape of whatever legal container it is given and leaks where that container has pores or cracks.

These basic human attributes, when given critical mass by the formation of community, become fundamental economic forces, operating as tendencies in every economy we can imagine:

1. All human work uses what land offers—its material or location.

2. When a trade is not for love or charity, the incentive is to profit from it.

3. When traded from need, the price paid can be more than the value received.

4. Some people will lie or cheat to meet their needs.

5. There is a narrower acceptable range for public behaviors than private ones.

6. Most people find comfort in the choices of crowds.

Understanding the interplay of these forces is what is needed to construct a true free market. Wise economic designers can read them as a map. But when the efficient route is ignored or unseen, the forces reflect like signposts warning of problems ahead. Our laws can steer us clear of, or right into, those problems.

The laws we choose reconcile the demands of social living with our individual freedoms. Idealized capitalism is approached by subjugating communal strengths to the needs of the individual. This is what we call a free market. The opposite, subjugating individual strengths to the needs of community, points to an idealized communism. This is a centrally planned market. Most nations have made choices that fall somewhere in between. But at every point on the scale in our world, there has been less-than-enduring success. Social systems have required regular amending or have folded. People have persistently been left hungry or without opportunity. Every nation has tried various blends of approaches, without any satisfying their populations for generations at a time. And all have taxed human-made capital.

We might then ask: Would more freedom be available to us today had better choices been made in the past? And what do we mean by freedom in the first place? Must the state and the individual be adversaries? In effect, are the ideals we hold ideal to hold?

Everything mankind does begins with questions, and then conversation. Whether large as an economy or small as a molecule, anything we’ve designed or invented begins with conversation about the possibility. The conversation might be held behind closed doors with a single loved one or reverberate in the world at large, but it precedes all further actions. The bulk of this book is a conversation between two believers in free will who are seeking their fullest freedom.

Economics is held high throughout these pages. It is only one of three bodies of law that prescribe our freedoms, but for most of us, it is the most influential in daily life. The other two, politics and morality, will be addressed only as they touch upon economics.

While economic law becomes mere fodder for our political wars, it remains a crucial tool for community design, particularly versatile and powerful. Just as hammers can be used to build a home or to take a life, economic law can further develop us or diminish us. It matters that it is forged from truth. A True Free Market is named for this ideal.

Three principles can guide our lawmaking through the map drawn by the six fundamental forces:

1. Freedom always allows for the choice to participate or not.

2. Capital—the result of labor—is not to be taxed.

3. Honesty is economically efficient for communities, but it can be inefficient for individuals.

These principles unite the forces into good economic design. They stem from a reverence for the wide breadth of aspiration inherent in community and the necessity of tending this little speck of the universe in which we’re born. They draw from the heart and the mind in the same way the survivor of a highway wreck draws a renewed appreciation for life.

Economics teaches us that such appreciation doesn’t have to be relegated to brief moments of national tragedy or national joy. Our entwined passions are part and parcel of the freedom in a truly free market. Perhaps we have yet to live in its marketplace because we have yet to experience a collapse iconic enough to spark us to begin a proper economic reengineering. The Great Depression inspired us to change, but for all the agencies and programs implemented to fix the economy, we never addressed the flaws. They remain today.

We can find comfort in knowing that freedom doesn’t arrive perfected. Freedom comes in waves to cultures, accepted only in fits and starts. We are always learning what is possible. Our political conversation can evolve to allow for more possibilities.

This book is dedicated to not waiting for another ominous crash to force our understanding. Existence on Earth, a miracle in the face of extraordinarily long odds, deserves to be cherished now with laws that structure our living with appreciation for our good fortune and honor for our myriad ambitions. Our capitalism can be made inclusive, without requiring a driving financial ambition to live securely, and without issuing penalties or resentment toward those who relish its competition. A true free market can be erected. We need only understanding and desire.

Sam Rueul and Jorge Olduvai are friends who share a passion for economic understanding. Beginning with the nature of fairness and freedom, their conversation methodically explores the fundamental forces that float our economic ship. Their words, chapter by chapter, slowly sketch an economic design using those three guiding principles to better the wealth of nations and allow us all, as individuals and communities, a new potential.

CHAPTER 1

Playing the Game, or Not

Two men in the city’s Central Park offered each other a welcoming hug, meeting for what might have been the thousandth time in their middle-aged lives. From their initial introduction, soon after graduating from different universities, they shared a dual bond: respect for each other and dissatisfaction with the world around them.

Mr. Olduvai, I’ve been looking forward to this conversation since you pissed me off last time.

Well, I can’t promise it won’t happen again, Mr. Rueul. But really I’m just glad Ada is giving up her time with you today. She’s okay? And Marga?

Ada’s fine … thanks. She’s been liking her alone time, so it’s no problem. And Marga’s back at school now. She left last Sunday. Her last semester.

Already!

We’re getting old, Jorge.

We are. And that makes time precious. So …?

Go for it.

The last thing we were talking about, Sam … was … freedom, I think.

Exactly when you were pissing me off.

Without warning or rustle, a dozen starlings flew from a hackberry tree beside the asphalt path. Sounds of joyful children spilled from a playground nearby. But the two men were determined to hash out ideas of economic delusion that had percolated in their talks. Their challenge this day was that while they agreed there was delusion, Jorge saw delusion in society at large, while Sam saw delusion in Jorge.

How can freedom annoy you, Sam? I was trying to make the point that the only limit to it is fairness. Then you had to leave.

Well, I have time now. And what you don’t understand is that one man’s fairness is another man’s oppression.

Fairness is an equality of opportunity …

See? That’s oppression. I’m already annoyed.

I didn’t say anything oppressive!

You said ‘equality of opportunity.’ Equality—economic equality—means taking from someone who has and giving to someone who doesn’t. And that has nothing to do with fairness. But it has a lot to do with the oppression of success.

Well, now you’re not being fair.

Why not?

Because you had asked me last time we met what I mean by fairness. And now you’re using your own definition to assume what I mean.

That’s what it usually means.

So you’re assuming the usual …?

You’re right … I shouldn’t assume, especially with you, Jorge. Forgive me?

I might.

So, what do you mean?

Fairness is an equality of opportunity, nothing else. It has nothing to do with taking what belongs to someone to give to someone else. It’s the potential in every moment of economic life. It’s like sports that way.

Economics is like sports?

A good sport provides the opportunity for excellence to each competitor at every moment they play. That’s a fair game, Sam. Otherwise, it will lack integrity and won’t hold our interest. The same goes for a good economy; it also provides opportunity for everyone who’s in it. That’s a fair economy. Without the right rules for equal opportunity throughout, dishonor will infect its politics. People with the means will just jockey for advantage instead of honing real skill. Making the rules then becomes more important than playing the game.

When you talk about equality of opportunity in sports … are a person’s advantages in skill or height or whatever still valid, without compensating competitors?

Of course. Personal advantages are natural. Some athletes are going to be better than others—quicker or stronger, as you say. But when the game is good, the rules themselves won’t favor one player over another. And the referees don’t give anyone special treatment. A game with integrity simply gives uniform opportunity to all. It doesn’t equalize ability.

So it’s the same in economics, I hope. Natural advantages, like stamina or brainpower or strength, don’t need compensating either, right?

Absolutely. Our differences actually make for good drama; they create favorites and underdogs and give us something to root for. It helps make our economic system popular.

I don’t think of economics as being popular.

Well, it needs to be, Sam. Everyone is part of the economy. So if the system isn’t popular, the system is in trouble.

A lot going on with fairness in sports, isn’t there?

Well, it needs to work, to keep people interested. It’s why when stones or bottles are on the field, they’re removed. It’s all about fairness—keeping luck to a minimum so talent and skill can dominate. That’s why games are cancelled in bad weather; heavy rain or wind can erase a difference in ability, or can change the skill set needed to win.

Okay, but what does this have to do with economics?

Everything.

"We’re going to cancel the