That's the textbook definition of Capitalism. That is not the definition you were using in your article.

Why would private ownership of production lead to any horrors? We have seen over the last century the horrible tragedies that follow "public" ownership of production--with a body count so high it staggers the imagination. It has never, in any of the manifestations that have been tried, brought anything other than misery and death.

Capitalism reduces the value of everything to how much people can pay for it? The private ownership of production says nothing about value or price. That is the function of the free market.

It is the free market (the market where all transactions are performed on a strictly voluntary basis--where no one is forced to sell and no one is forced to buy) that tends toward every seller being able to receive full value for their property and every buyer being able to obtain the goods they want at the value they place upon it.

Notice that this does not mean that sellers get to sell at the price they desire or that buyers get to pay the price they prefer. In free markets, neither the seller nor the buyer sets the prices. That's pretty much the definition of free. The clearing price is a balance struck between how much product is available and how much effective demand there is at each price point.

There are no guarantees. There are no perfect markets--just as there are no perfect lines or spheres or gases, though these concepts are used in engineering all the time. So a free market cannot guarantee that sellers will always be able to sell all of their product or that buyers will always be able to buy all they desire. But this is because we live in a reality were perfection does not exist. Perfection is an ideal and ideals establish direction, not goals.

Private ownership of production does not deny the existence of rights other than private property. It is an economic principle and it protects economic rights--such as private property. It neither enhances nor detracts from all the other, non-economic, rights.

Nor does it have anything to say about public goods. Government may enter a free market if it wishes, as long as it plays by the same rules as all the other participants. It may, for example, buy a plot of land and turn it into a public park, or a freeway, or suite of offices for bureaucrats, or whatever it wants. And, if the necessity of said property fades, place the property back on the market. Or leave it idle--as the owner, government may do as it wishes with its own property.

You fail to logically link any of the ills you list to anything at all to do with Capitalism or free markets.

I would suggest that is because most of your "horrors" are just unrequited desires that you think are owed you. Then, yes, that is the fault of the free market. The fundamental basis of freedom (economic or otherwise) is that no one owes anybody anything. Or the inverse -- that no one is owed anything by anyone.

Your desires may motivate your actions. But they cannot be made into the motivation of anyone else.

That is tyranny.



A retired software engineer who hates retirement with a passion. My hobbies are economics, philosophy and futurism.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Tomm Carr

A retired software engineer who hates retirement with a passion. My hobbies are economics, philosophy and futurism.