Thoughts on economics and liberty

You can either choose a moral position, or be a thief

There is always ONLY one truth, only one proper position to take on any given issue. In the case of social affairs we can choose either a moral position, or be a thief. There is no in-between place to hide.

– Let me explain!

Recall that capitalism is founded on the defence of our liberty while socialism is founded on the the idea of increasing economic equality. Since freedom and economic equality are irreconciliable, we can only choose one or the other. The other truth that limits us is that there is no free lunch. Someone must always pay for the lunch (or it must be stolen).

Combining this information we note that there is ONLY ONE social contract which is compatible with morality: the contract that preserves our natural liberty (capitalism) while ensuring a reasonable equality of opportunity. (In relation to equality of opportunity, the social insurance scheme that forms part of it must be based on a frugal level of subsistence, for going beyond that would amount to theft.

Going beyond such a minimalist social contract, and seeking to increase economic equality (redistribution of wealth) through government coercion amounts to THEFT. Consequently, we can either advocate a moral position (capitalism) or we can choose to propagate immorality (socialism/ social democracy/ welfare state/ Keynesianism). 

A brief remark about the Keynesians is in order. These people ask governments to borrow and "stimulate" an economy by throwing the borrowing into infructuous and ill-thought out projects. Similarly, they advocate the deliberate creation of inflation (e.g. QE2) to reduce the debt they have so created. In both cases the money the government uses to provide a "lunch" is stolen not merely from future generations but from the savers of the current generation whose savings are devalued as a resultKeynesianism is therfore an advocacy for theft. It is immoral and must be staunchly opposed.

Finally, a brief note on the way social sciences are taught in the universities. In the pure sciences no one would tolerate the teaching both of the truth and untruth. We would, for instance, not tolerate a physics lecturer who teach both that the earth is round and that it is flat. Why, therefore, do the social sciences continue to teach the IMMORAL views of the advocates of theft like Marx and Keynes?

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

View more posts from this author
3 thoughts on “You can either choose a moral position, or be a thief
  1. jesvin

    So capitalism amounts to the CORRECT moral position? Well, slavery, subordination of women, flat earth theory were a way of life and also correct moral positions in their days(no, Im not an enemy of capitalism!). Souldnt we revise it when needed? All social reformers would be called moral perverts for opposing currently acceptable norms.

  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Jesvin

    You are partially right. Slavery and subordination of women were socially acceptable for a long time, but that these were immoral positions was long recognised. These anti-freedom positions were over-turned by the efforts of the philosophers of freedom, as explained at length in DOF (

    Re: flat earth, that was merely a physical worldview, not being a ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ issue.

    I am glad you don’t oppose capitalism (freedom) for I can only commend to everyone this basic moral position: Either you support freedom (including yours) or you support theft. You can only pick one.


Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial