Deal With It!
Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference.
The ‘Robber Baron’ Myth
The Truth About the “Robber Barons”
[This article is excerpted from chapter 7 of How Capitalism Saved America.]
Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government… for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.
— Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action (1997)
The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are often referred to as the time of the “robber barons.”
It is a staple of history books to attach this derogatory phrase to such figures as John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the great nineteenth-century railroad operators — Grenville Dodge, Leland Stanford, Henry Villard, James J. Hill, and others. To most historians writing on this period, these entrepreneurs committed thinly veiled acts of larceny to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers. Once again we see the image of the greedy, exploitative capitalist, but in many cases this is a distortion of the truth.
As common as it is to speak of “robber barons,” most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.
In the mousetrap industry, for instance, you can be a market entrepreneur by making better mousetraps and thereby convincing consumers to buy more of your mousetraps and less of your competitors’, or you can lobby Congress to prohibit the importation of all foreign-made mousetraps. In the former situation the consumer voluntarily hands over his money for the superior mousetrap; in the latter case the consumer, not given anything (better) in return, pays more for existing mousetraps just because the import quota has reduced supply and therefore driven up prices.
The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism.
In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled “robber barons” did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad,1 and he and his business partners profited from this monopoly scheme. Unfortunately, the resentment that this naturally generated among the public was unfairly directed at other entrepreneurs who succeeded in the railroad industry without political interference that tilted the playing field in their direction. Thanks to historians who fail to (or refuse to) make this crucial distinction, many Americans have an inaccurate view of American capitalism.
How Faith Is Gained and Lost
- For whatever reason, religious leadership mostly stops criticizing their followers for specific sins (including those of statism), stops threatening them with worldly punishment for them and generally stops helping them repent.
- The State or other sins’ manifestation subsequently destroys lives, directly and otherwise, more easily than ever before.
- The masses lose faith in their religious leaders! If you cannot help us on earth, what are the chances you can help bring us to heaven?
- New religious (?) leadership is born.
This is what happened with the Cantonist Decrees. Rabbis\Torah scholars did nothing significant. They didn’t call for emigration or armed revolution against Shmad. They didn’t kill Jewish kidnappers of Jews. And dependant on the wealthy community leaders for their daughters and salaries, the rabbis were virtually silent when these “leaders” would hand over poor orphans to the Czar’s army in place of their own children. Those Torah scholars who offered even token resistance were very few.
Worst of all, literary hints aside, the rabbis had not given a prior warning or suggested alternative behavior. That is, the implication was “We are fine with Hashem and He is fine with us, too”. Chassidim, especially, clearly said things would only get better and better until Mashiach, both physically and spiritually (all except for Rabbi Nachman of Breslov who said a great “darkness” of Emunah was approaching and explicitly validated the talk of upcoming Cantonist decrees).
But the Jews were not actually righteous, as demonstrated incontrovertibly for posterity by the severe events which soon befell them. Whatever it was, (the difficulty actually lies in narrowing the list down!) the rabbis didn’t speak out against it. They didn’t care about (others’?) sins or preferred their positions secure, at least in the short term. In fact, they encouraged many Aveiros.
So, why the surprise “all of a sudden, everyone jumped ship as fast as they could. Anything but Judaism; Zionism, 10 brands of socialism, assimilation, etc.”?
Something similar happened with the Black Death and the Chooch (although Cursedianity is not a real “religion”, see elsewhere).
Historians speak of the economic damage wrought by the plague, but what of the economic situation which rendered it so potent in the first place? The pandemic wouldn’t have caused such harm if not for earlier, heavily destructive taxes, an unseen contributing factor in the later biological destruction.
Rothbard explains – here’s an excerpt (best see it inside for proof):
Originating as a response to wartime “emergency,” the new taxes tended to become permanent: not only because the warfare lasted for over a century, but because the State, always on the lookout for an increase in its income and power, seized upon the golden opportunity to convert wartime taxes into a permanent part of the national heritage.
From the middle to the end of the 14th century, Europe was struck with the devastating pandemic of the Black Death — the bubonic plague — which in the short span of 1348–1350 wiped out fully one-third of the population. The Black Death was largely the consequence of people’s lowered living standards caused by the great depression and the resulting loss of resistance to disease. The plague continued to recur, though not in such virulent form, in every decade of the century.