Loneliness Of Free Marketeers

“Never would Mises compromise his principles, never would he bow the knee to a quest for respectability or social or political favor”-Murray Newton Rothbard
“To every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend–and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known, and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”-Ayn Rand
One often forgotten fact is that the ancient Greece had the technological prowess to run railways long before England or other nations had, but failed to do so as they believed it would wreck the economy. What the poorest countries of the world lack aren’t natural resources or scientific progress as such, but Capital and Capitalism. And it is only when one realizes this; one learns the urgent need for Economics education and the world wide recognition of Free Market ideas. The value of those ideas are immeasurably higher than any particular invention or gadget no matter how large the impact those inventions or gadgets may have. It is true that many Economists from the time of Adam Smith danced to the tune of the Free Market, but they were few and far between. It were those few men, with a mind as sharp a razor and integrity as hard as steel, who carried those ideas staking their entire career, among their contemporaries who did everything they can to ostracize and never let the masses know the truth as it is. A lot many of their works still remain undiscovered and even when it is, by an exclusive bunch. We owe our lives and all which comes along with it to them.
It is a sad fact that the study of Economics is practically forbidden in today’s universities. Statist intellectuals, in order to push forward the cause of political pressure groups, play hard to hide the fact that Free Market Capitalism is the only moral and practical system-And that there is no middle path between Capitalism & Socialism. Keynesian swindlers & Big Businesses try to equate it with corporatism, by which they pervert the very meaning of the term.
One realizes the gravity of the issue only when he gets to know that Ludwig Von Mises, the greatest economist the world had ever seen, never held a paid full time academic job in the whole of his life. Quoting Mises – “I thus had arrived at this hopeless pessimism. This pessimism had broken the strength of Carl Menger, and it overshadowed the life of Max Weber. I could not lose courage even now. I would do everything an economist could do. I would not tire.” It was only after Ayn Rand starting a virtual campaign for Mises, that he became known to the world as he is now. Ayn Rand-the woman who wrote ‘I don’t think of you’, too was crushed by these vehement attacks & didn’t write a single work of fiction in the last 25 years of her life. Frederic Bastiat’s views were ‘too superficial’ and ‘simplistic’ for these semi-somnambulist mentalities. It is quite understandable that these knuckleheads find the Greatest Economic Journalist ever as ‘simplistic’. The ‘sophistication’ and ‘maturity’ of these moronic minds consists of blinking at everything else than the things that matter. “The sound perception of an ant does not include thunder.” Imagine the strength, courage and intellectual honesty of these men who stood against the whole world all their lives and how much we owe to them & why it can never be repaid.
Margit Von Mises writes, “I remember Lu once told me that a job at Princeton was the only position that really would have made him happy. It was very unusual for Ludwig Von Mises to express a longing for something out of his reach.” All these when most US Universities would bend over backwards to let in any shameless, Marxist, bootlicking boor. It is a pity! It is shameful!
Economics education, contrary to the popular belief, is not a luxury for overdeveloped minds & self-styled intellectuals, but a necessity, and a very urgent one at that. Even the corner store man shouldn’t fail to know the fundamentals. If a new gadget gets to the market, no matter how dull a person is, he would have no problems figuring out the cheapest which suits his purpose. Even if one does have any problems as such, he would be the sole loser. The same doesn’t go for ideas. It takes a high degree of abstraction and analytical skills to sort out the good ones. The one who defaults on it soaks in all the prevalent misconceptions not even knowing the fact that he does and harms not only himself, but the world as a whole. Even the best of the minds would suffer, if the majority doesn’t get it and behave in the way they ought to.
Ayn Rand was the first person to use a medium as popular as fiction to popularize Free Market ideas and have so large an appeal among youngsters all over the world. If you look at it that way, she was the most important figure of the 20th Century. How many of Ayn Rand’s critics care to admit that the often used word self-esteem, no matter how devoid of it she was, was introduced in Galt’s speech? How many of them know Capitalism, a dirty word just a few decades back regained its shrine, all because of her efforts? It wouldn’t be that hard to know when one realizes 75% of the Libertarians ascribed their views to her & the influence she had on the leading 20th century advocates of free market-Nobel Laureates’ Milton Friedman & Friedrich.A.Hayek, Father of Modern Libertarianism Murray.N.Rothbard & the Former Chairman of Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan.Ronald Reagan’s economic reforms & even the title of the recent best seller ‘Freakonomics’ can be traced back to Ayn Rand. It is interesting that Rothbard, whose works scream Ayn Rand, and was once her associate never gave her works enough credit and made fun of it when possible.
I would say the greatest contribution of Rand was that she taught us to break an issue into fundamentals, get to the root of the problem and attack it from there. One could give up everything else he learnt from Rand. One could take just that one and built everything he wants up from there. And that approach, exactly is what is lacking in any other writer I had ever come across [Frederic Bastiat being a notable exception]. It is not the characters that matter, but the thoughts. It is not even the thoughts that matter, but the thought process. However eccentric and funny the speeches of Francisco, Galt or Roark maybe, no one can deny that each and every sentence in it are so rich, so intense that volumes can be written on each of them. What puzzles me is that the ones who sneer at it have no problems smiling at mystics like Coelho & Sharma, existentialists like Camus & Kafka or brutes like Marquez & Chomsky.
It is often argued literary preferences are just a matter of preferences. The difference between one who loves the works of ‘Ayn Rand’ and the one who loves ‘Noam Chomsky’ or ‘Arundhati Roy’ is not just a matter of perceptions. To say so, it would mean that the difference between one who prefers freedom and the one preferring slavery is a matter of perceptions-which means he is just ‘prejudiced’ against slavery-against ‘death’-against ‘mass slaughters’. Advocates of Welfare Action aren’t lovers of humanity, but frustrated, perverted, humiliated minds hating all of humanity. Anyone who has carefully read works of an Anti Capitalist orientation would have noticed that the author never gets to the point, never reveals his real intentions, and obviously has no inclination to do so. One goes through a great torture reading it to the end-Especially when he finds that all the twists, contradictions, half-truths are aimed at, and stems out of the disgusting, suffocating, repressed, shameful desire which screams: “Go back to the feudal era”. “I can’t stand the fact that feudal lords were kicked out by kids with an amazing head on their shoulders.” Isn’t it funny that these writers and film-makers who whine of the ‘plight’ of workers, glamorizes the feudal era? Is it not evident that they prefer looted wealth to rightfully earned wealth?
Alan Greenspan, once known as the most powerful person in the world is said to have digressed much from his views during Rand-ian days as the Federal Reserve Chairman. Lawrence Park writes of a personal communication: “I said, do you still agree with the reasoning and the conclusions in your article in Capitalism-The Unknown Ideal? His response was an emphatic .Absolutely! Then, I asked, so why don’t you speak out? Mr. Greenspan said: Because my colleagues at the institution I represent disagree with me. And I responded, .But you know where all of this is leading to –a complete collapse. He then gave me a very pained look, like I had punched him in the stomach, and walked on. We spoke briefly about the merits of gold-as-money, with which he concurred, and then I asked him why, if he understands what is happening and what the implications are, he doesn’t speak out more. His answer had a ring of truth and, also, a tinge of desperation. He said: “Nobody wants to hear it.”-So much for the belief that such policies are guided by good intentions and that it’s men that corrupt the system.
It is shocking to see the naiveté with which people reject Free Market philosophy as ‘superficial’ & ‘heartless’. It is usually believed the defenders of free market are apologists of the big business (or anti-poor/quixotic/ utopian/naïve) just revealing their innate ‘bourgeois prejudice’. It just obviates that they have no idea of what they are talking about. The most ridiculous of all questions is that what would become of the poor in a free world. It is tantamount to asking: What would become of the slaves if slavery is abolished? What they pretend not to realize is that the very rich have little to gain in a Free Market and everything to lose if not able to match their own wealth. It’s Free Market advocates who are defenders of The Aristocracy of mind-Against those of birth or pull-Or ‘public relations’ and bootlicking.
It is never argued that it is the engineer’s emotions that should decide the ratio of ingredients for a bridge supposed to endure a particular load. Why is it then argued that it is a bootlicker’s emotions should decide how it should be funded? One wouldn’t try to analyze a computer program before acquiring the sufficient background to do so. Why would then one try to analyze the daily news not endowed with the sufficient tools to do so? One is free to scoff at Newton. One can of course, argue that he’s ‘heartless’, ‘too idealistic’ and ‘too simplistic’. One is free to live in a fool’s paradise. But, when one leaps out of the roof, it will not be the laws of gravitation that he will be refuting- It is his own life!
In Ayn Rand’s own words “When we’ll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won’t be of any earthly use to save them. And I’m heartless enough to say that when you’ll scream, ‘But I didn’t know it!’—you will not be forgiven.”
If the world had taken heed to Mises’s words that Socialism would fail, not out of human depravity, not out of chance, but of its economics and the very basics of it at that, a third of the world wouldn’t have been thrown into communist dictatorship. If the world had listened to his argument that Inflations and depressions are not inherent within a free market economy, but by government mismanagement of monetary and banking system, millions wouldn’t have been crushed in the Great Depression. One is tempted to say that they got the least punishment they deserve and the worst that one could ever get and it was death. Yes, many got just what they deserved!
How would we know how many of them perished in such battles, how many of them remains unknown, how many of them gave up the struggle and how many of them went on with their lives, just afraid to take up the battle? How is it that we to know how the world would have been with them?

I, who know the stupidity in which people wallow, but even I have to ask myself: Imagine that you see a young child being regularly poisoned. Whenever the child gets sick, regretting not having poisoned him enough, his parents see to it that he gets enough. The child grows up despite the poison weakening his mind, body and soul. You find his parents leave no chance for him to know the truth as it is. Suppose a person walks up to him & tells the truth in a way no one has ever done before. What if you find that the child gets for him the latest gadgets and toys, but fails to hear that voice? If the child were this world, his parents the “intellectuals”, food the free market and poison statism, what would you call that person?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *