Young Americans for Liberty is a dynamic student group with chapters all over the country, so I’m happy to be participating in this regional conference.
The title and description of my talk:
“Why Young Socialists Don’t Love Us — But They Should”
Description: “The historical record of socialist poverty and brutality is clear, and we free-market liberals have strong economic and political arguments on our side. Yet many idealistic young people find socialism appealing and give free markets at best lukewarm appreciation. Why? In this talk, Dr. Stephen Hicks will argue that the *ethical* framing of the debate is critical: Who has the moral, idealistic high ground in the great debate over socialism versus free markets?”
Thanks to everyone at The Atlas Society for making my participation possible.
I think one of the most crucial elements of our battle is to differentiate corporatism from capitalism. While it may seem like slippery wordplay the difference is life and death e.g. it was Marx and other socialists’ catastrophic failure to differentiate them. Particularly as America careens back toward a sort of mercantilist fascism.
I’m lukewarm about the term “corporatism” as it suggests something necessarily and intrinsically wrong with corporations but hopefully the “-ism” is enough to point out that it’s the politicization of corporations, their backing direct and indirect by state power, we denounce.
A free market is dependent upon infrastructure and much necessary infrastructure in the world of today can only be provided by the great wealth of the State. There is no capitalist today who would have the resources to construct and maintain the interstate highway system, and if there were, they would not have acquired that capital without the already existing infrastructure preceding them. State power provides the societal norms which protect the principles upon which capitalism depends, such as protection of property rights.
A free market is one in which all participants are free from coercion. It does not require “infrastructure” to function. A successful advanced economy requires infrastructure to function. But, even so, there has never been, and is not now, a valid reason for government (the State) to provide infrastructure. The “provision” of infrastructure can be privatized. When the State “provides” it, what actually occurs is some people’s idea of required infrastructure is forced to be paid for and implemented by other people. Furthermore, if “State power provides the societal norms” as you claim then more than a free market is in peril because that means the State is enforcing a code of ethics. The only thing State power should provide is protection of the principles upon which capitalism depends, such as protection of property rights and other individual rights.
Well said, Donna.