Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

By Murray N. Rothbard


For well over a century, the Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and “idealism” on its side; the Conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to the “impracticality” of its ideals. A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid “in theory,” but that it cannot “work” in practical life. What the Conservatives failed to see is that while short-run gains can indeed be made by appealing to the impracticality of radical departures from the status quo, that by conceding the ethical and the “ideal” to the Left they were doomed to long-run defeat. For if one side is granted ethics and the “ideal” from the start, then that side will be able to effect gradual but sure changes in its own direction; and as these changes accumulate, the stigma of “impracticality” becomes less and less directly relevant. The Conservative opposition, having staked its all on the seemingly firm ground of the “practical” (that is, the status quo) is doomed to lose as the status quo moves further in the left direction. The fact that the unreconstructed Stalinists are universally considered to be the “Conservatives” in the Soviet Union is a happy logical joke upon conservatism; for in Russia the unrepentant statists are indeed the repositories of at least a superficial “practicality” and of a clinging to the existing status quo.

Never has the virus of “practicality” been more widespread than in the United States, for Americans consider themselves a “practical” people, and hence, the opposition to the Left, while originally stronger than elsewhere, has been perhaps the least firm at its foundation. It is now the advocates of the free market and the free society who have to meet the common charge of “impracticality.”

In no area has the Left been granted justice and morality as extensively and almost universally as in its espousal of massive equality. It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal. So committed is everyone to this ideal that “impracticality”—that is, the weakening of economic incentives—has been virtually the only criticism against even the most bizarre egalitarian programs. The inexorable march of egalitarianism is indication enough of the impossibility of avoiding ethical commitments; the fiercely “practical” Americans, in attempting to avoid ethical doctrines, cannot help setting forth such doctrines, but they can now only do so in unconscious, ad hoc, and unsystematic fashion. Keynes’s famous insight that “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”—is true all the more of ethical judgments and ethical theory.1

Continue reading “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature”

The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution

By Murray N. Rothbard


All right: Even if we concede that full private property in resources and the free market will conserve and create resources, and do it far better than government regulation, what of the problem of pollution? Wouldn’t we be suffering aggravated pollution from unchecked “capitalist greed”?

There is, first of all, this stark empirical fact: Government ownership, even socialism, has proved to be no solution to the problem of pollution. Even the most starry-eyed proponents of government planning concede that the poisoning of Lake Baikal in the Soviet Union is a monument to heedless industrial pollution of a valuable natural resource. But there is far more to the problem than that. Note, for example, the two crucial areas in which pollution has become an important problem: the air and the waterways, particularly the rivers. But these are precisely two of the vital areas in society in which private property has not been permitted to function.

First, the rivers. The rivers, and the oceans too, are generally owned by the government; private property, certainly complete private property, has not been permitted in the water. In essence, then, government owns the rivers. But government ownership is not true ownership, because the government officials, while able to control the resource cannot themselves reap their capital value on the market. Government officials cannot sell the rivers or sell stock in them. Hence, they have no economic incentive to preserve the purity and value of the rivers. Rivers are, then, in the economic sense, “unowned”; therefore government officials have permitted their corruption and pollution. Anyone has been able to dump polluting garbage and wastes in the waters. But consider what would happen if private firms were able to own the rivers and the lakes. If a private firm owned Lake Erie, for example, then anyone dumping garbage in the lake would be promptly sued in the courts for their aggression against private property and would be forced by the courts to pay damages and to cease and desist from any further aggression. Thus, only private property rights will insure an end to pollution — invasion of resources. Only because the rivers are unowned is there no owner to rise up and defend his precious resource from attack. If, in contrast, anyone should dump garbage or pollutants into a lake which is privately owned (as are many smaller lakes), he would not be permitted to do so for very long — the owner would come roaring to its defense.1 Professor Dolan writes:

With a General Motors owning the Mississippi River, you can be sure that stiff effluent charges would be assessed on industries and municipalities along its banks, and that the water would be kept clean enough to maximize revenues from leases granted to firms seeking rights to drinking water, recreation, and commercial fishing.2

If government as owner has allowed the pollution of the rivers, government has also been the single major active polluter, especially in its role as municipal sewage disposer. There already exist low-cost chemical toilets which can burn off sewage without polluting air, ground, or water; but who will invest in chemical toilets when local governments will dispose of sewage free to their customers? Continue reading “The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution”

Property and Exchange

By Murray N. Rothbard
[This essay originally appears as Chapter 2 of For a New Liberty]


THE NONAGGRESSION AXIOM

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as “civil liberties”: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in such “victimless crimes” as pornography, sexual deviation, and prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as “crimes” at all, since he defines a “crime” as violent invasion of someone else’s person or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass murder and therefore totally illegitimate.

All of these positions are now considered “leftist” on the contemporary ideological scale. On the other hand, since the libertarian also opposes invasion of the rights of private property, this also means that he just as emphatically opposes government interference with property rights or with the freemarket economy through controls, regulations, subsidies, or prohibitions. For if every individual has the right to his own property without having to suffer aggressive depredation, then he also has the right to give away his property (bequest and inheritance) and to exchange it for the property of others (free contract and the free market economy) without interference. The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of “laissez-faire capitalism.”

In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and economics would be called “extreme right wing.” But the libertarian sees no inconsistency in being “leftist” on some issues and “rightist” on others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. For how can the leftist be opposed to the violence of war and conscription while at the same time supporting the violence of taxation and government control? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war, conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions, and unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military-industrial complex?

Continue reading “Property and Exchange”

Anarcho-Communism

By Murray N. Rothb


Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible, nonideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists—Marxism–Stalinism and anarcho-communism. Marxism–Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road. Also, many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State. It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one’s own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions. Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin–Kropotkin form and in its current irrationalist and “post-scarcity” variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle. If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State, it is the right of private property. As a matter of fact, the major reason that Anarcho-Communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and, therefore, that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus. They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property. Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property, and material affluence—all of which are corollaries of each other—Anarcho-Communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock “youth culture.”

The only good thing that one might say about anarchocommunism is that, in contrast to Stalinism, its form of communism would, supposedly, be voluntary. Presumably, no one would be forced to join the communes, and those who would continue to live individually and to engage in market activities would remain unmolested. Or would they? AnarchoCommunists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly antilibertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own. Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarchocommunists of the Bakunin–Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 1930s, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money. None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.

On all other grounds, anarcho-communism ranges from mischievous to absurd. Philosophically, this creed is an allout assault on individuality and on reason. The individual’s desire for private property, drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers. At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony “humanism,” an irrational and profoundly antihuman egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity. 


Continue reading “Anarcho-Communism”

The Irish Revolution

By Murray N.  Rothbard


Fifty years ago, on Easter Monday, April 25, 1916, began the glorious Irish Revolution, a revolution that was to end by sweeping away a monstrous record of brutality and oppression that had been foisted for centuries upon the long-suffering Irish people.

In defeating the mighty armies of the greatest and most ruthless empire on the face of the earth, the Irish were the first people to have the courage and the stamina to follow through on the promise of the American Revolution against the same imperial oppressors: a Revolution that had been the first successful war of national liberation in modern history. The Irish Revolution was the second such successful war. For other wars of national liberation prompted by the American Revolution (e. g. Belgium, the Netherlands. Geneva, and later the revolutions of 1848) had been beaten back by the forces of armed international counter-revolution. The Irish Revolution was fought and won in the only way such wars can be won: in relentless guerrilla fashion, by an armed people. Characteristically, it was begun heedlessly, recklessly by a relatively small band of idealistic young people, young people who did not sit around waiting for the ripening of ‘objective conditions” before launching their rebellion. The Easter Rising was hopeless, bungled, quixotic, doomed–and yet was eventually to succeed, thus confirming the unquenchable convictions of the rebel leaders. As the historian of the Irish Revolution writes:

The leaders realized with complete clarity that the majority of the Irish people were almost lost to all sense of the rights of Ireland as a nation, had learned to rely on the vague optimism of the Parliamentarians and were ready to give thanks for a petty instalment of Home Rule. The Independence movement was the movement of a minority still, and those who were ready to give and take life in arm-ed insurrection were a minority in that movement. They believed, however, that the inherent native passion for freedom was dormant, not extinguished, and that only bold action was needed > to arouse the people to a sense of their rights, their needs, and the strength that still lay within them unused.’ 1

Continue reading “The Irish Revolution”

Outlawing Jobs: The Minimum Wage, Once More

By Murray Rothbard


Thеrе іѕ nо сlеаrеr dеmоnѕtrаtіоn оf the essential identity оf thе twо роlіtісаl раrtіеѕ thаn thеіr роѕіtіоn on thе mіnіmum wage. The Dеmосrаtѕ рrороѕеd tо raise thе lеgаl mіnіmum wаgе frоm $3.35 аn hour, tо which it had bееn rаіѕеd by the Rеаgаn administration durіng іtѕ аllеgеdlу free-market salad dауѕ іn 1981. Thе Rерublісаn counter was tо аllоw a “subminimum” wаgе fоr tееnаgеrѕ, who, as mаrgіnаl wоrkеrѕ, are the оnеѕ whо are іndееd hаrdеѕt hіt bу аnу lеgаl mіnіmum.

This ѕtаnd wаѕ quickly mоdіfіеd by the Republicans in Cоngrеѕѕ, whо proceeded tо argue fоr a teenage subminimum that wоuld lаѕt only a piddling 90 days, after whісh the rаtе wоuld rіѕе to thе hіghеr Dеmосrаtіс mіnіmum (оf $4.55 аn hоur.) It was lеft, іrоnісаllу еnоugh, for Sеnаtоr Edward Kеnnеdу tо роіnt оut the ludісrоuѕ есоnоmіс еffесt оf thіѕ рrороѕаl: tо іnduсе employers to hire teenagers and thеn fire them after 89 dауѕ, tо rеhіrе others the dау аftеr.

Finally, аnd characteristically, Gеоrgе Bush gоt the Rерublісаnѕ оut оf this hоlе by thrоwіng іn thе tоwеl altogether, and рlumріng for a Dеmосrаtіс рlаn, реrіоd. Wе wеrе lеft wіth thе Democrats fоrthrіghtlу рrороѕіng a bіg increase іn thе mіnіmum wаgе, аnd thе Rерublісаnѕ, after a series оf іllоgісаl wаfflеѕ, fіnаllу gоіng аlоng wіth the рrоgrаm.

In truth, thеrе is only оnе wау to regard a mіnіmum wаgе law: іt іѕ compulsory unеmрlоуmеnt, реrіоd. The lаw ѕауѕ: it is іllеgаl, and therefore сrіmіnаl, for anyone to hire аnуоnе else below the level оf X dоllаrѕ an hоur. Thіѕ means, plainly аnd ѕіmрlу, thаt a large number оf free and voluntary wage соntrасtѕ аrе now оutlаwеd and hеnсе thаt thеrе will be a lаrgе аmоunt оf unеmрlоуmеnt. Rеmеmbеr thаt thе mіnіmum wаgе lаw рrоvіdеѕ nо jоbѕ; it оnlу оutlаwѕ thеm; аnd оutlаwеd jobs аrе the inevitable rеѕult.

All demand сurvеѕ аrе fаllіng, аnd the demand for hiring labor іѕ nо еxсерtіоn. Hence, laws thаt prohibit еmрlоуmеnt аt аnу wаgе thаt is relevant to thе market (а minimum wage оf 10 сеntѕ аn hоur wоuld hаvе little or nо impact) muѕt rеѕult in оutlаwіng employment аnd hence causing unеmрlоуmеnt. Continue reading “Outlawing Jobs: The Minimum Wage, Once More”

Tax Day

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Dr._Syntax_stopped_by_highwaymen_Engraving.jpg

By Murray N. Rothbard


Aрrіl 15, that drеаd Inсоmе Tаx dау, іѕ around again, and gіvеѕ uѕ a chance to ruminate оn the nаturе оf tаxеѕ аnd оf thе gоvеrnmеnt іtѕеlf.

The first grеаt lesson tо lеаrn аbоut tаxаtіоn is that taxation іѕ ѕіmрlу rоbbеrу.

Nо mоrе аnd no less. For whаt іѕ “robbery”? Robbery is the tаkіng оf a mаn’ѕ рrореrtу bу thе uѕе of vіоlеnсе or thе threat thereof, and therefore wіthоut thе vісtіm’ѕ соnѕеnt. And уеt whаt еlѕе is tаxаtіоn?

Thоѕе who сlаіm that taxation іѕ, in ѕоmе mystical ѕеnѕе, rеаllу “voluntary” should then hаvе no qualms about gеttіng rіd оf thаt vіtаl fеаturе of thе lаw whісh ѕауѕ that fаіlurе to рау оnе’ѕ taxes іѕ сrіmіnаl and ѕubjесt tо appropriate реnаltу. But does аnуоnе seriously believe thаt if thе рауmеnt оf taxation were rеаllу mаdе vоluntаrу, ѕау in the ѕеnѕе оf contributing tо thе American Cаnсеr Society, that аnу appreciable revenue wоuld fіnd іtѕеlf іntо the соffеrѕ оf gоvеrnmеnt? Thеn why dоn’t wе try it аѕ аn experiment for a few уеаrѕ, оr a fеw decades, аnd fіnd оut?

But іf taxation іѕ rоbbеrу, then іt fоllоwѕ as thе night thе dау that thоѕе people whо еngаgе іn, аnd lіvе оff, rоbbеrу аrе a gаng of thіеvеѕ. Hence thе government іѕ a group оf thieves, and deserves, mоrаllу, aesthetically, аnd philosophically, tо be trеаtеd еxасtlу аѕ a grоuр оf less ѕосіаllу rеѕресtаblе ruffіаnѕ wоuld be treated.

This іѕѕuе оf The Lіbеrtаrіаn іѕ dedicated tо that grоwіng lеgіоn оf Amеrісаnѕ whо аrе engaging in vаrіоuѕ fоrmѕ оf that оnе wеароn, thаt оnе act оf thе public whісh оur rulеrѕ fеаr thе most: tаx rеbеllіоn, the сuttіng off thе funds bу whісh the hоѕt public іѕ ѕарреd tо maintain thе parasitic ruling сlаѕѕеѕ. Here is a burnіng іѕѕuе whісh соuld арреаl tо еvеrуоnе, уоung аnd оld, poor and wеаlthу, “wоrkіng сlаѕѕ” and middle class, rеgаrdlеѕѕ оf rасе, соlоr, оr creed. Here іѕ an issue which еvеrуоnе understands, оnlу tоо wеll. Taxation.


This appeared in the April 15, 1969, issue of The Libertarian (soon to become The Libertarian Forum).

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School, founder of modern libertarianism, and chief academic officer of the Mises Institute. He was also editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and appointed Lew as his executor.

War Guilt in the Middle East

By Murray N. Rothbard


The trouble with sectarians, whether they be libertarians, Marxists, or world-governmentalists, is that they tend to rest content with the root cause of any problem, and never bother themselves with the more detailed or proximate causes. The best, and almost ludicrous, example of blind, unintelligent sectarianism is the Socialist Labor Party, a venerable party with no impact whatsoever on American life. To any problem that the state of the world might pose: unemployment, automation. Vietnam, nuclear testing, or whatever, the SLP simply repeats, parrotlike: “Adopt socialism.” Since capitalism is allegedly the root cause of all these and other problems, only socialism will whisk them away, Period. In this way the sectarian, even if his spotting of the ultimate root cause should be correct, isolates himself from all problems of the real world, and, in further irony, keeps himself from having any impact toward the ultimate goal he cherishes.

On the question of war guilt, whatever the war, sectarianism raises its ugly, uninformed head far beyond the stagnant reaches of the Socialist Labor Party. Libertarians, Marxists, world-governmentalists. each from their different perspective, have a built-in tendency to avoid hothering about the detailed pros and cons of any given conflict. Each of them knows that the root cause of war is the nation State system; given the existence of this system, wars will always occur, and all States will share in that guilt. The libertarian, in particular, knows that States, without exception, aggress against their citizens, and knows also that in all wars each State aggresses against innocent civilians “belonging” to the other State.

Now this kind of insight into the root cause of war and aggression, and into the nature of thestateitself, is all well and good, and vitally necessary for insight into the world condition. But the trouble is that the libertarian tends to stop there. and evading the responsibility of knowing what is going on in any specific war or international conflict, he tends to leap unjustifiably to the conclusion that, in any war, all States are equallv guilty, and then to go about his business without giving the matter a second thought. In short, the libertarian (and the Marxist, and the world government partisan) tends to dig himself into a comfortable ‘Third Camp” position, putting equal blame on all sides to any conflict, and letting it go at that. This is a comfortable position to take because it doesn’t really alienate the partisans of either side. Both sides in any war will write this man off as a hopelessly “idealistic” and out-of-it sectarian. a man who is even rather lovable because he simply parrots his “pure” position without informing himself or taking sides on whatever war is raging in the world. In short, both sides will tolerate the sectarian precisely because he is irrelevant, and because his irrelevancy guarantees that he makes no impact on the course of events or on public opinion about these events.

No: Libertarians must come to realize that parroting ultimate principles is not enough for coping with the real world. Just because all sides share in the ultimate State-guilt, does not mean that all sides are equally guilty. On the contrary, in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression, for a drive for conquest, etc. But in order to find out which side to any war is the more guilty, we have to inform ourselves in depth about the history of that conflict, and that takes time and thought–and it also takes the ultimate willingness to become relevant by taking sides through pinning a greaterdegree of guilt on one side or the other.

So–let us become relevant; and, with that in mind, let us examine the root historical causes of the chronic as well as the current acute crisis in the Middle East; and let us do chis with a view to discovering and assessing the Guilty. Continue reading “War Guilt in the Middle East”

Why Be Libertarian?

By Murray N. Rothbard


Why be libertarian, anyway? By this we mean, what’s the point of the whole thing? Why engage in a deep and lifelong commitment to the principle and the goal of individual liberty? For such a commitment, in our largely unfree world, means inevitably a radical disagreement with, and alienation from, the status quo, an alienation which equally inevitably imposes many sacrifices in money and prestige. When life is short and the moment of victory far in the future, why go through all this?

Incredibly, we have found among the increasing number of libertarians in this country many people who come to a libertarian commitment from one or another extremely narrow and personal point of view. Many are irresistibly attracted to liberty as an intellectual system or as an aesthetic goal, but liberty remains for them a purely intellectual parlor game, totally divorced from what they consider the “real” activities of their daily lives. Others are motivated to remain libertarians solely from their anticipation of their own personal financial profit. Realizing that a free market would provide far greater opportunities for able, independent men to reap entrepreneurial profits, they become and remain libertarians solely to find larger opportunities for business profit. While it is true that opportunities for profit will be far greater and more widespread in a free market and a free society, placing one’s primary emphasis on this motivation for being a libertarian can only be considered grotesque. For in the often tortuous, difficult and grueling path that must be trod before liberty can be achieved, the libertarian’s opportunities for personal profit will far more often be negative than abundant.

The consequence of the narrow and myopic vision of both the gamester and the would-be profit maker is that neither group has the slightest interest in the work of building a libertarian movement. And yet it is only through building such a movement that liberty may ultimately be achieved. Ideas, and especially radical ideas, do not advance in the world in and by themselves, as it were in a vacuum; they can only be advanced by people and, therefore, the development and advancement of such people — and therefore of a “movement” — becomes a prime task for the libertarian who is really serious about advancing his goals.

Turning from these men of narrow vision, we must also see that utilitarianism — the common ground of free-market economists — is unsatisfactory for developing a flourishing libertarian movement. While it is true and valuable to know that a free market would bring far greater abundance and a healthier economy to everyone, rich and poor alike, a critical problem is whether this knowledge is enough to bring many people to a lifelong dedication to liberty. Continue reading “Why Be Libertarian?”

The Specter of Airline Re-Regulation

By Murray N. Rothbard


Empiricism without theory is a shaky reed on which to build a case for freedom. If a regulated airline system did not “work,” and a deregulated system seemed for a time to work well, what happens when the winds of data happen to blow the other way? In recent months, crowding, delays, a few dramatic accidents, and a spate of bankruptcies and mergers among the airlines have given heart to the statists and vested interests who were never reconciled to deregulation. And so the hue and cry for re-regulation of airlines has spread like wildfire.

Airline deregulation began during the Carter regime and was completed under Reagan, so much so that the governing Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was not simply cut back, or restricted, but actually and flatly abolished. The CAB, from its inception, had cartelized the airline industry by fixing rates far above the free market level, and rationed supply by gravely restricting entry into the field and by allocating choice routes to one or two favored companies. A few airlines were privileged by government, fares were raised artificially, and competitors either prevented from entering the industry or literally put out of business by the CAB’s refusal to allow them to continue in operation.

One fascinating aspect of deregulation was the failure of experts to predict the actual operations of the free market. No transportation economist predicted the swift rise of the hub-and-spoke system. But the general workings of the market conformed to the insights of free-market economics: competition intensified, fares declined, the number of customers increased, and a variety of almost bewildering discounts and deals pervaded the airline market. Almost weekly, new airlines entered the field, old and inefficient lines went bankrupt, and mergers occurred as the airline market moved swiftly toward efficient service of consumer needs after decades of stultifying government cartelization.

So why, then, the current wave of agitation for re-regulation? (Setting aside the desire of former or would-be cartelists to rejoin the world of special privilege.) In the first place, many people forget that while competition is marvelous for consumers and for efficiency, it provides no rose garden for the bureaucratic and the inefficient. After decades of cartelization, it was inevitable that inefficient airlines, or those who could not adapt successfully to the winds of competition, would have to go under, and a good thing, too. Continue reading “The Specter of Airline Re-Regulation”