One of the fundamental distinctions we need to learn to make is the one that exists between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The terminology here is DiLorenzo’s — Rothbard made the same distinction, talking about free-market capitalists and state capitalists. The difference is not a slight one — think of a boar free in the forests and the Empress of Blandings. Think of a boar finding all his own acorns, and a very pink pig with all four feet in the taxpayers’ trough.
If we have only two categories — public sector and private sector — we leave out some of the principal miscreants. Someone in the private sector who arranges for subsidies for himself, or barriers and restrictions for his competitors is certainly a businessman. He handles capital. But if we call him a capitalist simpliciter then we are blurring the very kind of distinction that words ought to equip us to make.
Public collusion with private interests is mercantilism at best and fascism at worst. It is not the free market at work. And if the bogeyman we are trying to avoid is that of “trusts” and “monopolies,” then we are much more likely to create monopolies by allowing businessmen to get influence in the government. Why is Washington flooded with lobbyists from the private sector? Because they can get something there. That is like asking why ants come to picnics.
The only legitimate interest a business may have in lobbying is if it is trying to fight off intrusive legislation, or if it is supporting legislation that maintains a business climate that refuses to favor one business over another. But virtually all modern regulations, tariffs, taxes, and whatnot, do not fall into this category.
Take a current case in point, the great light bulb switch fiasco. Is anybody asking who stands to profit on the day when the good old fashioned Edison bulb is outlawed? Think about that. Outlawed. And don’t come to me chattering about all that global warming line that you bought. How many people bought that line simply because it was fed to them through the approved channels? Someone who believes the global warming hysteria is someone who will believe anything, and he ought to be more ashamed of himself than he is. “Quick! The results aren’t in, the science is not done, we can’t really know — but unless we take action now to suppress our competi . . . er, unless we take action now to save the planet, it could well be too late!”
This could all be made more transparent, I suppose, but not by much. It is as though the president of Acme Vacuum Cleaners testified before Congress that the moon was going to fall into the Pacific unless we shoot the president of Apex Vacuum Cleaners. And the hearing concluded with various congressmen thanking him for his public-spiritedness.
Question. Does Al Gore have any business interests lined up that might profit a little bit if some of the proposed legislation coming down the pike becomes law? If we all pull together today, if we direct cold glances at global warming deniers now, if we all pitch in with not a minute to spare, we really can reach our sustainable goals. Getting Mr. Gore three private jets, four if we really save the planet, is a sustainable goal. Don’t you think?