HomeAmerica at Her Best Is HamiltonianEducationAtlas University
No items found.
America at Her Best Is Hamiltonian

America at Her Best Is Hamiltonian

|
August 23, 2022

[Hamilton] is a great man, but, in my judgment, not a great American. —U.S. President-elect Woodrow Wilson, Democrat (1912)1

When America ceases to remember [Hamilton’s] greatness, America will be no longer great. —U.S. President Calvin Coolidge, Republican (1922)2

America at her best loves liberty and respects rights, prizes individualism, eschews racism, disdains tyranny, extolls constitutionalism, and respects the rule of law. Her “can-do” spirit values science, invention, business, entrepreneurialism, vibrant cities, and spreading prosperity.

America at her best loves liberty and respects rights, prizes individualism, eschews racism, disdains tyranny, extolls constitutionalism, and respects the rule of law. Her “can-do” spirit values science, invention, business, entrepreneurialism, vibrant cities, and spreading prosperity. At her best, America welcomes immigrants who seek to embrace the American way, as well as trade with foreigners who create products we want. And she is willing to wage war if necessary to protect the rights of her citizens—but not self-sacrificially nor for conquest.

America hasn’t always been at her best, of course. Beyond her glorious founding (1776­–1789), America’s best was exhibited most vividly in the half century between the Civil War and World War I, an era Mark Twain mocked as the “Gilded Age.” In truth, it was a golden era: Slavery had been abolished, money was sound, taxes were low, regulations minimal, immigration voluminous, invention ubiquitous, opportunity enormous, and prosperity profuse. The capitalistic North both outpaced and displaced the feudalistic South.

America today flirts with the worst version of herself.3 Her intellectuals and politicians routinely flout her Constitution. Gone is her firm adherence to separation of powers or checks and balances. The regulatory state proliferates. Taxes oppress while the national debt grows. Money is fiat, finance is volatile, production is stagnant. Populists and “progressives” denounce the rich and condemn economic inequality. Government-run schools produce ignorant voters with anticapitalist biases. Freedom of speech is increasingly assaulted. Racism, riots, and hostility toward policemen abound. Nativists and nationalists scapegoat immigrants and demand walled borders. Self-defeating rules of military engagement preclude the swift defeat of dangerous, barbaric enemies abroad.

Those wishing to see America at her best again can be inspired and informed by the writings and achievements of her founding fathers. And, fortunately, interest in the works of the founders appears to have grown in recent years. Many Americans today, despite their generally poor education, glimpse America’s distant greatness, wonder how the founders created it, and hope to regain it.

Most Americans have a favorite founder. A recent poll indicates that

40% of Americans rate George Washington, the general who defeated the British in the American Revolution and the nation’s first president, as the greatest Founding Father. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, is second [23%], followed by Benjamin Franklin [14%], with later presidents John Adams [6%] and James Madison [5%] further down the list.4

There’s no doubt among scholars (and rightly so) that Washington was “the indispensable man” of the founding era.5 But the poll omits one founder who was crucial to the birth of the United States of America in myriad ways: Alexander Hamilton.6

Despite a relatively short life (1757–1804),7 Hamilton was the only founder besides Washington who played a role in all five of the key stages comprising the creation of the United States of America, and a more crucial role in each successive stage: establishing political independence from Britain,8 achieving victory in the Revolutionary War, drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, creating the administrative architecture for the first federal government, and drafting of the Jay Treaty with Britain as well as the Neutrality Proclamation, which secured the “completion of the founding.”9

The colonial Americans’ declaration of independence from Britain didn’t guarantee a subsequent victory at war, nor did America’s war victory guarantee a subsequent federal constitution. Indeed, not even the Constitution guaranteed that initial federal officeholders would govern properly or cede power peacefully. There was much more to the founding than a couple of documents and a war. How did the documents come to be? How were they defended intellectually? How was the war won? Who was responsible for the countless pivotal aspects of the founding that amounted to the creation and sustenance of the land of liberty?

Besides Washington, no one did more than Hamilton to create the USA, and no one worked as closely and as long (two decades) with Washington to design and enact the details that made the difference. The enduring, mutually supportive alliance between Washington and Hamilton (ably assisted by other Federalists),10 proved indispensable to creating a free and sustainable USA.11

What historians call the “critical period” in American history—the dissension-filled years between the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown (1781) and Washington’s inauguration (1789)—was marked by national insolvency, hyperinflation, interstate protectionism, near mutiny by unpaid officers, debtor rebellions, laws violating creditors’ rights, lawlessness, and threats by foreign powers. Those were years of the disunited states.12

Honest Money Will Require Rediscovering America’s Founders

The Articles of Confederation—proposed by the Continental Congress in 1777 but not ratified until 1781—provided only a national, unicameral legislature with no executive or judicial branch. The legislators could do nothing absent unanimous approval from states, which was rare. The Continental Congress (perhaps most notable for issuing worthless paper currency) was substantially impotent, and its inertia prolonged the war and nearly caused its loss. Washington and his top aide, Hamilton, witnessed firsthand the injustice and suffering such ill governance can cause (as did soldiers at Valley Forge). America’s degeneration continued in the critical period, yet Jefferson and the anti-Federalists opposed any plan for a new constitution or any workable national government.13 Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists, in contrast, fought tirelessly to put the “U” in USA.14 Hamilton also left this legacy: a model, through his voluminous papers and well-known public acts, of rational statesmanship.

The reasons Hamilton is not properly recognized for his many vital works and accomplishments are essentially threefold. First, his political opponents during the founding era (many of whom outlived him and Washington by many decades) spread malicious myths about him and his aims.15 Second, historians and theorists who favor as a political ideal unrestrained democracy embodying a supposed “will of the people” (even if “the people” will to violate rights) have opposed Hamilton’s ideals, claiming that a rights-respecting, constitutionally limited republic “privileges” elites who are most successful at life.16 Third, statists have strained to find illiberal elements in the founders to support the notion that they were not really for free markets, and they have spread myths to the effect that Hamilton advocated central banking, mercantilism, protectionism, and was a proto-Keynesian fan of deficit finance or a proto-Soviet fan of “industrial policy” (i.e., economic interventionism).17

In truth, Hamilton more strongly opposed statist premises and policies than any other founder.18 He endorsed a constitutionally limited, rights-respecting government that was energetic in carrying out its proper functions.

In truth, Hamilton more strongly opposed statist premises and policies than any other founder.18 He endorsed a constitutionally limited, rights-respecting government that was energetic in carrying out its proper functions. The question for Hamilton wasn’t whether government was “too big” or “too small” but whether it did the right things (uphold law and order, protect rights, practice fiscal integrity, provide for the national defense) or the wrong things (enable slavery, redistribute wealth, issue paper money, impose discriminatory tariffs, or engage in selfless wars). In Hamilton’s view, government must do the right things in big ways and mustn’t do the wrong things even in small ways.

Grasping Hamilton’s importance requires not only an account of his role in the founding of the USA (briefly sketched above), but also a fair analysis of his core views, including their distinctiveness relative to those of his critics’ views. Toward that end, we’ll consider his ideas in regard to constitutionalism, democracy and religion, political economy, public finance, and foreign policy.19

Constitutionalism, the Rule of Law, and Rights

Hamilton believed firmly in constraining and directing legitimate government power by a succinct, broadly worded “supreme” law of the land: a constitution. Above all, he held, a nation’s constitution must protect rights (to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) by delegating to the state limited and enumerated powers. Like most classical liberals, Hamilton didn’t endorse a notion of “positive rights,” that is, the idea that some people must be made to provide for the health, education, and welfare of others. In logic and morality there can be no “right” to violate rights. In Hamilton’s view, rights are to be secured through three coequal branches of government, with a legislature only writing laws, an executive only enforcing laws, and a judiciary only judging laws relative to the constitution. To fully protect rights, government also must be administered fairly (e.g., equality under the law) and efficiently (e.g., fiscal responsibility). Hamilton’s constitutionalism, which other Federalists embraced as well, drew heavily on the theories of Locke, Blackstone, and Montesquieu.20

The philosophic grounding for a rights-respecting government, per Hamilton, is that “all men have one common original, they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right. No reason can be assigned why one man should exercise any power over his fellow creatures more than another, unless they voluntarily vest him with it.”21 And “the success of every government—its capacity to combine the exertion of public strength with the preservation of personal right and private security, qualities which define the perfection of government —must always depend on the energy of the executive department.”22

Hamilton held that government’s proper purpose is to preserve and protect rights. And in contrast to his opponents, he recognized that a potent and energetic executive is necessary to enforce law, to protect rights, and thus to establish and maintain liberty. The Articles of Confederation, he observed, lacked an executive, and this absence led to lawlessness.

Hamilton defended republican instead of democratic government23 because he knew the latter was prone to capriciousness, demagoguery, majority tyranny, and rights violations.24 He was critical also of nonconstitutional monarchy (the hereditary rule of men instead of the rule of law) because it too was prone to being capricious and violating rights. Realizing that democracy and monarchy alike could be despotic, Hamilton, like most Federalists, endorsed a constitutional principle known as “mixed” government, akin to that advocated by Aristotle, Polybius, and Montesquieu, which held that government is more likely to be both humane and durable if constituted as a balance of elements reflecting monarchy (executive branch), aristocracy (senate and the judicial branch), and democracy (legislative branch).25

Hamilton also conceptualized the crucial, rights-protecting doctrine of “judicial review,” whereby an appointed judiciary, as a distinct branch rendered independent of popular consensus, rules on whether legislative and executive acts obey or violate the constitution. Hamilton denied government’s right to violate rights—whether to satisfy the will of the majority or for any other reason. He and other Federalists often have been accused of wanting “centralized” government power, but the Articles already concentrated power in a single branch (a legislature). The new Constitution dispersed and decentralized that power across three branches and included checks and balances to ensure that overall power was limited.

Hamilton’s critics in his day not only opposed the new Constitution; some opposed the idea of an enduring constitution as such. Jefferson, in particular, held that no constitution should last more than a generation, and that older charters ought to be perpetually jettisoned and successive ones redrawn (if drawn at all) to permit a continuance of the “general will” and majority consent26—even if majorities might elect to institutionalize racism and slavery;27 to impede the spread of commerce, industry, and finance; to violate civil liberties;28 or to impose egalitarian redistributions of wealth.29 Indeed, the longest chapter in a recent history of egalitarian U.S. politicians is devoted to Jefferson, whereas Hamilton gets brief mention because, “contrary to the other American revolutionaries,” he “understood inequality neither as an artificial political imposition nor as something to be feared. He saw it as an ineluctable fact—‘the great and fundamental distinction in society,’ he declared in 1787, which ‘would exist as long as liberty existed’ and ‘would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself.’”30

Going further still in his concern for man’s rights, Hamilton also condemned the French Revolution,31 not because it ended a monarchy but because its regicidal zealots brought unrestrained democracy, anarchy, terror, and despotism to the people of France. Jefferson, in contrast, applauded the French Revolution and claimed that it echoed America’s revolt.32

Rights were also the concern of Hamilton and the Federalists (Washington excepted) when they adamantly opposed both racism and slavery. Among other humane acts, in 1785 Hamilton was instrumental in founding the New York Manumission Society, which caused the state to begin abolishing slavery in 1799.33 On these and other crucial matters, Hamilton and the Federalists were far more enlightened and principled than their more popular opponents.34

The U.S. Constitution, federal government, and unification of previously dissenting states—each crucial to securing rights—wouldn’t have occurred without Washington and Hamilton, and the nation wouldn’t have survived as free and as united as it did without their political progeny, Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party (founded in 1854).

In the 1780s, Hamilton called repeatedly for a convention, a constitution, and unity among the states; and Washington agreed to Hamilton’s admonitions that he (Washington) head the convention and the first federal government. Unlike Jefferson and Adams, who were abroad at the time, Hamilton participated in the 1787 convention, helped draft the Constitution, and then wrote most of The Federalist Papers, which explained the principles of rights-protecting government and the separation of powers, the dangers of a single-branch Continental government, and the case for a new charter of liberty. Hamilton’s arguments also helped overcome formidable anti-Federalist opposition to the Constitution at state ratifying conventions (especially in his home state of New York).

Like few others, Hamilton recognized the philosophical distinctiveness and historical significance of the 1787 convention and subsequent ratification debate. Most governments existed due to conquest or fortuitous hereditary succession, and most of those formed after revolutions were authoritarian. In Federalist #1, Hamilton told Americans that they were “to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” Moreover, he argued, although authoritarian rule in America certainly was to be avoided, lasting liberty and security were impossible without a strong executive. In Federalist #70, he argued:

[E]nergy in the Executive [branch of government] is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.

Judging The Federalist Papers as a whole, Washington wrote, they have “afforded me great satisfaction.”

I have read every performance which has been printed on one side and the other of the great question [Constitution or not] lately agitated [and] I will say that I have seen no other so well calculated (in my judgment) to produce conviction on an unbiased mind, as [this] Production. . . . When the transient circumstances and fugitive performances which attended this crisis shall have disappeared, that work will merit the notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly discussed the principles of freedom & the topics of government, which will be always interesting to mankind so long as they shall be connected in Civil Society.35

Jefferson, too, extolled the immense value of The Federalist Papers (aka The Federalist). He told Madison he had read them “with care, pleasure and improvement” because they provided “the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” Jefferson didn’t support the Constitution until after it was ratified and amended, but he saw how The Federalist “establishes firmly the plan of government,” which “rectified me in several points.”36

Yet in smear campaigns against the Federalists, critics (then and today) falsely charged Washington, Hamilton, and their allies with “monarchical” aggrandizement and assaults on “states’ rights.” In truth, as advocates of limited, rights-protecting government, the Federalists primarily sought to supplement the already precarious, single-branch Continental government with an executive branch and a judicial branch, and thereby to create an efficient, workable government with powers checked and balanced so the nation wouldn’t tip into either tyranny or anarchy.37 “As to my own political Creed,” Hamilton wrote to a friend in 1792, “I give it to you with the utmost sincerity. I am affectionately attached to the Republican theory. I desire above all things to see the equality of political rights exclusive of all hereditary distinction firmly established by a practical demonstration of its being consistent with the order and happiness of society.” He continued:

It is yet to be determined by experience whether [Republicanism] be consistent with that stability and order in Government which are essential to public strength & private security and happiness. On the whole, the only enemy which Republicanism has to fear in this Country is in the Spirit of faction and anarchy. If this will not permit the ends of Government to be attained under it—if it engenders disorders in the community, all regular & orderly minds will wish for a change—and the demagogues who have produced the disorder will make it for their own aggrandizement. This is the old Story. If I were disposed to promote Monarchy & overthrow State Governments, I would mount the hobby horse of popularity—I would cry out usurpation—danger to liberty &c. &c—I would endeavour to prostrate the National Government—raise a ferment—and then “ride in the Whirlwind and direct the Storm.” That there are men acting with Jefferson & Madison who have this in view I verily believe.38

Of course, state constitutions already existed, and the new federal Constitution didn’t displace them. But few protected rights as well as the federal charter. Most had protectionist features, many enshrined slavery (the federal charter permitted a prohibition of slave imports starting in 1808), and some (Massachusetts) even mandated taxpayer funding of schools or churches. The aim of Article I, Section 10, of the federal Constitution was to stop states’ assaults on liberty—not to increase but to decrease governmental capacity to violate rights. In addition to forbidding states from printing irredeemable paper money, it forbade them from passing targeted, discriminatory laws (bills of attainder); ex post facto laws; laws impairing “the obligation of contracts”; protectionist laws; acts granting “any title of nobility”; and conspiratorial compacts against liberty among the states or with foreign powers. The states, especially in the South, weren’t the havens of liberty today’s anarcho-libertarians claim.39

An important yet rarely acknowledged fact about the Declaration of Independence is that it cited a lack of sufficient government. Yes, Britain’s king had violated Americans’ rights, but he also had “abdicated Government here” in America; “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good”; forbade “his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance”; “refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people”; “obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing Judiciary powers”; and “dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly,” which left the states “exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.” Liberty, the Federalists recognized, wasn’t possible without law, order, and security.

The establishment and maintenance of rights-protecting law, order, and security as the proper function of government was profoundly important to Hamilton and the Federalists. They held that government must abide by the supreme law of the land (the Constitution)—and that citizens and firms must abide by statutory, criminal, and commercial law. They recognized that capricious law enforcement is dangerous and breeds injustice and lawlessness. But not everyone agreed. For instance, when Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists reacted firmly against the perpetrators of Shays’s Rebellion (i.e., against legitimate creditor claims in 1786), the Whiskey Rebellion (against a light excise tax in 1794), and Fries’s Rebellion (against a mild land and slave tax in 1799), they were accused of tyranny by critics who excused the rebels and urged still further revolts. In 1794, Hamilton argued as follows:

What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic? The answer would be: an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws—the first growing out of the last. It is by this, in a great degree, that the rich and powerful are to be restrained from enterprises against the common liberty—operated upon by the influence of a general sentiment, by their interest in the principle, and by the obstacles which the habit it produces erects against innovation and encroachment. It is by this, in a still greater degree, that caballers, intriguers, and demagogues are prevented from climbing on the shoulders of faction to the tempting seats of usurpation and tyranny. . . . A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. . . . A large and well organized Republic can scarcely lose its liberty from any other cause than that of anarchy, to which a contempt of the laws is the high road.40

In making a case for a new federal constitution and a practical form of legitimate sovereignty, Hamilton and the Federalists weren’t curbing liberty but better preserving it by curing the lack of governance, which, by flirting with anarchy, invited tyranny.41 Although it’s often assumed that the anti-Federalist, Jeffersonian approach was solidly rights-based and descended from Locke, in truth it departed in crucial ways from principled positions on individual rights and free markets.42 Some revolutionary-era critics of Hamilton and the Federalists seemed to fear not a loss of liberty, but rather a diminution of their power to persist in state-sanctioned liberty violations—the same kind of fear felt later by slaver-secessionists in the Confederacy. Other critics, precursors of today’s anarcho-libertarians and neo-confederates,43 seemed to detest Hamiltonian principles, not because they put the nation on some inevitable path to statism but because the principles meant (and mean) that it was possible to effect a rationally designed plan of governance that better protected rights, even from the states’ encroachments. Anarchists, believing all forms of government to be oppressive, deny that such governance is possible.

The extent to which American government today is statist, whether at the state or federal level, has mostly to do with changes over the past century in the culture’s philosophy—toward altruism, “social justice,” and direct (unrestrained) democracy—and little if anything to do with Hamiltonian doctrines or governance.

Hamilton today would be appalled to learn that for a century the United States has been governed not by principled, constitutional statesmen, but by pandering, democratic politicians who have failed to uphold and apply the Constitution, especially its equal protection clause (see today’s discriminatory laws, taxes, and regulations), and have failed in myriad ways to protect property rights. Like recent scholars such as Tara Smith, Bernard Siegen, and Richard A. Epstein, he would extol objective judicial review and see the welfare-regulatory state as involved in unconstitutional takings and restrictions.44

The Dangers of Democracy and Religion

Unlike their opponents, Hamilton and the Federalists strongly distrusted democracy, or rule by “the people” (“demos”), because historically (and on principle) it didn’t protect rights and liberty. Rather, democracy typically degenerated into anarchy, mutual envy, spoliation, and then tyranny as mobs enlisted brutes to restore order. Hamilton saw that democracies invite demagogues, unprincipled agitators, and power lusters who appeal to the people’s worst emotions and prejudices to aggrandize themselves and government power.

Writing in Federalist #1, Hamilton observed that “of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” In Federalist #85, he observed that history offers “a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain.” At New York’s ratifying convention (June 1788) he said,

[I]t has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity: When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity. In these assemblies, the enemies of the people brought forward their plans of ambition systematically. They were opposed by their enemies of another party; and it became a matter of contingency, whether the people subjected themselves to be led blindly by one tyrant or by another.45

Hamilton recognized that rationality, intelligence, and knowledge matter, and that “the people” en masse are, by definition, not the best and brightest. He understood that “the people” can and often do adopt a herd mentality, through which they can descend to a low and potentially dangerous common denominator. He knew that truth and justice aren’t determined by popular opinion.

At the 1787 constitutional convention, Hamilton argued that “this government has for its object public strength and individual security,” that a popular assembly unchecked by constitutional law has an “un-controlling disposition,” and that we must “check the imprudence of democracy.” He further noted that “the voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God,” but “however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact,” for “the people are turbulent and changing” and “seldom judge or determine right.”46 Thus, he argued, those not directly and popularly elected—the president, senators (at the time),47 and judiciary—must prevent rights-violating popular rule.

In response to “charges that he was an elitist promoting a tyrannical aristocracy,” recounts Maggie Riechers in “Honor Above All,” Hamilton said:

And whom would you have representing us in government? Not the rich, not the wise, not the learned? Would you go to some ditch by the highway and pick up the thieves, the poor, and the lame to lead our government? Yes, we need an aristocracy to be running our government, an aristocracy of intelligence, integrity, and experience.48

Hamilton saw that the problem is not “elites” per se (as many claim today). Those with higher education and financial success can be poor political thinkers or become less enlightened over time. But people with substantial knowledge of the humanities who also have succeeded substantially in life are rarely worse political thinkers or practitioners than the broad populace—especially when the populace has been “schooled” by the government. (On that last note, whereas Jefferson, Adams, and others advocated public schools, Hamilton and most Federalists did not.)

Brookhiser Interview on The Federalists

Although the U.S. Constitution itself directly pledged a republican form of government, America over the past century has become more democratic, which partly explains why she’s also become more statist.  At every level of government now, people face a punitively redistributive and regulatory state. This is not a Hamiltonian conception of America.

The best of America also has been secular, not religious. The Puritans of New England and the Salem witch trials, in the early colonial era, are obvious examples of America at her worst, especially compared to later periods, when Jefferson and others (including Hamilton) extolled religious liberty and the separation of church and state. But the far greater damage to America in the past century has come not from violations of that legal separation but from a spread of religious belief that undergirds ever-increasing demands for “social justice” and ever-more interventionism by a welfare-regulatory state. On this score, what models, among the founders, might Americans today turn to for guidance?

Jefferson and several other founders were substantially religious—even deriving their moral code from the Bible. At times, Jefferson obsessed about the morals prescribed by religion, as when he issued his own version of the Bible (shorn of its miracles), within which he found rationalizations for slavery. He also believed that Jesus provided “the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.”49 “Eternal bliss” is attainable, wrote Jefferson, if you “adore God,” “murmur not at the ways of Providence,” and “love your country more than yourself.”50 Today, those on the religious “right” and religious left alike invoke such views to justify a Christian welfare state.

Hamilton, in contrast, was one of the least religious founders.51 He did believe in the existence of a deity and held that it was the source of man, hence also of man’s rights. Like others in his day, he erred in assuming a supernatural element in “natural rights.” But he didn’t espouse the need to adore God or love your country more than yourself or the like. Neither did he attend church regularly. Although on his deathbed he twice requested communion, he twice was denied it by ministers who were his friends and knew that he was no deep believer.

Hamilton may have been a deist, but that was the extent of his religiosity. He certainly didn’t regard God as an intervening force nor as a needed one. Known for his logical and lawyerly writing, Hamilton never cited the Bible in any argument, as he didn’t believe it should inform or control politics (or vice versa).52 Working with other Federalists at the 1787 convention, he made sure the Constitution (unlike the Declaration) also invoked no deity. Indeed, Section 3 of Article VI, which Hamilton and the Federalists strongly endorsed, said no federal officeholder or employee was required to accept any religion (the “no religious test”), and this applied to the states also, as officers at both levels were required to uphold the Constitution. Whereas Ben Franklin, in a moment of gridlock and despair at the convention, moved to have the assembled framers pray for God’s assistance, Hamilton objected, saying there was no need for “foreign aid.” The motion was quietly tabled. On occasion Hamilton unabashedly even mocked or denounced religionists. He once wrote that “there never was any mischief but had a priest or a woman at the bottom,” and later, that “the world has been scourged with many fanatical sects in religion who, inflamed by a sincere but mistaken zeal, have perpetuated, under the idea of serving God, the most atrocious crimes.”53

The combined effect of democracy and religion has been destructive to America. Indeed, it has violated rights, curbed liberty, and fueled growth of the welfare state.54 To the extent that Americans accept the idea that we must love others as much as ourselves and be our brother’s keeper and the like, Americans will continue supporting politicians who pass and enforce laws to ensure that we do. And to the extent that such religiously minded Americans gain more direct—that is, more democratic—control over government, federal and state governments will become more tyrannical. Religion and democracy are antithetical to liberty and prosperity.

On the spread of democracy in the past century, observe that many Americans in the late 19th century had no right to vote at the federal level, yet in business and personal matters they were relatively free, low taxed, and unregulated. Today, nearly all have a right to vote, but for the past century the only “electable” politicians have been those who damned the rich, redistributed wealth, and violated rights in accordance with biblical (and Marxist) injunctions.

Hamilton embodied and contributed to the enlightened century in which he lived, one guided largely by vox intellentia (the voice of reason) instead of medievalism’s vox dei (the voice of god). Yet the ideals of reason and constitutionalism gave way, in the early 19th century, to those of religion and democracy. Religion (i.e., acceptance of ideas on faith) would come in new, secular forms, such as transcendentalism and, later, Marxism. The Federalist party faded away, and Hamiltonian principles were eclipsed by demands for rule by “the people” (democracy), with vox populi (the voice of the people) as the new (albeit secular) god. Fortunately, Hamiltonian ideas were strong enough to inspire and enable Lincoln and the new GOP to extend the Federalist system, abolish slavery, and give America her so-called Gilded Age, up to World War I. But, thereafter, democratic populism became dominant, to her great detriment.

Hamilton’s last letter, to a fellow Federalist in 1804, expressed his worry that there might be an eventual “dismemberment” of the United States, “a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good,” which would bring “no relief to our real Disease; which is Democracy.”55

His worry was well founded.

Capitalist Political Economy

Political economy studies the relationship between political and economic activity, or, more broadly, political and economic systems. Even though “capitalism” as a politico-economic term wasn’t coined until the mid-19th century (with a derogatory meaning, by French socialists),56 Hamiltonian political economy was essentially pro-capitalist in both theory and practice.

Unlike some of his critics, Hamilton argued that all sectors of the economy are virtuous, productive, and interdependent.

Unlike some of his critics, Hamilton argued that all sectors of the economy are virtuous, productive, and interdependent. Labor must be free (not enslaved) and mobile, as should goods and capital, both domestically and internationally. Hamilton and the Federalists insisted that property rights be secured and protected; government must recognize and support the sanctity of voluntary contract, and impose penalties on those who refuse to meet their legal or financial obligations. Hamilton held that taxes (including tariffs) should be low and uniform in rate, not discriminatory, favor-based, or protectionist; and there should be no coercive redistribution of wealth.57 His only case for public subsidy was to encourage the domestic production of munitions that might prove critical to America’s national defense. He recognized that the young and vulnerable nation relied too heavily for such things on foreign powers, including potential enemies.

Hamilton’s views on political economy are most clearly presented in his Report on Manufacturers (1791), where he shows how the various economic sectors—whether agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, or finance—are productive and mutually supportive. He saw a harmony of inter-sectorial self-interest and rejected what we now call “class warfare.” Unlike Adam Smith, who stressed the role of manual labor in wealth production, Hamilton stressed the role of the mind: “To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind,” he wrote, “by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted.” And he saw that rational effort and productiveness thrived best in a complex, diversified economy: “Every new scene which is opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself is the addition of a new energy” for the economy, he wrote. And “the spirit of enterprise, useful and prolific as it is, must necessarily be contracted or expanded in proportion to the simplicity or variety of the occupations and productions which are to be found in a Society.”58

Hamilton also cheerily welcomed immigrants, especially those who seek “exemption from the chief part of the taxes, burthens, and restraints which they endure in the old world” and those who prize “greater personal independence and consequence, under the operation of a more equal government, and of what is far more precious than mere religious toleration—a perfect equality of religious privileges.” Hamilton held that it was in “the interest of the United States to open every possible avenue to emigration from abroad.” Unlike today’s anti-immigration nationalists, Hamilton was a pro-immigration individualist.

In his Report on Manufactures, Hamilton extolls a “system of perfect liberty to industry and commerce” and says that “the option ought, perhaps, always to be in favor of leaving industry to its own discretion.” He also worries that nations abroad do not permit perfect economic liberty and that this can disadvantage America. By “perfect liberty” Hamilton does not mean that government must play no role or that it should keep its hands off the economy in the sense of not even protecting rights (as some libertarian anarchists today misconstrue the doctrine of laissez-faire). Hamilton denies that there should be such a complete separation of government and the economy. In accordance with its obligation to uphold property rights and enforce contracts, a proper government necessarily “helps” those who produce, earn, and trade wealth—and it “harms” those who instead choose to rob, defraud, or extort. In Hamilton’s view, these are not favors or privileges, but political acts of justice.

Hamilton also recognized that legitimate state functions, such as those of the police, military, and courts, require funding, which can come only from wealth producers. A proper government provides legitimate services that foster economic productiveness. And a moral citizenry financially supports such a government so that it can do so.

In short, Hamilton’s political economy isn’t “statist,” “mercantilist,” or “corporatist” (as libertarian detractors claim and illiberal sympathizers hope); rather, it is, simply, capitalist.

Critics of Hamilton’s political economy—especially Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams—denied the legitimacy and probity of banking, finance, commerce, and (to a lesser extent) manufacturing. They did so because they were enamored of the French doctrine of “physiocracy,” the notion that economic added value and productive virtue derive from agriculture exclusively. On this view, if other sectors, such as (urban) manufacturing, exhibit wealth—especially great wealth—it must be ill-gotten gain, achieved at the expense of hard-working farmers and planters.59 Equal legal treatment, on this view, privileges undeserving sectors; respectful treatment of the “moneyed interests” somehow harms the “landed interest.” Such false charges were especially disingenuous coming from slaveholding plantation aristocrats.

Some of Hamilton’s critics also believed that farming and agriculture are divinely superior to all other kinds of work. Jefferson, for instance, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, asserted that “those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God,” that in them alone God “made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.” He also said we must “never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff.” Instead, he said, “for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe.”60

Many scholars have explained (typically with a strong hint of approval) that the political economy of Jefferson and the anti-Federalists was predominantly anticapitalist—in some ways even fuel for the modern environmentalist movement—and that many of its features persist today, in public attitudes and economic policies, both in America and globally.61

America was well served by Hamiltonian political economy. In its heyday, during the half century following the Civil War (1865–1914), U.S. economic production multiplied rapidly, as innovation, invention, and living standards skyrocketed. In contrast, the spread of more democratic and populist political rule over the past century—and with it more public spending, taxing, and regulating—has brought a deceleration in output growth, and even stagnation.

Public Finance: Money, Debt, and Taxes

Hamilton was a strong proponent of sound and stable money (a gold-silver standard), a vigorous private banking system, restraint on government spending (what he called “economy”), low and uniform tax and tariff rates, minimal regulation, a diminishing public debt, and solidity in public credit (defined as an adequate capacity to borrow). America has been at her best when these monetary-fiscal elements have been institutionalized, as they were in the 1790s and (to a lesser extent) in the 1920s. Unfortunately, these elements are not operative today, and America is suffering accordingly.

Hamilton was known by senior officials for his financial acumen and was appointed by President Washington as the first U.S. Treasury secretary. He witnessed America during her “critical period” (1781­–1789) suffering from an array of depreciating state monies, massive debts, burdensome taxes, interstate protectionism, and economic stagnation. Upon taking office, Hamilton began authoring comprehensive plans of fiscal and monetary reform, which, once approved by Congress and administered by his office, transformed America from a debt-defaulting bankrupt nation issuing worthless paper money into an honorable debt-paying nation practicing fiscal rectitude and issuing gold- and silver-based dollars.

Critics claimed that Hamilton’s reforms were intended to benefit only public bondholders and the “moneyed interests” on Wall Street, but in truth all economic sectors benefited from a more stable and predictable governance and the corresponding extension of rational, foward-looking business planning in the marketplace. And, in the 1790s, with freer trade, U.S. imports tripled.

Critics then (as now) misclassified Hamilton as a champion of expansive government debt, as if he were a proto-Keynesian enamored of deficit spending as a means of boosting the economy. In truth, however, Hamilton’s Treasury in 1789 inherited massive debt. It was not Hamilton’s fault that the Revolutionary War entailed huge deficit spending. Wars cost money. And, in fighting the Revolutionary War, the U.S. government spent a great deal more money than it collected in taxes (Jefferson and others opposed tax financing).62 Consequently, the war was financed in part by loans from patriotic and wealthy Americas, loans from France and the Dutch, issuance by Congress of irredeemable paper money, underprovisioning of soldiers, underpaying of officers, and commandeering of resources from private citizens.

Whereas Jefferson and others demanded postwar defaults and debt repudiations,63 Hamilton defended the sanctity of contract and demanded honorable repayments. He arranged to service all federal debts and even to consolidate, assume, and service state debts at the federal level, arguing that independence from Britain and the war were won nationally, that states shouldn’t be left unequally burdened by war debts, and that each should start fresh with little debt, low taxes, and no tariffs. In 1790, the U.S. public debt burden was 40 percent of GDP; but Hamilton, helped by congressional Federalists, halved that to just 20 percent of GDP by the time he left office in 1795.

When Hamilton saw public debt as excessive or in default he counseled calm and explained how to fix it by affordable resumptions of payment. Longer term, he advised principal reduction by budget surpluses achieved mainly by restraint on spending. In a 1781 letter to Robert Morris, then superintendent of finance, Hamilton wrote that “a national debt if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing; it will be powerful cement of our union.”64 Critics have omitted the context to suggest Hamilton believes “a national debt . . . is a national blessing.”65 Not so. His view is that public borrowing mustn’t be a major source of funding, nor excessive, nor unserviceable, nor repudiated.

In 1781, Hamilton, foreseeing a union few others did, counseled Morris not to despair about the debt. By his reckoning, he could craft a plan to begin fully servicing it  soon after the war, to the benefit of all parties. And that’s exactly what he did. He also wanted to facilitate reductions in U.S. debt. In 1790, he wrote Congress that “so far from acceding to the position that ‘public debts are public benefits,’ a position inviting to prodigality, and liable to dangerous abuse,” the body should codify “as a fundamental maxim, in the system of the public credit of the United States, that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.” He advised steady repayments so that in a decade “the whole of the debt shall be discharged.”66 Fearing America might become more democratic and overaccumulate debt, in 1795 he wrote of “a general propensity in those who administer the affairs of government to shift off the burden [of spending] from the present to a future day—a propensity which may be expected to be strong in proportion as the form of the state is popular.”67

Hamilton’s financial reforms also fostered nationwide banking in America, as well as efficient, low-burden tax collection through the Bank of the United States (BUS), which was chartered from 1791 to 1811. This was no “central bank,” as some libertarians and statists claim. Privately owned, the BUS issued gold-and-silver-convertible money and lent little to the federal government. No such prudential features describe today’s actual, politicized central banks. Hamilton arranged specifically for the BUS to be apolitical, quite unlike the Federal Reserve. “To attach full confidence to an institution of this nature,” he wrote, “an essential ingredient in its structure” is that it “be under a private not a public direction, under the guidance of individual interest, not of public policy,” never “liable to being too much influenced by public necessity,” because “suspicion of this would most likely be a canker that would continually corrode the vitals of the credit of the Bank.” If ever “the credit of the Bank be at the disposal of the government,” there would be a “calamitous abuse of it.”68 Hamilton made sure that didn’t happen. The bank was a success precisely because, unlike today’s central banks, it was privately owned and operated, as well as monetarily sound.

Foreign Policy for Rights, Liberty, and Security

Hamilton and the Federalists saw that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and thus the rights, liberty, and security of the American people. In other words, they held that America must promote and protect its rational self-interest, that the standard for conducting international relations is the need of the U.S. government to secure the rights of U.S. citizens.69 On this key principle, as we’ll see, Hamilton and the Federalists  differed considerably from the views of Jefferson, the anti-Federalists, and their progeny.70

Hamilton eschewed a foreign policy of weakness, appeasement, vacillation, defenselessness, self-sacrifice, surrender, or breaking promises.

Rational self-interest calls for defending a nation against foreign aggressors as much as for cooperating and trading with friendly states, whether by treaty, military alliance, open borders, or international trade. Hamilton eschewed a foreign policy of weakness, appeasement, vacillation, defenselessness, self-sacrifice, surrender, or breaking promises. Nor did he advocate imperialism, “nation-building,” or altruistic crusades to “make the world safe for democracy” (Woodrow Wilson), or pursuing a “forward strategy for freedom” (George W. Bush) for people fundamentally unwilling or unable to achieve it.

Hamilton (and the Federalists) also believed that national defense required a reasonably paid standing army and navy plus an academy (West Point) for professional training. Opponents insisted that this was too costly and inferior to reliance on patriotic but amateur militia assembled temporarily in response to invasions. As sequential presidents in the early 1800s, Jefferson and Madison radically reduced spending on the army and navy. Jefferson also helped fund (and prolong) Napoleon’s wars via the Louisiana Purchase and imposed a trade embargo on Britain, which decimated the U.S. economy and exposed America to a near loss of the War of 1812.

In Hamilton’s time, the major U.S. foreign policy challenges pertained to relations with Britain and France. Disputes about the meaning and consequence of the French Revolution, which began only months after Washington’s first inauguration, revealed the differences between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian foreign policies.

Despite the war against Britain, and France’s support of America, during the postwar period, Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists found the British government more civilized, law abiding, constitutional, and predictable than the French government, even though both remained monarchies. Even before 1789, France’s monarchy was unchecked by a constitution, whereas Britain’s, at least, was constitutionally limited. With the Treaty of Paris in 1783, America had begun a rapprochement with Britain—solidified later by the Jay Treaty of 1795—and trade relations between the countries soon expanded.

These new peace and trade agreements were defended strenuously by Hamilton and the Federalists but opposed by Jefferson, Madison, and their emerging political party (the Democratic Republicans), who despised Britain and adored France—despite the beheading of Louis XVI and the royals, Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, and Napoleon’s despotic, imperialistic reign. To their credit, Hamilton and the Federalists consistently condemned the French Revolution and its aftermath. Hamilton even predicted the rise of a Napoleonic-type despot.71

Jefferson, U.S. foreign minister in Paris from 1784 to 1789, applauded the French Revolution and frequently smeared its critics (including Washington and Hamilton) as “monocrats.” In January 1793, only weeks before the regicide, Jefferson, now U.S. secretary of state, wrote how his “affections” were “deeply wounded by some of the martyrs,” but how he’d rather “have seen half the earth desolated” “than [the French Revolution] should have failed.”72 A month later France declared war on Britain. Washington asked his cabinet for advice, and Hamilton wrote the long letter that became the president’s Neutrality Proclamation of May 1793. Jefferson and Madison opposed neutrality, insisting that the United States back France—meaning that America would again be at war with Britain—despite what France had become. They held that not self-interest but gratitude for France’s assistance during America’s Revolutionary War should decide the matter. And they believed it was always legitimate to depose or kill monarchs and install democracies, even if doing so brought chaos and the impossibility of rights-protecting constitutionalism.

Hamilton saw that France was motivated not by goodwill for America but by a desire to weaken Britain. He held that the United States wasn’t obliged to remain in a treaty with France, given its post-1789 brutality, its radical change in form of government, and its eagerness to wage war on a nation that had become a top U.S. trading partner.

Cicero: The Founders' Father

Hamilton’s international policy was and is often falsely described as “protectionist.” Tariffs were the most common source of government funding in this era, and Hamilton adamantly opposed trade disruptions that might reduce tariff revenues and boost the national debt. He held that if tariff rates were low and uniform, they were justifiable and relatively painless. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 had originated in Hamilton’s valiant attempt (at the 1786 Annapolis Convention) to craft an agreement to reduce interstate tariffs and quotas. In short, Hamilton wanted a free trade zone for America. The eventual product of 1787, a fully ratified U.S. Constitution, plainly prohibited interstate trade barriers. These were hardly the motives or actions of a protectionist.

As Hamilton put it in 1795, “the maxims of the United States have hitherto favored a free intercourse with all the world. They have concluded that they had nothing to fear from the unrestrained completion of commercial enterprise and have only desired to be admitted upon equal terms.”73 Jefferson and Madison, in contrast, sought higher tariffs to minimize resort to excise taxes (which they deemed more onerous to freedom). They also favored tariff discrimination, with higher rates imposed on imports from Britain and lower ones on imports from France. And, as presidents, both adopted protectionist policies, which damaged the U.S. economy and sabotaged U.S. foreign relations.74

Whether regarding war and peace or protectionism and trade, Hamilton usually was restrained and cosmopolitan, whereas his opponents were typically aggressive and provincial. He eschewed foreign adventurism and empire building; they praised it. According to Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, Jefferson “wished genuinely to reform the world” yet also “feared contamination by it,” so his foreign policy was a perpetual “alternation between interventionist and isolationists moods and policies.” They continue, in their book, Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson, that Jefferson thought “free political and economic institutions would flourish in America only if they took root elsewhere, an idea that has, in turn, underlain much of the crusading impulse in the century.” He also held “the conviction that despotism [abroad] meant war,” and, “on this view, the indispensable condition of a lasting peace was the replacement of autocratic regimes by governments based on consent.”75 These were the roots of “progressive” schemes to “make the world safe for democracy,” depose autocrats for ballot boxes, and selflessly and interminably entangle the United States abroad. Hamilton, in contrast, wanted strong yet defensive U.S. military power; he knew that democracy was more likely to be the unsafe option globally. As Michael P. Federici writes in The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton’s foreign policy was free entirely of the “messianic pretensions in twentieth-century nationalisms like Wilsonianism and the New Deal or totalitarian ideologies.”76

Conclusion

From the time he came to America in 1772 as a young immigrant, to the time and effort he expended on behalf of the Revolution, independence, war, the Constitution, and early presidencies, Hamilton was the quintessential American. He was an indefatigable statesman, master builder of a political-fiscal foundation so rational and solid that, for the next century, it enabled the United States to become even freer and more prosperous.

Writing in 1795, Hamilton said that the rest of the world should come to see the United States as a moral-political role model, “a people who originally resorted to a revolution in government, as a refuge from encroachments on rights,” “who have a due respect for property and personal security,” who “have in a very short period, from mere reasoning and reflection, without tumult or bloodshed, adopted a form of general government calculated” so as to “give strength and security to the nation, to rest the foundations of liberty on the basis of justice, order, and law.” The American people, he said, “have at all times been content to govern themselves without intermeddling with the affairs or governments of other nations.”77 Writing in 1784, at age 27, Hamilton cherished the prospect of constitutional liberty in America, but he also feared its eventual loss:

If we set out with justice, moderation, liberality, and a scrupulous regard to the constitution, the government will acquire a spirit and tone, productive of permanent blessings to the community. If on the contrary, the public councils are guided by humour, passion and prejudice; if from resentment of individuals, or a dread of partial inconveniences, the constitution is slighted or explained away, upon every frivolous pretext, the future spirit of government will be feeble, distracted and arbitrary. The rights of the subject will be the sport of every party vicissitude. There will be no settled rule of conduct, but everything will fluctuate with the alternate prevalency of contending factions.

The world has its eye upon America. The noble struggle we have made in the cause of liberty, has occasioned a kind of revolution in human sentiment. The influence of our example has penetrated the gloomy regions of despotism, and has pointed the way to inquiries, which may shake it to its deepest foundations. Men begin to ask everywhere, who is this tyrant, that dares to build his greatness on our misery and degradation? What commission has he to sacrifice millions to the wanton appetites of himself and the few minions that surround his throne?

To ripen inquiry into action, it remains for us to justify the revolution by its fruits. If the consequences prove, that we really have asserted the cause of human happiness, what may not be expected from so illustrious an example? In a greater or less degree, the world will bless and imitate! But if experience, in this instance, verifies the lesson long taught by the enemies of liberty; that the bulk of mankind are not fit to govern themselves, that they must have a master, and were only made for the rein and the spur, we shall then see the final triumph of despotism over liberty. The advocates of the latter must acknowledge it to be an ignis fatuus and abandon the pursuit. With the greatest advantages for promoting it, that ever a people had, we shall have betrayed the cause of human nature.78

Hamilton’s critics, with insufficient evidence and considerable context dropping, have accused him variously of being a monarchist, a nationalist, a cronyist, a mercantilist, a protectionist, and an imperialist. In truth, he was none of those things. He viewed such positions as variations on Old World error and adamantly opposed them. Here are some of Hamilton’s most important positions and efforts—along with correspondingly false accusations about him:

  • Knowing that the impotent Articles of Confederation lacked an executive branch, Hamilton sought to provide one—and was falsely accused of being a “monocrat.”
  • Knowing that thirteen states in conflict were prone to control by foreign powers, Hamilton sought to provide a national, rights-protecting government—and was falsely accused of being a “nationalist” eager to subjugate the rights of the individual.
  • Knowing that America’s money, banking, and credit were in disarray, Hamilton sought to fix them—and was falsely accused of favoring mysterious, unnamed cronies on Wall Street.
  • Knowing that decades of British mercantilist policy had rendered America overly agricultural, he sought a system of freer trade and encouragement of manufacturing—and was falsely accused of being a protectionist and industrial planner.
  • Knowing that America could not maintain her security without a professionally trained and well-prepared military focused solely on protecting the homeland instead of foreign adventurism, Hamilton wanted a standing army and a military academy at West Point—and was falsely accused of being a warmongering imperialist.

Without too much difficulty, Hamilton could have done what many American colonists in his time chose to do: remain safely the loyal subject of Britain, comfortably placed to participate in its zealous devotion to monarchism, mercantilism, and imperialism. Hamilton could have stayed and lived and worked in his beloved New York City, which the British occupied peaceably during a long war. Instead, he spent two decades—longer than anyone else—helping Washington build and launch the United States of America, which meant fighting to create a new nation that rejected monarchism, mercantilism, and imperialism. There is evidence that, in the first few decades of the 19th century, some of Hamilton’s most virulent opponents changed some of their views and came to believe much of what Hamilton himself had contended initially—most notably about constitutionalism, manufacturing, finance, slavery, and foreign policy.79 This further speaks to Hamilton’s originality, courage, and prescience.

Some say America’s best is neither fully Hamiltonian nor fully Jeffersonian, but instead a judicious, balanced mix of each. The first, it is believed, would bring too much elitism, capitalism, or inequality, the latter too much populism, agrarianism, or democracy. Yet America suffers from the latter, not the former. For decades she’s been morphing into a European-style “social democracy,” a socialist-fascist system achieved not by bullets (revolting) but ballots (voting), as if democracy can whitewash evil.

In a short life, Hamilton made America the best that he could. It was pretty good indeed. She hasn’t always lived up to the heights he wished for her. But, today, as in the founding era, America at her best is Hamiltonian.

This article was originally published in The Objectivist Standard and has been reposted with the author's permission.

Richard M. Salsman Ph.D.
About the author:
Richard M. Salsman Ph.D.

Le Dr Richard M. Salsman est professeur d'économie politique à Université Duke, fondateur et président de InterMarket Forecasting, Inc.., chercheur principal au Institut américain de recherche économique, et chercheur principal à La société Atlas. Dans les années 1980 et 1990, il a été banquier à la Banque de New York et à la Citibank et économiste chez Wainwright Economics, Inc. Le Dr Salsman est l'auteur de cinq livres : Détruire les banques : problèmes des banques centrales et solutions bancaires gratuites (1990) et L'effondrement de l'assurance-dépôts et les arguments en faveur de son abolition (1993), Gold and Liberty (1995) et L'économie politique de la dette publique : trois siècles de théorie et de preuves (2017) et Où sont passés tous les capitalistes ? : Essais d'économie politique morale (2021). Il est également l'auteur d'une douzaine de chapitres et de nombreux articles. Son travail a été publié dans Journal de droit et de politique publique de Georgetown, Documents de motivation, le Wall Street Journal, le Sun de New York, Forbes, le Économiste, le Poste financier, le Activiste intellectuel, et La norme objective. Il prend fréquemment la parole devant des groupes d'étudiants pro-liberté, notamment Students for Liberty (SFL), Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), l'Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) et la Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

Le Dr Salsman a obtenu sa licence en droit et en économie au Bowdoin College (1981), sa maîtrise en économie à l'université de New York (1988) et son doctorat en économie politique à l'université Duke (2012). Son site web personnel se trouve à https://richardsalsman.com/.

Pour The Atlas Society, le Dr Salsman anime un mensuel Morale et marchés webinaire, explorant les intersections entre l'éthique, la politique, l'économie et les marchés. Vous pouvez également trouver des extraits de Salsman's Reprises d'Instagram ICI qui se trouve sur notre Instagram chaque mois !

Articles récents (résumés)

Les pays qui vendent des loyers sont plus corrompus et moins riches -- AIR, 13 mai 2022

Dans le domaine de l'économie politique, au cours des dernières décennies, l'accent a été mis de manière importante et précieuse sur la « recherche de rentes », définie comme des groupes de pression faisant pression pour obtenir (et obtenir) des faveurs spéciales (accordées à eux-mêmes) et des défaveurs (imposées à leurs rivaux ou ennemis). Mais la recherche de loyers n'est que l'aspect de la demande du favoritisme politique ; le côté de l'offre, qui est moins mis en avant, disons vente de loyers— en est le véritable instigateur. Seuls les États ont le pouvoir de créer des faveurs, des défaveurs et des copains politiques à somme nulle. Le copinage n'est pas une forme de capitalisme, mais un symptôme de systèmes hybrides ; les États interventionnistes qui influencent fortement les résultats socio-économiques encouragent activement le lobbying de la part de ceux qui sont les plus touchés et qui peuvent le plus se le permettre (les riches et les puissants). Mais le problème fondamental du favoritisme n'est pas celui des demandeurs qui soudoient, mais celui des fournisseurs qui extorquent. Le « capitalisme de copinage » est une contradiction flagrante, une ruse visant à accuser le capitalisme des résultats des politiques anticapitalistes.

L'expansion de l'OTAN en tant qu'instigatrice de la guerre russo-ukrainienne -- Clubhouse, 16 mars 2022

Dans cette interview audio de 90 minutes, avec questions-réponses du public, le Dr Salsman explique 1) pourquoi l'intérêt national devrait guider la politique étrangère des États-Unis (mais ce n'est pas le cas), 2) pourquoi l'expansion de l'OTAN depuis des décennies vers l'est en direction de la frontière russe (et laisse entendre que cela pourrait ajouter l'Ukraine) a alimenté les conflits russo-ukrainiens et la guerre actuelle, 3) comment Reagan-Bush a remporté la guerre froide de manière héroïque (et pacifique), 4) comment/pourquoi les présidents démocrates au cours de ce siècle (Clinton, Obama, Biden) ont refusé de cultiver la paix après la guerre froide, ont défendu l'OTAN, ont fait preuve d'une belligérance injustifiée envers La Russie, et ont miné la force et la sécurité nationales des États-Unis, 5) pourquoi l'Ukraine n'est pas libre et corrompue, n'est pas un véritable allié des États-Unis (ou membre de l'OTAN), n'est pas pertinente pour la sécurité nationale des États-Unis et ne mérite aucun soutien officiel des États-Unis, et 6) pourquoi le soutien bipartisan et quasi omniprésent d'aujourd'hui à une guerre plus vaste, largement promu par le MMIC (complexe militaro-média-industriel), est à la fois imprudent et inquiétant.

Ukraine : les faits n'excusent pas Poutine, mais ils condamnent l'OTAN -- La norme capitaliste, 14 mars 2022

Il n'est pas nécessaire d'excuser ou d'approuver le pugilisme brutal de Poutine pour reconnaître des faits évidents et des préoccupations stratégiques raisonnables : pour reconnaître que l'OTAN, les bellicistes américains et les russophobes ont rendu possible une grande partie de ce conflit. Ils ont également initié une alliance russo-chinoise, d'abord économique, maintenant potentiellement militaire. « Rendre le monde démocratique » est leur slogan de guerre, que les habitants le souhaitent, que cela apporte la liberté (rarement) ou que cela renverse les autoritaires et organise un vote équitable. Ce qui se passe le plus souvent après le renversement, c'est le chaos, le carnage et la cruauté (voir Irak, Libye, Égypte, Pakistan, etc.). Cela ne semble jamais s'arrêter parce que ceux qui détruisent la nation n'apprennent jamais. L'OTAN utilise l'Ukraine comme une marionnette, en fait un État client de l'OTAN (c'est-à-dire les États-Unis) depuis 2008. C'est pourquoi la famille criminelle Biden est bien connue pour « tirer les ficelles » là-bas. En 2014, l'OTAN a même contribué à fomenter le coup d'État du président pro-russe dûment élu de l'Ukraine. Poutine préfère raisonnablement que l'Ukraine soit une zone tampon neutre ; si, comme le souligne l'OTAN et Biden, ce n'est pas possible, Poutine préférerait simplement détruire l'endroit, comme il le fait, plutôt que d'en être propriétaire, de le gérer ou de l'utiliser comme stade vers l'ouest pour envahir d'autres pays.

La pénurie de main-d'œuvre coûteuse mais délibérée aux États-Unis -- AIR, 28 septembre 2021

Depuis plus d'un an, en raison de la phobie de la COVID et des mesures de confinement, les États-Unis sont confrontés à des pénuries de main-d'œuvre de différents types et de différentes ampleurs, le cas où la quantité de main-d'œuvre demandée par les employeurs potentiels dépasse les quantités fournies par les employés potentiels. Ce n'est ni accidentel ni temporaire. Le chômage a été à la fois imposé (par la fermeture d'entreprises « non essentielles ») et subventionné (avec des « allocations chômage » lucratives et étendues). Il est donc difficile pour de nombreuses entreprises d'attirer et d'embaucher une main-d'œuvre suffisamment nombreuse, de qualité, fiable et abordable. Les excédents et les pénuries importants ou chroniques ne reflètent pas une « défaillance du marché » mais l'incapacité des gouvernements à laisser les marchés se dégager. Pourquoi tant de choses ne sont-elles pas claires, même pour ceux qui devraient être mieux informés ? Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils ne connaissent pas les bases de l'économie ; nombre d'entre eux sont idéologiquement anticapitalistes, ce qui les met en défaveur des employeurs ; en canalisant Marx, ils croient faussement que les capitalistes tirent profit de la sous-rémunération des travailleurs et de la surfacturation des clients.

De la croissance rapide à l'absence de croissance, puis à la décroissance -- AIR, 4 août 2021

L'augmentation de la prospérité à long terme est rendue possible par une croissance économique soutenue à court terme ; la prospérité est un concept plus large, qui implique non seulement une augmentation de la production, mais une qualité de production appréciée par les acheteurs. La prospérité entraîne un niveau de vie plus élevé, dans lequel nous jouissons d'une meilleure santé, d'une durée de vie plus longue et d'un plus grand bonheur. Malheureusement, des mesures empiriques en Amérique montrent que son taux de croissance économique ralentit et qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un problème transitoire ; cela se produit depuis des décennies. Malheureusement, peu de dirigeants reconnaissent cette sombre tendance ; peu peuvent l'expliquer ; certains la préfèrent même. La prochaine étape pourrait être une poussée vers la « décroissance » ou des contractions successives de la production économique. La préférence pour une croissance lente s'est normalisée pendant de nombreuses années, ce qui peut également se produire avec la préférence pour la décroissance. Les acolytes de la décroissance d'aujourd'hui constituent une minorité, mais il y a des décennies, les fans à croissance lente constituaient également une minorité.

Quand la raison est absente, la violence est là -- Magazine Capitalism, 13 janvier 2021

À la suite de l'attaque de droite inspirée par Trump contre le Capitole américain la semaine dernière, chaque « camp » a accusé à juste titre l'autre d'hypocrisie, de ne pas « mettre en pratique ce qu'il prêche », de ne pas « joindre le geste à la parole ». L'été dernier, les gauchistes ont tenté de justifier (en parlant de « manifestation pacifique ») leur propre violence à Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis et ailleurs, mais dénoncent aujourd'hui la violence de droite au Capitole. Pourquoi l'hypocrisie, un vice, est-elle si omniprésente aujourd'hui ? Son contraire est la vertu d'intégrité, qui est rare de nos jours parce que les universités inculquent depuis des décennies le pragmatisme philosophique, une doctrine qui ne préconise pas la « praticité » mais la mine en insistant sur le fait que des principes fixes et valides sont impossibles (donc dispensables) et que l'opinion est manipulable. Pour les pragmatistes, « la perception est la réalité » et « la réalité est négociable ». À la réalité, ils préfèrent la « réalité virtuelle » à la justice, à la « justice sociale ». Ils incarnent tout ce qui est faux et bidon. Tout ce qui reste comme guide d'action, c'est l'opportunisme, l'opportunisme, les « règles pour les radicaux », tout ce qui « fonctionne » — pour gagner un débat, faire avancer une cause ou promulguer une loi — pour l'instant du moins (jusqu'à ce que cela ne fonctionne pas). Qu'est-ce qui explique la violence bipartite d'aujourd'hui ? L'absence de raison (et d'objectivité). Il n'y a (littéralement) aucune raison à cela, mais il y a une explication : lorsque la raison est absente, la persuasion et les rassemblements pacifiques et les manifestations sont également de mise. Ce qui reste, c'est l'émotivité... et la violence.

Le mépris de Biden pour les actionnaires est fasciste -- La norme capitaliste, 16 décembre 2020

Que pense le président élu Biden du capitalisme ? Dans un discours prononcé en juillet dernier, il a déclaré : « Il est plus que temps de mettre fin à l'ère du capitalisme actionnarial, selon laquelle la seule responsabilité d'une entreprise est envers ses actionnaires. Ce n'est tout simplement pas vrai. C'est une véritable farce. Ils ont une responsabilité envers leurs travailleurs, leur communauté et leur pays. Ce n'est pas une idée nouvelle ou radicale. » Oui, l'idée selon laquelle les entreprises doivent servir les non-propriétaires (y compris le gouvernement) n'est pas nouvelle. De nos jours, tout le monde, du professeur de commerce au journaliste, en passant par le Wall Streeter et « l'homme de la rue », semble être favorable au « capitalisme des parties prenantes ». Mais ce n'est pas non plus une idée radicale ? C'est du fascisme, c'est tout simplement. Le fascisme n'est-il plus radical ? Est-ce la « nouvelle » norme, bien qu'empruntée aux années 1930 (FDR, Mussolini, Hitler) ? En fait, le « capitalisme actionnarial » est superflu et le « capitalisme des parties prenantes » est un oxymore. Le premier est le véritable capitalisme : propriété (et contrôle) privés des moyens de production (et de leur production également). Ce dernier est le fascisme : propriété privée mais contrôle public, imposé par des non-propriétaires. Le socialisme, bien entendu, c'est la propriété publique (l'État) et le contrôle public des moyens de production. Le capitalisme implique et promeut une responsabilité contractuelle mutuellement bénéfique ; le fascisme la détruit en séparant brutalement la propriété et le contrôle.

Les vérités fondamentales de l'économie d'Arabie saoudite et leur pertinence contemporaine —- Fondation pour l'éducation économique, 1er juillet 2020

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) était un défenseur de principe d'un État constitutionnellement limité, avec encore plus de constance que nombre de ses contemporains classiques libéraux. Surtout connu pour la « loi de Say », le premier principe de l'économie, il devrait être considéré comme l'un des représentants les plus constants et les plus puissants du capitalisme, des décennies avant que le mot ne soit inventé (par ses opposants, dans les années 1850). J'ai beaucoup étudié l'économie politique au fil des décennies et je considère Say's Traité d'économie politique (1803) le meilleur ouvrage jamais publié dans le domaine, surpassant non seulement les œuvres contemporaines, mais aussi celles comme celle d'Adam Smith Richesse des nations (1776) et de Ludwig von Mises L'action humaine : un traité d'économie (1949).

La « relance » fiscale et monétaire est dépressive -- La Colline, 26 mai 2020

De nombreux économistes pensent que les dépenses publiques et les émissions de monnaie créent de la richesse ou du pouvoir d'achat. Ce n'est pas le cas. Notre seul moyen d'obtenir des biens et des services réels est de créer de la richesse, c'est-à-dire de produire. Ce que nous dépensons doit provenir des revenus, qui doivent eux-mêmes provenir de la production. La loi de Say enseigne que seule l'offre constitue la demande ; nous devons produire avant de demander, de dépenser ou de consommer. Les économistes attribuent généralement les récessions à une « défaillance du marché » ou à une « demande globale déficiente », mais les récessions sont principalement dues à la défaillance du gouvernement ; lorsque les politiques punissent les profits ou la production, l'offre globale se contracte.

La liberté est indivisible, c'est pourquoi tous les types sont en train de s'éroder -- Magazine Capitalism, 18 avril 2020

Le principe d'indivisibilité a pour but de nous rappeler que les différentes libertés augmentent ou diminuent en même temps, même si certaines libertés semblent, pendant un certain temps, augmenter au fur et à mesure que d'autres diminuent ; quelle que soit la direction dans laquelle les libertés évoluent, elles finissent par s'imbriquer. Le principe selon lequel la liberté est indivisible reflète le fait que les humains sont une intégration de l'esprit et du corps, de l'esprit et de la matière, de la conscience et de l'existence ; le principe implique que les humains doivent choisir d'exercer leur raison — la faculté qui leur est propre — pour saisir la réalité, vivre de manière éthique et s'épanouir du mieux qu'ils peuvent. Le principe est incarné dans le principe plus connu selon lequel nous avons des droits individuels — à la vie, à la liberté, à la propriété et à la recherche du bonheur — et que le seul et véritable objectif du gouvernement est d'être un agent de notre droit de légitime défense, de préserver, de protéger et de défendre constitutionnellement nos droits, et non de les restreindre ou de les annuler. Si un peuple veut préserver sa liberté, il doit lutter pour la préserver dans tous les domaines, et pas seulement dans ceux dans lesquels il vit le plus ou dans lequel il privilégie le plus, ni dans l'un ni dans certains, mais pas dans d'autres, ni dans l'un ou dans certains au détriment des autres.

Gouvernance tripartite : un guide pour l'élaboration de politiques appropriées -- AIR, 14 avril 2020

Lorsque nous entendons le terme « gouvernement », la plupart d'entre nous pensent à la politique, c'est-à-dire aux États, aux régimes, aux capitales, aux agences, aux bureaucraties, aux administrations et aux politiciens. Nous les appelons « fonctionnaires », en supposant qu'ils possèdent un statut unique, élevé et autoritaire. Mais il ne s'agit que d'un type de gouvernance dans nos vies ; les trois types sont la gouvernance publique, la gouvernance privée et la gouvernance personnelle. Il est préférable de concevoir chacune d'elles comme une sphère de contrôle, mais les trois doivent être correctement équilibrées afin d'optimiser la préservation des droits et des libertés. La tendance inquiétante de ces derniers temps a été l'invasion continue des sphères de gouvernance personnelles et privées par la gouvernance publique (politique).

Des choses libres et des personnes non libres -- AIR, 30 juin 2019

Les politiciens d'aujourd'hui affirment haut et fort que de nombreux domaines — la nourriture, le logement, les soins de santé, l'emploi, la garde d'enfants, un environnement plus propre et plus sûr, les transports, l'enseignement, les services publics et même l'université — devraient être « gratuits » ou subventionnés par l'État. Personne ne demande pourquoi de telles affirmations sont valables. Doivent-ils être acceptés aveuglément sur la foi ou affirmés par une simple intuition (sentiment) ? Cela n'a pas l'air scientifique. Toutes les allégations cruciales ne devraient-elles pas passer des tests de logique et de preuves ? Pourquoi les allégations de gratuité « sonnent bien » pour tant de personnes ? En fait, ils sont méchants, voire impitoyables, parce qu'ils sont illibéraux, donc fondamentalement inhumains. Dans un système de gouvernement constitutionnel libre et capitaliste, il doit y avoir une justice égale devant la loi, et non un traitement juridique discriminatoire ; rien ne justifie de privilégier un groupe par rapport à un autre, y compris les consommateurs par rapport aux producteurs (ou vice versa). Chaque individu (ou association) doit être libre de choisir et d'agir, sans recourir au mooching ou au pillage. L'approche de gratuité en matière de campagnes politiques et d'élaboration des politiques se plie effrontément au mooching et, en élargissant la taille, la portée et le pouvoir du gouvernement, institutionnalise également le pillage.

Nous devrions également célébrer la diversité en matière de richesse -- AIR, 26 décembre 2018

Dans la plupart des domaines de la vie d'aujourd'hui, la diversité et la variété sont à juste titre célébrées et respectées. Les différences entre les talents sportifs et artistiques, par exemple, impliquent non seulement des compétitions robustes et divertissantes, mais aussi des fanatiques (« fans ») qui respectent, applaudissent, récompensent et récompensent généreusement les gagnants (« stars » et « champions ») tout en privant (au moins relativement) les perdants. Pourtant, le domaine de l'économie — des marchés et du commerce, des affaires et de la finance, des revenus et de la richesse — suscite une réaction quasi opposée, même s'il ne s'agit pas, comme les matches sportifs, d'un jeu à somme nulle. Dans le domaine économique, nous observons des différences de talents et de résultats inégalement compensés (comme on pouvait s'y attendre), mais pour de nombreuses personnes, la diversité et la variété dans ce domaine sont méprisées et enviées, avec des résultats prévisibles : une redistribution perpétuelle des revenus et de la richesse par une fiscalité punitive, une réglementation stricte et une rupture périodique de la confiance. Ici, les gagnants sont plus soupçonnés que respectés, tandis que les perdants reçoivent des sympathies et des subventions. Qu'est-ce qui explique cette étrange anomalie ? Dans l'intérêt de la justice, de la liberté et de la prospérité, les gens devraient abandonner leurs préjugés anti-commerciaux et cesser de tourner en dérision l'inégalité des richesses et des revenus. Ils devraient célébrer et respecter la diversité dans le domaine économique au moins autant qu'ils le font dans les domaines sportif et artistique. Le talent humain se présente sous de nombreuses formes merveilleuses. Ne nions ni ne ridiculisons aucun d'entre eux.

Pour empêcher les massacres par arme à feu, le gouvernement fédéral doit cesser de désarmer les innocents -- Forbes, 12 août 2012

Les partisans du contrôle des armes veulent imputer les fusillades de masse à « trop d'armes », mais le vrai problème est qu'il y a trop peu d'armes et trop peu de liberté d'armes. Les restrictions au droit de porter des armes prévu par le deuxième amendement de notre Constitution sont une source de massacre et de chaos. Les contrôleurs des armes ont convaincu les politiciens et les responsables de l'application de la loi que les lieux publics sont particulièrement sujets à la violence armée et ont fait pression pour que l'utilisation d'armes à feu soit interdite et restreinte dans ces zones (« zones exemptes d'armes »). Mais ils sont complices de tels crimes, en encourageant le gouvernement à interdire ou à restreindre notre droit civil fondamental à la légitime défense ; ils ont incité des fous errants à massacrer des personnes en public en toute impunité. La légitime défense est un droit essentiel ; elle nécessite de porter des armes et de les utiliser pleinement, non seulement dans nos maisons et sur nos propriétés, mais aussi (et surtout) en public. À quelle fréquence les policiers armés préviennent-ils ou mettent-ils fin aux crimes violents ? Presque jamais. Ce ne sont pas des « stoppeurs de crime » mais des preneurs de notes qui arrivent sur les lieux. Les ventes d'armes ont augmenté le mois dernier, après le massacre au cinéma, mais cela ne signifiait pas que ces armes pouvaient être utilisées dans les salles de cinéma ou dans de nombreux autres lieux publics. L'interdiction légale est le véritable problème, et il faut mettre fin immédiatement à cette injustice. Les preuves sont accablantes aujourd'hui : personne ne peut plus prétendre, en toute franchise, que les contrôleurs d'armes sont « pacifiques », « épris de paix » ou « bien intentionnés », s'ils sont des ennemis avoués d'un droit civil clé et des complices abjects du mal.

Le protectionnisme comme masochisme mutuel -- La norme capitaliste, 24 juillet 2018

Les arguments logiques et moraux en faveur du libre-échange, qu'il soit interpersonnel, international ou intra-national, sont qu'il est mutuellement bénéfique. À moins de s'opposer au gain en soi ou de supposer que l'échange est gagnant-perdant (un jeu « à somme nulle »), il faut annoncer le commerce. Hormis les altruistes qui font preuve d'abnégation, personne ne négocie volontairement à moins que cela ne soit bénéfique pour lui-même. M. Trump s'engage à « redonner de la grandeur à l'Amérique », un sentiment noble, mais le protectionnisme ne fait que nuire au lieu de l'aider à y parvenir. Environ la moitié des pièces des camions les plus vendus de Ford sont désormais importées ; si Trump obtient ce qu'il veut, nous ne pourrions même pas fabriquer de camions Ford, et encore moins redonner de la grandeur à l'Amérique. « Acheter des produits américains », comme l'exigent les nationalistes et les nativistes, revient à éviter les produits bénéfiques d'aujourd'hui tout en sous-estimant les avantages de la mondialisation du commerce d'hier et en craignant ceux de demain. Tout comme l'Amérique à son meilleur est un « creuset » d'antécédents personnels, d'identités et d'origines, les produits, sous leur meilleur jour, incarnent un creuset de main-d'œuvre d'origine mondiale. M. Trump prétend être pro-américain mais affiche un pessimisme irréaliste quant à sa puissance productive et à sa compétitivité. Compte tenu des avantages du libre-échange, la meilleure politique qu'un gouvernement puisse adopter est le libre-échange unilatéral (avec d'autres gouvernements non ennemis), ce qui signifie : le libre-échange, que d'autres gouvernements adoptent également le libre-échange ou non.

Les meilleurs arguments en faveur du capitalisme -- La norme capitaliste, 10 octobre 2017

Nous célébrons aujourd'hui le 60e anniversaire de la publication de Atlas haussa les épaules (1957) d'Ayn Rand (1905-1982), romancière-philosophe à succès qui prônait la raison, l'intérêt personnel rationnel, l'individualisme, le capitalisme et l'américanisme. Peu de livres aussi anciens continuent de se vendre aussi bien, même en couverture rigide, et de nombreux investisseurs et PDG font depuis longtemps l'éloge de son thème et de sa perspicacité. Dans une enquête menée dans les années 1990 pour la Library of Congress et le Book-of-the-Month Club, les personnes interrogées ont nommé Atlas haussa les épaules juste derrière la Bible en tant que livre qui a fait une grande différence dans leur vie. Les socialistes rejettent naturellement Rand parce qu'elle rejette leur affirmation selon laquelle le capitalisme est une forme d'exploitation ou susceptible de s'effondrer ; pourtant, les conservateurs se méfient d'elle parce qu'elle nie que le capitalisme repose sur la religion. Sa principale contribution est de montrer que le capitalisme n'est pas seulement un système économiquement productif, mais aussi un système moralement juste. Il récompense les personnes qui font preuve d'honnêteté, d'intégrité, d'indépendance et de productivité ; pourtant, il marginalise ceux qui choisissent de ne pas être humains et il punit les personnes vicieuses et inhumaines. Que l'on soit pro-capitaliste, pro-socialiste ou indifférent entre les deux, ce livre vaut la peine d'être lu, tout comme ses autres œuvres, dont La fontaine (1943) et La vertu de l'égoïsme : un nouveau concept de l'égoïsme (1964) et Le capitalisme : un idéal inconnu (1966).

Trump et le gouvernement du Pakistan tolèrent le monopole de la médecine -- La norme capitaliste, 20 juillet 2017

Le gouvernement du Pakistan et le président Trump, qui ont effrontément manqué à leurs promesses de campagne en refusant « d'abroger et de remplacer » ObamaCare, affirment maintenant qu'ils vont simplement l'abroger et voir ce qui se passera. Ne comptez pas là-dessus. À la base, cela ne les dérange pas vraiment d'ObamaCare et du système de « payeur unique » (monopole gouvernemental des médicaments) auquel il mène. Aussi abominable que cela soit, ils l'acceptent philosophiquement, donc ils l'acceptent également politiquement. Trump et la plupart des républicains tolèrent les principes socialistes latents d'ObamaCare. Peut-être se rendent-ils compte que cela continuera à éroder les meilleurs aspects du système et à mener à un « système à payeur unique » (monopole du gouvernement sur les médicaments), ce qu'Obama [et Trump] ont toujours affirmé souhaiter. La plupart des électeurs américains d'aujourd'hui ne semblent pas non plus s'opposer à ce monopole. Ils pourraient s'y opposer dans des décennies, lorsqu'ils se rendront compte que l'accès à l'assurance maladie ne garantit pas l'accès aux soins de santé (surtout pas dans le cadre d'une médecine socialisée, qui réduit la qualité, l'accessibilité et l'accès). Mais d'ici là, il sera trop tard pour réhabiliter ces éléments plus libres qui ont rendu la médecine américaine si géniale au départ.

Le débat sur l'inégalité : insensé si l'on ne tient pas compte de ce qui est gagné -- Forbes, 1er février 2012

Au lieu de débattre des questions véritablement monumentales de notre époque troublée, à savoir : quelles sont la taille et la portée appropriées du gouvernement ? (réponse : plus petit), et Devrions-nous avoir plus de capitalisme ou plus de corporatisme ? (réponse : capitalisme) — les médias politiques débattent plutôt des prétendus maux de « l'inégalité ». Leur envie éhontée s'est répandue ces derniers temps, mais l'accent mis sur l'inégalité convient aussi bien aux conservateurs qu'aux gauchistes. M. Obama accepte une fausse théorie de « l'équité » qui rejette le concept de justice sensé et fondé sur le mérite, que les Américains âgés pourraient qualifier de « désertique », selon lequel la justice signifie que nous méritons (ou gagnons) ce que nous obtenons dans la vie, même si c'est de notre libre choix. Légitimement, il existe une « justice distributive », qui récompense les comportements bons ou productifs, et une « justice rétributive », qui punit les comportements mauvais ou destructeurs.

Le capitalisme n'est pas du corporatisme ou du copinage -- Forbes, 7 décembre 2011

Le capitalisme est le plus grand système socio-économique de l'histoire de l'humanité, parce qu'il est si moral et si productif, deux caractéristiques si essentielles à la survie et à l'épanouissement de l'humanité. C'est moral parce qu'il consacre et encourage la rationalité et l'intérêt personnel — « la cupidité éclairée », si vous voulez — les deux vertus clés que nous devons tous adopter et pratiquer consciemment si nous voulons poursuivre et atteindre la vie et l'amour, la santé et la richesse, l'aventure et l'inspiration. Il produit non seulement une abondance matérielle et économique, mais aussi les valeurs esthétiques des arts et des divertissements. Mais qu'est-ce que le capitalisme exactement ? Comment le savons-nous quand nous le voyons ou l'avons, quand nous ne l'avons pas, ou si nous ne l'avons pas ? La plus grande championne intellectuelle du capitalisme, Ayn Rand (1905-1982), l'a défini un jour comme « un système social fondé sur la reconnaissance des droits individuels, y compris les droits de propriété, dans lequel tous les biens appartiennent à des particuliers ». Cette reconnaissance de véritables droits (et non de « droits » visant à forcer les autres à obtenir ce que nous souhaitons) est cruciale et repose sur un fondement moral distinct. En fait, le capitalisme est le système des droits, de la liberté, de la civilité, de la paix et de la prospérité non sacrificielle ; ce n'est pas un système de gouvernement qui favorise injustement les capitalistes aux dépens des autres. Il fournit des règles du jeu légales équitables et des officiels qui nous servent d'arbitres discrets (et non de décideurs arbitraires ou de changeurs de score). Bien sûr, le capitalisme entraîne également des inégalités — en termes d'ambition, de talent, de revenus ou de richesse — car c'est ainsi que sont réellement les individus (et les entreprises) ; ce sont des individus uniques, et non des clones ou des éléments interchangeables, comme le prétendent les égalitaristes.

Les Saintes Écritures et l'État social -- Forbes, 28 avril 2011

Beaucoup de gens se demandent pourquoi Washington semble toujours embourbé dans une impasse quant aux politiques susceptibles de remédier aux dépenses excessives, aux déficits budgétaires et à la dette. On nous dit que la racine du problème est la « polarisation politique », que les « extrémistes » contrôlent le débat et empêchent les solutions que seule l'unité bipartisane peut apporter. En fait, sur de nombreux points, les deux « parties » sont totalement d'accord, sur la base solide d'une foi religieuse partagée. Bref, peu de choses changent parce que les deux parties sont d'accord sur de nombreux points, notamment en ce qui concerne ce que signifie « faire ce qu'il faut » moralement. Cela n'est pas largement diffusé, mais la plupart des démocrates et des républicains, qu'ils soient de gauche ou de droite politiquement, sont très religieux et ont donc tendance à soutenir l'État social moderne. Même si tous les responsables politiques ne sont pas aussi attachés à cette question, ils soupçonnent (à juste titre) que les électeurs le font. Ainsi, même des propositions mineures visant à restreindre les dépenses publiques suscitent des accusations selon lesquelles le promoteur est impitoyable, impitoyable, peu charitable et antichrétien. Ces accusations sont vraies pour la plupart des gens, car les Écritures les ont longtemps conditionnés à adhérer à l'État-providence.

Où sont passés tous les capitalistes ? -- Forbes, 5 décembre 2010

Après la chute du mur de Berlin (1989) et la dissolution de l'URSS (1991), presque tout le monde a reconnu que le capitalisme était le « vainqueur » historique du socialisme. Pourtant, les politiques interventionnistes reflétant en grande partie des prémisses socialistes sont revenues en force ces dernières années, tandis que le capitalisme a été accusé d'être à l'origine de la crise financière de 2007-2009 et de la récession économique mondiale. Qu'est-ce qui explique cette évolution apparemment abrupte de l'opinion mondiale sur le capitalisme ? Après tout, un système économique et politique, qu'il soit capitaliste ou socialiste, est un phénomène vaste et persistant qui ne peut logiquement être interprété comme bénéfique une décennie et comme destructeur la suivante. Où sont donc passés tous les capitalistes ? Curieusement, un « socialiste » signifie aujourd'hui un défenseur du système politico-économique du socialisme en tant qu'idéal moral, alors qu'un « capitaliste » signifie un financier, un investisseur en capital-risque ou un entrepreneur de Wall Street, et non un défenseur du système politico-économique du capitalisme en tant qu'idéal moral. En vérité, le capitalisme incarne l'éthique de l'intérêt personnel rationnel, de l'égoïsme, de la « cupidité », pour ainsi dire, qui se manifeste peut-être de la manière la plus flagrante dans la recherche du profit. Tant que cette éthique humaine suscitera de la méfiance ou du mépris, le capitalisme sera blâmé à tort pour tout mal socio-économique. L'effondrement des régimes socialistes il y a deux décennies ne signifiait pas que le capitalisme était enfin salué pour ses nombreuses vertus ; cet événement historique n'a fait que rappeler aux gens la capacité productive du capitalisme, une capacité déjà éprouvée et reconnue depuis longtemps même par ses pires ennemis. L'animosité persistante à l'égard du capitalisme repose aujourd'hui sur des raisons morales et non sur des raisons pratiques. À moins que l'intérêt personnel rationnel ne soit compris comme le seul code moral compatible avec l'humanité authentique, et que l'estime morale du capitalisme ne s'améliore ainsi, le socialisme continuera de faire son retour en force, malgré son lourd et sombre bilan en matière de misère humaine.

No items found.
No items found.