[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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
الدكتور ريتشارد سالسمان هو أستاذ الاقتصاد السياسي في جامعة ديوك، مؤسس ورئيس شركة إنترماركت للتنبؤ.، وهو زميل بارز في المعهد الأمريكي للأبحاث الاقتصادية، وكبير الباحثين في جمعية أطلس. في الثمانينيات والتسعينيات من القرن الماضي، كان يعمل مصرفيًا في بنك نيويورك وسيتي بنك وخبيرًا اقتصاديًا في شركة Wainwright Economics, Inc. وقد ألف الدكتور سالسمان خمسة كتب: كسر البنوك: مشاكل البنوك المركزية والحلول المصرفية المجانية (1990)، انهيار تأمين الودائع وقضية الإلغاء (1993)، الذهب والحرية (1995)، الاقتصاد السياسي للدين العام: ثلاثة قرون من النظرية والأدلة (2017)، و أين ذهب كل الرأسماليين؟ : مقالات في الاقتصاد السياسي الأخلاقي (2021). كما أنه مؤلف لعشرات الفصول وعشرات المقالات. ظهرت أعماله في مجلة جورج تاون للقانون والسياسة العامة، أوراق السبب، ال مجلة وول ستريت، ال نيويورك صن، فوربز، ال إيكونومست، ال فاينانشال بوست، ال ناشط فكري، و معيار الهدف. يتحدث كثيرًا أمام مجموعات الطلاب المؤيدة للحرية، بما في ذلك طلاب من أجل الحرية (SFL)، والأمريكيون الشباب من أجل الحرية (YAL)، ومعهد الدراسات بين الكليات (ISI)، ومؤسسة التعليم الاقتصادي (FEE).
حصل الدكتور سالسمان على درجة البكالوريوس في القانون والاقتصاد من كلية بودوين (1981)، ودرجة الماجستير في الاقتصاد من جامعة نيويورك (1988)، والدكتوراه في الاقتصاد السياسي من جامعة ديوك (2012). يمكن العثور على موقعه الشخصي على https://richardsalsman.com/.
بالنسبة لجمعية أطلس، يستضيف الدكتور سالسمان برنامجًا شهريًا الأخلاق والأسواق ندوة عبر الإنترنت، تستكشف التقاطعات بين الأخلاق والسياسة والاقتصاد والأسواق. يمكنك أيضًا العثور على مقتطفات من Salsman عمليات الاستحواذ على إنستغرام هنا يمكن العثور عليها على موقعنا إينستاجرام كل شهر!
دول بيع الإيجارات أكثر فسادًا وأقل ثراءً -- معرض الطيران، 13 مايو 2022
في مجال الاقتصاد السياسي في العقود الأخيرة، تم التركيز بشكل مهم وقيِّم على «البحث عن الريع»، الذي يُعرَّف بأنه مجموعات الضغط التي تمارس الضغط من أجل (والحصول على) امتيازات خاصة (تُمنح لنفسها) وترفضها (تُفرض على خصومها أو أعدائها). لكن السعي وراء الريع ليس سوى جانب الطلب في المحسوبية السياسية؛ جانب العرض الأقل تركيزًا - نسميها بيع الإيجار— هو المحرض الحقيقي. الدول فقط هي التي تمتلك القدرة على خلق امتيازات سياسية لا مثيل لها وغير مفضلات وأقرباء. المحسوبية ليست نوعًا من الرأسمالية، ولكنها أحد أعراض الأنظمة الهجينة؛ الدول التدخلية التي تؤثر بشدة على النتائج الاجتماعية والاقتصادية تدعو بنشاط إلى الضغط من قبل أولئك الأكثر تضررًا والأكثر قدرة على تحمل تكاليفها (الأغنياء والأقوياء). لكن المشكلة الجذرية للمحسوبية ليست في المطالبين الذين يرشون، ولكن في الموردين الذين يبتزون. «رأسمالية المحسوبية» هي تناقض صارخ وخدعة لإلقاء اللوم على الرأسمالية في نتائج السياسات المناهضة للرأسمالية.
توسع الناتو كمحرض على الحرب الروسية الأوكرانية -- النادي، 16 مارس 2022
في هذه المقابلة الصوتية التي تبلغ مدتها 90 دقيقة، مع أسئلة وأجوبة للجمهور، يناقش الدكتور سالسمان 1) لماذا يجب أن توجه المصلحة الذاتية الوطنية السياسة الخارجية للولايات المتحدة (لكنها لا تفعل ذلك)، 2) لماذا أدى توسع الناتو الذي استمر عقودًا شرقًا نحو حدود روسيا (ويلمح إلى أنه قد يضيف أوكرانيا) إلى تأجيج الصراعات بين روسيا وأوكرانيا، والحرب الحالية، 3) كيف فاز ريغان-بوش ببطولة (وسلمية) في الحرب الباردة، 4) كيف/لماذا الرؤساء الديمقراطيون في هذا القرن (كلينتون، رفض أوباما وبايدن تعزيز السلام في مرحلة ما بعد الحرب الباردة، وكانا من دعاة حلف شمال الأطلسي، وكانا محاربين بشكل لا مبرر له لقد قوضت روسيا القوة والأمن الوطنيين للولايات المتحدة، 5) لماذا أوكرانيا غير حرة وفاسدة، وليست حليفًا حقيقيًا للولايات المتحدة (أو عضوًا في حلف شمال الأطلسي)، وليست ذات صلة بالأمن القومي الأمريكي، ولا تستحق الدعم الأمريكي الرسمي من أي نوع، و 6) لماذا يعتبر الدعم الحالي من الحزبين، والذي يكاد يكون في كل مكان لحرب أوسع نطاقًا، والذي يروج له بشكل كبير MMIC (المجمع العسكري والإعلامي الصناعي)، متهورًا ومشؤومًا على حد سواء.
أوكرانيا: الحقائق لا تبرر بوتين، لكنها تدين حلف شمال الأطلسي -- المعيار الرأسمالي، 14 مارس 2022
لا تحتاج إلى تبرير أو تأييد سياسة بوتين الوحشية للاعتراف بالحقائق الواضحة والمخاوف الاستراتيجية المعقولة: للاعتراف بأن حلف شمال الأطلسي ودعاة الحرب الأمريكيين ورهاب روسيا جعلوا الكثير من هذا الصراع ممكنًا. لقد حرضوا أيضًا على تحالف بين روسيا والصين، أولًا اقتصاديًا، والآن يحتمل أن يكون عسكريًا. «اجعل العالم ديمقراطيًا» هي صرخة معركتهم، بغض النظر عما إذا كان السكان المحليون يريدون ذلك، أو ما إذا كان ذلك يجلب الحرية (نادرًا)؛ أو ما إذا كان يطيح بالمستبدين وينظم تصويتًا عادلًا. ما يحدث في الغالب، بعد الإطاحة، هو الفوضى والمذابح والقسوة (انظر العراق وليبيا ومصر وباكستان وغيرها). لا يبدو أن الأمر ينتهي أبدًا لأن محطمي الأمة لا يتعلمون أبدًا. يستخدم الناتو أوكرانيا كدولة دمية وفعالة كدولة عميلة للناتو (أي الولايات المتحدة) منذ عام 2008. لهذا السبب تشتهر عائلة بايدن الإجرامية بـ «شد الخيوط» هناك. في عام 2014، ساعد حلف شمال الأطلسي حتى في التحريض على انقلاب رئيس أوكرانيا المنتخب حسب الأصول والموالية لروسيا. يفضل بوتين بشكل معقول أن تكون أوكرانيا منطقة عازلة محايدة؛ إذا لم يكن ذلك ممكنًا، كما يصر حلف الناتو وبايدن، فإن بوتين يفضل ببساطة تدمير المكان - كما يفعل - بدلاً من امتلاكه أو إدارته أو استخدامه كمسرح غربي لغزو دول أخرى.
نقص العمالة الأمريكية المكلف ولكن المتعمد -- الطيران، 28 سبتمبر 2021
لأكثر من عام، وبسبب الخوف من فيروس كورونا وعمليات الإغلاق، عانت الولايات المتحدة من أنواع وأحجام مختلفة من نقص العمالة، وهي الحالة التي تتجاوز فيها كمية العمالة التي يطلبها أصحاب العمل المحتملون الكميات التي يقدمها الموظفون المحتملون. هذا ليس عرضيًا أو مؤقتًا. تم فرض البطالة (عن طريق إغلاق الشركات «غير الأساسية») والدعم (مع «إعانات البطالة» المربحة والممتدة). وهذا يجعل من الصعب على العديد من الشركات جذب وتوظيف العمالة بالقدر الكافي والجودة والموثوقية والقدرة على تحمل التكاليف. لا تعكس الفوائض والنقص المادي أو المزمن «فشل السوق» ولكن فشل الحكومات في السماح للأسواق بالخروج. لماذا الكثير من هذا غير واضح حتى لأولئك الذين يجب أن يعرفوا بشكل أفضل؟ ليس لأنهم لا يعرفون أساسيات الاقتصاد؛ فالعديد منهم مناهضون للرأسمالية أيديولوجيًا، مما ينحازهم ضد أصحاب العمل؛ ومن خلال توجيه ماركس، فإنهم يعتقدون زوراً أن الرأسماليين يستفيدون من دفع أجور منخفضة للعمال وفرض رسوم زائدة على العملاء.
من النمو السريع إلى عدم النمو إلى تراجع النمو -- معرض الطيران، 4 أغسطس 2021
إن زيادة الرخاء على المدى الطويل أصبحت ممكنة بفضل النمو الاقتصادي المستدام على المدى القصير؛ والازدهار هو المفهوم الأوسع، الذي لا يستلزم فقط المزيد من الإنتاج ولكن جودة الإنتاج التي يقدرها المشترون. يجلب الرخاء مستوى معيشة أعلى، حيث نتمتع بصحة أفضل وعمر أطول وسعادة أكبر. لسوء الحظ، تُظهر المقاييس التجريبية في أمريكا أن معدل نموها الاقتصادي يتباطأ، وأنها ليست مشكلة مؤقتة؛ إنها تحدث منذ عقود. للأسف، قلة من القادة يدركون هذا الاتجاه القاتم؛ قليلون هم الذين يستطيعون تفسيره؛ حتى أن البعض يفضلونه. قد تكون الخطوة التالية هي الضغط من أجل «تراجع النمو»، أو الانقباضات المتتالية في الناتج الاقتصادي. تم تطبيع تفضيل النمو البطيء على مدى سنوات عديدة ويمكن أن يحدث هذا أيضًا مع تفضيل تراجع النمو. يُعد مساعدو تراجع النمو اليوم أقلية، ولكن قبل عقود كان المشجعون البطيئون النمو أقلية أيضًا.
عندما ينتهي العقل، يكون العنف موجودًا -- مجلة الرأسمالية، 13 يناير 2021
في أعقاب الهجوم اليميني المستوحى من ترامب على مبنى الكابيتول الأمريكي الأسبوع الماضي، اتهم كل «جانب» الآخر عن حق بالنفاق، وعدم «ممارسة ما يعظون به»، وعدم «السير في الكلام». في الصيف الماضي، حاول اليساريون تبرير (بـ «الاحتجاج السلمي») عنفهم في بورتلاند وسياتل ومينيابوليس وأماكن أخرى، لكنهم الآن يدينون العنف اليميني في مبنى الكابيتول. لماذا أصبح النفاق، الرذيلة، الآن في كل مكان؟ نقيض ذلك هو فضيلة النزاهة، وهي نادرة هذه الأيام لأن الجامعات على مدى عقود غرست البراغماتية الفلسفية، وهي عقيدة لا تنصح بـ «العملية» ولكنها بدلاً من ذلك تقوضها من خلال الإصرار على أن المبادئ الثابتة والصحيحة مستحيلة (وبالتالي يمكن الاستغناء عنها)، وأن هذا الرأي قابل للتلاعب. بالنسبة للبراغماتيين، «الإدراك هو الواقع» و «الواقع قابل للتفاوض». بدلاً من الواقع، يفضلون «الواقع الافتراضي»، بدلاً من العدالة، «العدالة الاجتماعية». إنها تجسد كل ما هو مزيف ومزيف. كل ما تبقى كدليل للعمل هو انتهازية الترتيب، والمنفعية، و «قواعد الراديكاليين»، وكل ما «ينجح» - لكسب حجة، أو تعزيز قضية، أو سن قانون - في الوقت الحالي على الأقل (حتى... يفشل في العمل). ما الذي يفسر العنف بين الحزبين اليوم؟ غياب العقل (والموضوعية). لا يوجد سبب (حرفيًا) لذلك، ولكن هناك تفسير: عندما يخرج العقل، يخرج الإقناع والاحتجاج السلمي أيضًا. ما تبقى هو العاطفة - والعنف.
إن ازدراء بايدن للمساهمين فاشي -- المعيار الرأسمالي، 16 ديسمبر 2020
ما رأي الرئيس المنتخب بايدن في الرأسمالية؟ في خطاب ألقاه في يوليو الماضي، قال: «لقد حان الوقت لوضع حد لعصر رأسمالية المساهمين - فكرة أن المسؤولية الوحيدة للشركة هي مع المساهمين. هذا ببساطة ليس صحيحًا. إنها مهزلة مطلقة. لديهم مسؤولية تجاه عمالهم ومجتمعهم وبلدهم. هذه ليست فكرة جديدة أو جذرية». نعم، إنها ليست فكرة جديدة - أن الشركات يجب أن تخدم غير المالكين (بما في ذلك الحكومة). يبدو أن الجميع هذه الأيام - من أستاذ الأعمال إلى الصحفي إلى وول ستريت إلى «رجل الشارع» - يفضلون «رأسمالية أصحاب المصلحة». لكنها أيضًا ليست فكرة جذرية؟ إنها فاشية واضحة وبسيطة. هل الفاشية لم تعد راديكالية؟ هل هي القاعدة «الجديدة» - وإن كانت مستعارة من الثلاثينيات (روزفلت، موسوليني، هتلر)؟ في الواقع، «رأسمالية المساهمين» زائدة عن الحاجة، و «رأسمالية أصحاب المصلحة» متناقضة. الأولى هي الرأسمالية الحقيقية: الملكية الخاصة (والسيطرة) على وسائل الإنتاج (وإنتاجها أيضًا). هذه الأخيرة هي الفاشية: الملكية الخاصة ولكن السيطرة العامة، التي يفرضها غير المالكين. الاشتراكية، بالطبع، هي الملكية العامة (الدولة) والسيطرة العامة على وسائل الإنتاج. تنطوي الرأسمالية على المسؤولية التعاقدية ذات المنفعة المتبادلة وتعززها؛ والفاشية تدمر ذلك بقطع الملكية والسيطرة بوحشية.
الحقائق الأساسية للاقتصاد السيزي وأهميتها المعاصرة — مؤسسة التعليم الاقتصادي، 1 يوليو 2020
كان جان باتيست ساي (1767-1832) مدافعًا مبدئيًا عن الدولة المحدودة دستوريًا، حتى أكثر ثباتًا من العديد من معاصريه الليبراليين الكلاسيكيين. اشتهر بـ «قانون ساي»، وهو المبدأ الأول للاقتصاد، ويجب اعتباره أحد أكثر دعاة الرأسمالية ثباتًا وقوة، قبل عقود من صياغة الكلمة (من قبل خصومها، في خمسينيات القرن التاسع عشر). لقد درست الكثير من الاقتصاد السياسي على مر العقود وأفكر في Say رسالة حول الاقتصاد السياسي (1803) أفضل عمل نُشر على الإطلاق في هذا المجال، ليس فقط متجاوزًا الأعمال المعاصرة ولكن أيضًا تلك مثل كتاب آدم سميث ثروة الأمم (1776) ولودفيج فون ميزس العمل البشري: رسالة في الاقتصاد (1949).
«التحفيز» المالي والنقدي هو أمر اكتئابي -- ذا هيل، 26 مايو 2020
يعتقد العديد من الاقتصاديين أن الإنفاق العام وإصدار الأموال يخلقان الثروة أو القوة الشرائية. ليس كذلك. وسيلتنا الوحيدة للحصول على سلع وخدمات حقيقية هي خلق الثروة - الإنتاج. ما ننفقه يجب أن يأتي من الدخل، الذي يجب أن يأتي في حد ذاته من الإنتاج. يعلم قانون ساي أن العرض فقط هو الذي يشكل الطلب؛ يجب أن ننتج قبل أن نطلب أو ننفق أو نستهلك. وعادة ما يلقي خبراء الاقتصاد باللوم في فترات الركود على «فشل السوق» أو «نقص الطلب الكلي»، ولكن الركود يرجع في الأساس إلى فشل الحكومة؛ فعندما تعاقب السياسات الأرباح أو الإنتاج، فإن عقود التوريد الإجمالية تنتهي.
الحرية غير قابلة للتجزئة، ولهذا السبب تتآكل جميع الأنواع الآن -- مجلة الرأسمالية، 18 أبريل 2020
الهدف من مبدأ عدم القابلية للتجزئة هو تذكيرنا بأن الحريات المختلفة ترتفع أو تنخفض معًا، حتى لو كانت هناك تأخيرات مختلفة، حتى لو بدت بعض الحرية، لبعض الوقت، وكأنها ترتفع مع سقوط أخرى؛ في أي اتجاه تتحرك الحريات، فإنها تميل في النهاية إلى التوافق. يعكس مبدأ أن الحرية غير قابلة للتجزئة حقيقة أن البشر هم تكامل العقل والجسد، والروح والمادة، والوعي والوجود؛ يشير المبدأ إلى أن البشر يجب أن يختاروا ممارسة عقلهم - القوة الفريدة بالنسبة لهم - لفهم الواقع، والعيش بشكل أخلاقي، والازدهار بأفضل ما في وسعهم. يتجسد المبدأ في المبدأ الأكثر شهرة وهو أن لدينا حقوقًا فردية - في الحياة والحرية والملكية والسعي وراء السعادة - وأن الغرض الوحيد والسليم للحكومة هو أن تكون وكيلًا لحقنا في الدفاع عن النفس، وأن نحافظ دستوريًا على حقوقنا ونحميها وندافع عنها، وليس الانتقاص منها أو إبطالها. إذا أراد الناس الحفاظ على الحرية، فيجب عليهم الكفاح من أجل الحفاظ عليها في جميع العوالم، وليس فقط تلك التي يعيشون فيها كثيرًا، أو يفضلونها - ليس في واحدة، أو بعضها، ولكن ليس في أخرى، وليس في واحدة أو بعض على حساب الآخرين.
الحوكمة الثلاثية: دليل لوضع السياسات المناسبة -- معرض الطيران، 14 أبريل 2020
عندما نسمع مصطلح «الحكومة» يفكر معظمنا في السياسة - الدول والأنظمة والعواصم والوكالات والبيروقراطيات والإدارات والسياسيين. ونطلق عليهم اسم «المسؤولين»، على افتراض أنهم يتمتعون بمكانة فريدة ومرموقة وموثوقة. ولكن هذا ليس سوى نوع واحد من الحكم في حياتنا؛ الأنواع الثلاثة هي الحوكمة العامة، والحكم الخاص، والحكم الشخصي. من الأفضل تصور كل منها على أنها مجال للسيطرة، ولكن يجب موازنة الثلاثة بشكل صحيح، لتحسين الحفاظ على الحقوق والحريات. كان الاتجاه المشؤوم في الآونة الأخيرة هو الغزو المستمر لمجالات الحكم الشخصي والخاص من قبل الحكم العام (السياسي).
أشياء مجانية وأشخاص غير أحرار -- معرض الطيران، 30 يونيو 2019
يؤكد السياسيون اليوم بصوت عالٍ وقداسة أن العديد من الأشياء - الغذاء، والإسكان، والرعاية الصحية، والوظائف، ورعاية الأطفال، والبيئة النظيفة الأكثر أمانًا، والنقل، والتعليم، والمرافق، وحتى الكلية - يجب أن تكون «مجانية»، أو مدعومة من القطاع العام. لا أحد يسأل عن سبب صحة هذه الادعاءات. هل يجب قبولها بشكل أعمى بناءً على الإيمان أو تأكيدها بمجرد الحدس (الشعور)؟ لا يبدو علميًا. ألا يجب أن تجتاز جميع المطالبات الحاسمة اختبارات المنطق والأدلة؟ لماذا تدعي الهدية الترويجية أنها «تبدو جيدة» لكثير من الناس؟ في الواقع، إنهم لئيمون، حتى بلا قلب، لأنهم غير ليبراليين، وبالتالي غير إنسانيين في الأساس. في النظام الرأسمالي الحر للحكومة الدستورية، يجب أن تكون هناك عدالة متساوية بموجب القانون، وليس معاملة قانونية تمييزية؛ لا يوجد مبرر لتفضيل مجموعة على أخرى، بما في ذلك المستهلكين على المنتجين (أو العكس). يجب أن يتمتع كل فرد (أو جمعية) بحرية الاختيار والتصرف، دون اللجوء إلى الخداع أو النهب. إن نهج الهدايا المجانية في الحملات السياسية وصنع السياسات يميل بوقاحة إلى التملص، ومن خلال توسيع حجم ونطاق وسلطة الحكومة، يضفي أيضًا الطابع المؤسسي على النهب.
يجب أن نحتفل بالتنوع في الثروة أيضًا -- معرض الطيران، 26 ديسمبر 2018
في معظم مجالات الحياة اليوم، يتم الاحتفال بالتنوع والتنوع واحترامهما بشكل مبرر. فالاختلافات في المواهب الرياضية والفنية، على سبيل المثال، لا تنطوي فقط على مسابقات قوية ومسلية، ولكن أيضًا على المتعصبين («المشجعين») الذين يحترمون الفائزين ويشدقون عليهم ويكافئونهم بشكل رائع («النجوم» و «الأبطال») بينما يحرمون الخاسرين (على الأقل نسبيًا). ومع ذلك، فإن عالم الاقتصاد - الأسواق والتجارة، والأعمال التجارية والتمويل، والدخل والثروة - يثير استجابة شبه معاكسة، على الرغم من أنها ليست، مثل المباريات الرياضية، لعبة محصلتها صفر. في المجال الاقتصادي، نلاحظ أن المواهب والنتائج التفاضلية يتم تعويضها بشكل غير متساوٍ (كما ينبغي أن نتوقع)، ولكن بالنسبة للعديد من الناس، فإن التنوع والتنوع في هذا المجال موضع ازدراء وحسد، مع نتائج يمكن التنبؤ بها: إعادة التوزيع الدائم للدخل والثروة من خلال الضرائب العقابية، والتنظيم الصارم، وخرق الثقة بشكل دوري. هنا يتم الاشتباه في الفائزين أكثر من احترامهم، بينما يتلقى الخاسرون التعاطف والإعانات. ما الذي يفسر هذا الشذوذ الغريب؟ من أجل العدالة والحرية والازدهار، يجب على الناس التخلي عن تحيزاتهم المناهضة للتجارة والتوقف عن السخرية من الثروة والدخل غير المتكافئ. يجب عليهم الاحتفال بالتنوع واحترامه في المجال الاقتصادي على الأقل بقدر ما يفعلون في المجالات الرياضية والفنية. تأتي المواهب البشرية في مجموعة متنوعة من الأشكال الرائعة. دعونا لا ننكر أو نسخر من أي منهم.
لردع المذابح بالأسلحة النارية، يجب على الحكومة الفيدرالية التوقف عن نزع سلاح الأبرياء -- فوربز، 12 أغسطس 2012
يريد المدافعون عن السيطرة على الأسلحة إلقاء اللوم على عمليات إطلاق النار الجماعية على «عدد كبير جدًا من البنادق»، لكن المشكلة الحقيقية هي عدد قليل جدًا من البنادق وقلة حرية استخدام السلاح. إن القيود المفروضة على حق التعديل الثاني لدستورنا في حمل السلاح تدعو إلى الذبح والفوضى. أقنع مراقبو الأسلحة السياسيين ومسؤولي إنفاذ القانون بأن المناطق العامة معرضة بشكل خاص للعنف المسلح وضغطوا من أجل فرض حظر شديد وقيود على استخدام السلاح في مثل هذه المناطق («المناطق الخالية من الأسلحة»). لكنهم شركاء لمثل هذه الجرائم، من خلال تشجيع الحكومة على حظر أو تقييد حقنا المدني الأساسي في الدفاع عن النفس؛ لقد دفعوا المجانين الضالين إلى ذبح الناس علنًا دون عقاب. الدفاع عن النفس حق أساسي؛ يتطلب حمل السلاح والاستخدام الكامل ليس فقط في منازلنا وممتلكاتنا ولكن أيضًا (وخاصة) في الأماكن العامة. كم مرة يقوم رجال الشرطة الذين يحملون السلاح بالفعل بمنع أو إيقاف جرائم العنف؟ تقريبًا أبدًا. إنهم ليسوا «مانعين للجريمة» ولكنهم مدونو ملاحظات يصلون إلى مكان الحادث. قفزت مبيعات الأسلحة في الشهر الماضي، بعد مذبحة السينما، لكن هذا لا يعني أنه يمكن استخدام تلك الأسلحة في دور السينما - أو في العديد من الأماكن العامة الأخرى. الحظر القانوني هو المشكلة الحقيقية - ويجب إنهاء الظلم على الفور. الأدلة دامغة الآن: لم يعد بإمكان أي شخص أن يدعي، بصراحة، أن مراقبي السلاح «سلميون» أو «محبون للسلام» أو «ذوو نوايا حسنة»، إذا كانوا أعداء معلنين لحق مدني رئيسي ومحرضين شنيعين على الشر.
الحمائية باعتبارها ماسوشية متبادلة -- المعيار الرأسمالي، 24 يوليو 2018
الحجة المنطقية والأخلاقية للتجارة الحرة، سواء كانت بين الأفراد أو دولية أو داخلية، هي أنها مفيدة للطرفين. ما لم يعارض المرء الربح في حد ذاته أو يفترض أن التبادل هو لعبة رابحة (لعبة «محصلتها صفر»)، ينبغي للمرء أن يبشر بالتجارة. بصرف النظر عن الإيثاريين الذين يضحون بأنفسهم، لا أحد يتاجر طواعية إلا إذا كان ذلك مفيدًا لنفسه. يتعهد السيد ترامب بـ «جعل أمريكا عظيمة مرة أخرى»، وهو شعور نبيل، لكن الحمائية تضر فقط بدلاً من أن تساعد في القيام بهذه المهمة. يتم استيراد ما يقرب من نصف قطع غيار شاحنات فورد الأكثر مبيعًا الآن؛ إذا كان ترامب قادرًا على التعامل بطريقته، فلن نتمكن حتى من صنع شاحنات فورد، ناهيك عن جعل أمريكا عظيمة مرة أخرى. إن «شراء أمريكا»، كما يطالب القوميون والوطنيون، يعني تجنب المنتجات المفيدة اليوم مع التقليل من فوائد عولمة التجارة بالأمس والخوف من الغد. وكما أن أمريكا في أفضل حالاتها هي «بوتقة» من الخلفيات الشخصية والهويات والأصول، فإن المنتجات في أفضل حالاتها تجسد بوتقة تنصهر فيها العمالة والموارد من مصادر عالمية. يدعي السيد ترامب أنه مؤيد لأمريكا ولكنه متشائم بشكل غير واقعي بشأن قوتها الإنتاجية وقدرتها التنافسية. بالنظر إلى فوائد التجارة الحرة، فإن أفضل سياسة يمكن لأي حكومة اعتمادها هي التجارة الحرة أحادية الجانب (مع الحكومات الأخرى غير المعادية)، مما يعني: التجارة الحرة بغض النظر عما إذا كانت الحكومات الأخرى تتبنى أيضًا تجارة أكثر حرية.
أفضل حالة للرأسمالية -- المعيار الرأسمالي، 10 أكتوبر 2017
يصادف اليوم الذكرى الستين لنشر أطلس شروغد (1957) بقلم آين راند (1905-1982)، الروائي والفيلسوف الأكثر مبيعًا والذي أشاد بالعقل والمصلحة الذاتية العقلانية والفردية والرأسمالية والأمريكية. يستمر بيع عدد قليل من الكتب القديمة أيضًا، حتى في غلاف مقوى، وقد أشاد العديد من المستثمرين والرؤساء التنفيذيين منذ فترة طويلة بموضوعها وبصيرتها. في دراسة استقصائية أجريت في التسعينيات لمكتبة الكونغرس ونادي كتاب الشهر، ذكر المستجيبون أطلس شروغد في المرتبة الثانية بعد الكتاب المقدس باعتباره الكتاب الذي أحدث فرقًا كبيرًا في حياتهم. من المفهوم أن الاشتراكيين يرفضون راند لأنها ترفض ادعائهم بأن الرأسمالية استغلالية أو عرضة للانهيار؛ لكن المحافظين حذرون منها لأنها تنفي أن الرأسمالية تعتمد على الدين. تتمثل مساهمتها الرئيسية في إظهار أن الرأسمالية ليست فقط النظام المنتج اقتصاديًا ولكن أيضًا النظام العادل أخلاقيًا. إنه يكافئ الأشخاص الذين يتمتعون بالأمانة والنزاهة والاستقلال والإنتاجية؛ لكنه يهمش أولئك الذين يختارون بدلاً من ذلك أن يكونوا أقل من البشر، ويعاقب الأشرار واللاإنسانيين. سواء كان المرء مؤيدًا للرأسمالية أو مؤيدًا للاشتراكية أو غير مبال بين الاثنين، فإن هذا الكتاب يستحق القراءة - وكذلك أعمالها الأخرى، بما في ذلك ذا فاونتينهيد (1943)، فضيلة الأنانية: مفهوم جديد للأنانية (1964) و الرأسمالية: المثالية المجهولة (1966).
ترامب والحزب الجمهوري يتغاضون عن طب الاحتكار -- المعيار الرأسمالي، 20 يوليو 2017
الحزب الجمهوري والرئيس ترامب، بعد أن خالفوا بوقاحة وعود حملتهم الانتخابية برفضهم «إلغاء واستبدال» أوباماكير، يزعمون الآن أنهم سيلغونها ويرون ما سيحدث. لا تعتمد على ذلك. في الأساس، لا يمانعون حقًا في ObaCare ونظام «الدافع الفردي» (احتكار الطب الحكومي) الذي يؤدي إليه. على الرغم من أنها بغيضة، إلا أنهم يقبلونها فلسفيًا، لذا فهم يقبلونها سياسيًا أيضًا. يتغاضى ترامب ومعظم الجمهوريين عن المبادئ الاشتراكية الكامنة في ObaCare. ربما يدركون حتى أنه سيستمر في تآكل الجوانب الأفضل للنظام ويؤدي إلى «نظام دافع واحد» (احتكار الحكومة للطب) - وهو ما قال أوباما [وترامب] دائمًا إنهما يريدانه. ولا يبدو أن معظم الناخبين الأمريكيين اليوم يعارضون هذا الاحتكار. قد يعترضون على ذلك بعد عقود من الآن، عندما يدركون أن الوصول إلى التأمين الصحي لا يضمن الوصول إلى الرعاية الصحية (لا سيما في ظل الطب الاجتماعي، الذي يقلل من الجودة والقدرة على تحمل التكاليف والوصول). ولكن بحلول ذلك الوقت سيكون قد فات لإعادة تأهيل تلك العناصر الأكثر حرية التي جعلت الطب الأمريكي رائعًا جدًا في المقام الأول.
مناقشة عدم المساواة: لا معنى لها دون النظر إلى ما يتم كسبه -- فوربز، 1 فبراير 2012
بدلاً من مناقشة الأسئلة الضخمة حقًا في أوقاتنا المضطربة - أي، ما هو الحجم والنطاق المناسبين للحكومة؟ (الإجابة: أصغر)، وهل يجب أن يكون لدينا المزيد من الرأسمالية أو المزيد من الشركات؟ (الإجابة: الرأسمالية) - بدلاً من ذلك، تناقش وسائل الإعلام السياسية الشرور المزعومة لـ «عدم المساواة». لقد انتشر حسدهم المخزي مؤخرًا، لكن التركيز على عدم المساواة مناسب للمحافظين واليساريين على حد سواء. يقبل السيد أوباما نظرية «الإنصاف» الخاطئة التي ترفض مفهوم العدالة المنطقي القائم على الجدارة الذي قد يعترف به الأمريكيون الأكبر سنًا على أنها «صحراء»، حيث تعني العدالة أننا نستحق (أو نكسب) ما نحصل عليه في الحياة، إذا كان ذلك باختيارنا الحر. ومن الناحية الشرعية، هناك «العدالة التوزيعية»، مع المكافآت مقابل السلوك الجيد أو المنتج، و «العدالة الجزائية»، مع فرض عقوبات على السلوك الشرير أو المدمر.
الرأسمالية ليست شركة أو محسوبية -- فوربز، 7 ديسمبر 2011
الرأسمالية هي أعظم نظام اجتماعي اقتصادي في تاريخ البشرية، لأنها أخلاقية للغاية ومثمرة للغاية - السمتان أساسيتان جدًا لبقاء الإنسان وازدهاره. إنها أخلاقية لأنها تكرس وتعزز العقلانية والمصلحة الذاتية - «الجشع المستنير»، إذا صح التعبير - الفضيلتين الرئيسيتين التي يجب علينا جميعًا اعتمادها وممارستها بوعي إذا أردنا السعي لتحقيق الحياة والحب والصحة والثروة والمغامرة والإلهام. فهي لا تنتج الوفرة المادية والاقتصادية فحسب، بل القيم الجمالية التي نراها في الفنون والترفيه. لكن ما هي الرأسمالية بالضبط؟ كيف نعرف ذلك عندما نراه أو نمتلكه - أو عندما لا نراه أو لا نراه؟ عرفها البطل الفكري الأكبر للرأسمالية، آين راند (1905-1982)، ذات مرة على أنها «نظام اجتماعي قائم على الاعتراف بالحقوق الفردية، بما في ذلك حقوق الملكية، حيث تكون جميع الممتلكات مملوكة للقطاع الخاص». هذا الاعتراف بالحقوق الحقيقية (وليس «الحقوق» لإجبار الآخرين على الحصول على ما نتمناه) أمر بالغ الأهمية وله أساس أخلاقي مميز. في الواقع، الرأسمالية هي نظام الحقوق والحرية والكياسة والسلام والازدهار غير التضحية. إنه ليس نظام الحكم الذي يفضل الرأسماليين ظلما على حساب الآخرين. إنه يوفر مجالًا قانونيًا متكافئًا بالإضافة إلى المسؤولين الذين يخدموننا كحكام غير بارزين (وليسوا صانعي قواعد تعسفيين أو مغيرين للنقاط). من المؤكد أن الرأسمالية تنطوي أيضًا على عدم المساواة - في الطموح أو الموهبة أو الدخل أو الثروة - لأن هذا هو حال الأفراد (والشركات) حقًا؛ فهم فريدون وليسوا مستنسخين أو أجزاء قابلة للتغيير، كما يدعي أنصار المساواة.
الكتاب المقدس ودولة الرفاهية -- فوربز، 28 أبريل 2011
يتساءل الكثير من الناس لماذا تبدو واشنطن غارقة إلى الأبد في مأزق بشأن السياسات التي قد تعالج الإنفاق المفرط وعجز الميزانية والديون. يُقال لنا أن جذر المشكلة هو «السياسة المستقطبة»، وأن «المتطرفين» يتحكمون في النقاش ويستبعدون الحلول التي لا يمكن إلا لوحدة الحزبين تقديمها. في الواقع، يتفق «الجانبان» تمامًا في العديد من القضايا - على أساس متين من الإيمان الديني المشترك. باختصار، لا يتغير الكثير لأن كلا الجانبين يتفقان على الكثير، خاصة حول ما يعنيه «فعل الشيء الصحيح» من الناحية الأخلاقية. لم يتم الإبلاغ عنها على نطاق واسع، لكن معظم الديمقراطيين والجمهوريين، سواء من اليسار أو اليمين سياسيًا، متدينون تمامًا، وبالتالي يميلون إلى تأييد دولة الرفاهية الحديثة. حتى لو لم يكن كل السياسيين يشعرون بهذه القوة حيال ذلك، فإنهم يشكون (عن حق) في أن الناخبين يفعلون ذلك. وبالتالي، حتى المقترحات البسيطة لتقييد الإنفاق الحكومي تثير الاتهامات بأن المؤيد قاسي، وبلا قلب، وغير خيري، وغير مسيحي - وهذه الاتهامات تنطبق على معظم الناس لأن الكتاب المقدس قد شجعهم منذ فترة طويلة على تبني دولة الرفاهية.
أين ذهب كل الرأسماليين؟ -- فوربز، 5 ديسمبر 2010
بعد سقوط جدار برلين (1989) وتفكك الاتحاد السوفيتي (1991)، اعترف الجميع تقريبًا بأن الرأسمالية كانت «المنتصر» التاريخي على الاشتراكية. ومع ذلك، عادت السياسات التدخلية التي تعكس المقدمات الاشتراكية إلى حد كبير مع الانتقام في السنوات الأخيرة، في حين تم إلقاء اللوم على الرأسمالية في التسبب في الأزمة المالية 2007-2009 والركود الاقتصادي العالمي. ما الذي يفسر هذا التحول المفاجئ على ما يبدو في تقدير العالم للرأسمالية؟ وعلى أية حال، فإن النظام الاقتصادي غير السياسي، سواء كان رأسماليًا أو اشتراكيًا، هو ظاهرة واسعة ومستمرة لا يمكن تفسيرها منطقيًا على أنها مفيدة لعقد واحد ولكنها مدمرة للعقد التالي. إذن أين ذهب كل الرأسماليين؟ ومن الغريب أن «الاشتراكي» اليوم يعني المدافع عن النظام السياسي والاقتصادي للاشتراكية كمثال أخلاقي، في حين أن «الرأسمالي» يعني الممول في وول ستريت أو صاحب رأس المال المغامر أو رجل الأعمال - وليس المدافع عن النظام السياسي والاقتصادي للرأسمالية باعتباره نموذجًا أخلاقيًا. في الحقيقة، تجسد الرأسمالية أخلاقيات تعزيز الحياة وخلق الثروة المتمثلة في المصلحة الذاتية العقلانية - الأنانية، و «الجشع»، إذا صح التعبير - والتي ربما تتجلى بشكل صارخ في دافع الربح. وما دامت هذه الأخلاق الإنسانية غير موثوقة أو محتقرة، فإن الرأسمالية ستعاني من لوم لا مبرر له عن أي مرض اجتماعي واقتصادي. لم يكن انهيار الأنظمة الاشتراكية قبل عقدين من الزمن يعني الترحيب بالرأسمالية أخيرًا بسبب فضائلها العديدة. لم يكن الحدث التاريخي سوى تذكير الناس بالقدرة الإنتاجية للرأسمالية - وهي قدرة أثبتت بالفعل منذ فترة طويلة وتم الاعتراف بها منذ فترة طويلة حتى من قبل أسوأ أعدائها. إن العداء المستمر للرأسمالية اليوم يرتكز على أسس أخلاقية وليست عملية. وما لم تُفهم المصلحة الذاتية العقلانية على أنها القانون الأخلاقي الوحيد المتسق مع الإنسانية الحقيقية، وبالتالي يتحسن التقدير الأخلاقي للرأسمالية، فإن الاشتراكية ستستمر في العودة، على الرغم من سجلها العميق والمظلم من البؤس البشري.