Matthew Hennessy, editor of the Wall Street Journal, correctly criticized Vice President JD Vance’s statement, saying that the market is merely a “tool, but not the purpose of American politics.” (“JD Vance is wrong. The market is not a ‘tool’,” Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2025). Hennessy argues that the market is simply a way for humans to trade and exchange naturally without forcedness.
I will give you this, you will give it to me. Simple exchanges create the market. It’s not faith, it’s mantra, it’s not bricks or mortar. Markets are wherever people come together and trade. …
The market is leveraging supply and demand to coordinate economic transactions between people and businesses. They promote a free exchange of goodness and services. They are mechanisms of shared prosperity based on freedom from coercion.
As this is the case, we miss the economically inspired philosophical arguments that provide a significant justification of the market, at least explicitly. When the market trades on an abstract trajectory, individuals aim to satisfy their preferences. I pursued his own purpose, goal, or purpose, even when he insisted that he was not. This is something subjectively considered by any individual and possessive charity, solidarity, or community pure. He does not pursue “the purpose of American politics” except perhaps he is infected with a naive democracy or cited Adam Smith to cite one of these “insididos and crafty animals.”[s]staying a vulgar politician or politician, his council is directed by a change in attitude” (The State of Wealth, Chapter 2, Chapter 2).
Modern classical libertarianism, even in its tame form, is more radical than Mr. Hennessy’s defense suggests. Let me give you two main examples.
Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel laureate in economics in 1973, argued that in a free society, individuals can freely pursue their own purposes, and the state (the “government”) does not impose collective purposes. The self-training order in a free society does not have a collective purpose. Except for collecting necessary taxes, states can only impose general and abstract rules in normal times that prohibit the use of certain means of defeating the interests derived from free society. For example, a state may ban murder and theft in accordance with the rule of law, but may not enforce individuals in certain occupations (though at least in peacetime, you would say Hayek opens to Pandora Box). “Public Goods” can only exist in rules that promote the pursuit of individual purposes by all individuals.
(The idea is defended in Hayek’s Law, Law, and Freedom, three volumes reviewed in Econlib: Rules and Order, Mirage of Social Justice, and the Political Order of the Free People.)
But is it positive to establish an impossible-free society as the collective purpose of this target company being forced on individuals? The intellectual company of James Buchanan, the 1986 Nobel Prize in Economics, answered the question. I have found the legitimacy of rationing beyond Hayek’s reliance on traditional rules that evolved in western society. The subtlety of his (and his co-authors) social contract solutions cannot be overstated. I argued that the individual rations I argued were not appointed to serve a collective purpose that could exploit him in opposition to him. I have only accepted that I have accepted a set of rules that incorporate unanimous selection by all individuals, and therefore I give him a veto. The state is the organization responsible for implementing a set of rules that benefit each and individuals at the event. The state is constitutionally constrained to obsess over strict restrictions, so it is not a scholar to a scholar as a tool for the exploitation of subjects.
(The three inventive books developing these ideas are James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, Calculus of Consent, Jeffrey Brennan and James Buchanan, Reasons of Rules, and James Buchanan, Limits of Freedom – the most accessible in the most technical order. The link is for my review.)
Classical liberal radicalism is far from the economic illiteracy of insidious and crafty animals running governments on the right or left, and their supportive mob.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Our collective goal is the opposite
