Conclusionof Trilogy
RueThatRousseau
We startedthis trilogywitha discussionof howpoliticallibertycannotbe justifiedin
the absenceof a rationalepistemology.Uponjustifyingthatrationalepistemology,we
appliedit throughoutour explorationof the ramificationsof freeindustryandits foil,
governism.Giventhatwe haveestablishedthattrueagreementwiththis book’s political
conclusionscan proceedfromno sourceotherthanagreementwithits epistemology,we
havecomefull circle.Withour journeynearingits end,it is timefor us to reflect.
No morethana tinyminorityof entrepreneurswouldfeel motivatedto performtheir
sociallybeneficentactivitiesweretherea completeabsenceof securityfor theirprivate
property.Acknowledgementof sucha fact castsno negativelighton businesspeople—it
is to theircredit,morally,thattheypeaceablypursuetheirownself-interest.Andby this
stagein our journeyI hopeI haveexposedthe reasonswhyit is erroneousfor Jean-
JacquesRousseauand otheradvocatesof socialcollectivismto denouncethe veryinstitu-
tionof privatepropertyas base.RecallfromBookOne’s openingchapterthatRousseau
depictedlife for cavemenas happy,for theywereunderanarchyand had no inequality.
Contraryto Rousseau,though,menwereneveractuallysubjectedto long-termanarchy,
andlife priorto the IndustrialRevolutionwasfleetingandmiserable.Moreover,social
hierarchydid and doesexistamonghunter-gatherers.
Rousseau’sDiscourseon Inequalityruedthe occasionon whichhistory’s earliestcapital-
ist “encloseda pieceof ground,bethoughthimselfof sayingThisis mine, andfound
peoplesimpleenoughto believehim.. .” Thisallegedly“boundnewfetterson the poor,
and gavenewpowersto the rich.” It “eternallyfixed” economic“inequality... and,for
the advantageof a few ambitiousindividuals,subjectedall mankindto perpetuallabour,
slavery,andwretchedness.”^1 The Huguenotphilosopher’s statementscontaina falseas-
sumption.It is that whensomeindividualsbeganto claimprivateownershipoverspecif-
ic parcelsof land,theyhadimpoverishedothermen,as thoseothermenno longerheld
the samelevelof accessto thatsamelandas theydid earlier.As witheveryMalthusian,
Rousseaubegsthe questionthat wealthis a zero-sumgame,whereinone personhavinga
higherstandardof livinginexorablydepriveseveryoneelse of thatsamehighqualityof
life. I guessit is appropriateenoughthat Rousseauwouldmaintainthat fallacy.Rousseau
wasfriendswithMalthus’s father,^2 and heldinfluenceoverMalthuswhenhe wasstill a
boy.To reviewthe pointof BookTwo,capitalismis no suchzero-sumgame.Remember
thatwealthis not fixedaccordingto a supposedlystaticquantityof naturalresources
availableon earth.Recallthatcapitalismitselfmitigatesresourcedepletion.In a free
market,a peacefulentrepreneurincreaseshis profitsby extractinggreatervaluefor con-
sumersout of ever-smallerand ever-fewerinputsof naturalresources,humanlabor,and
manmadeequipment.Andthatmanmadeequipmentwasitselfthe productof prior
mixturesof naturalresourcesand humanlaborand entrepreneurship.
Considerhownaturalresourceshavebeenincreasinglyconservedby improvements
in the thermalenergyefficiencyof engines,and of howthe profitmotivehas successfully
encouragedentrepreneursto implementsuchimprovements.AfterThomasNewcomen
andThomasSaveryinventedtheirsteamenginein the early1700s,the issueof thermal
331