A curious title, to be sure. But there is a rationale for it. Often a lengthy public discussion on the social media that I have been involved in makes for a good article on this site. The ideas shared elsewhere might get a larger audience when posted on my own website. This is another case in point.
And in this case it began with a particular topic (the role of the state versus the private sector in getting good outcomes) and it morphed into a much bigger discussion about how far Christians can expect to see real change – for the better – in the political process.
Such to and fro discussions can be helpful. They can help clarify our thoughts and make more clear just where we stand on certain issues. So these recent discussions/debates that I had with a few others might be worth sharing here.
Recently I had posted a meme featuring some words by the President of Argentina Javier Milei: “Everything that we can privatize we are going to privatize. We do not believe in the entrepreneurial state. In reality, the state can do nothing well.” When I shared that I affixed these words: “Basically right”
Well, as so often happens, that led to some animated discussions taking place. Some folks agreed with the message of Milei, but some others were not so happy with it. One friend for example sent in this comment: “Wrong. Javier is a Utopian Capitalist. He seems to have no comprehension of SIN. Free markets ultimately become corrupted by sin & therefore greed. The fairest economies are mixed. We elect governments to GOVERN: that is *regulate* economies and thus restrain sinful human exploitation of one tranche of society by another.”
To which I made this response:
I am not here going to pen an economic treatise on what I meant by sharing this meme, and even less on what Milei in fact meant. But 4 brief remarks if I may:
One, my words “Basically right” indicated that I of course would need to expand on all this a fair bit to accurately convey where I am coming from. And briefly stated, it is this: for the most part no other system has so helped the masses get out of poverty and raise the standard of living for millions than the free market system. That does NOT mean there is no role for the government. But I have argued all that at length elsewhere, and I am not going to repeat it all here in tiny comment boxes!
Two, I have written many pieces also stating that capitalism ALONE is not sufficient, but needs a moral and spiritual foundation to make it work the best. See just one piece for example: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/04/06/markets-and-morality/
Three, on the whole, if I had to entrust some important work to either the state or to private enterprise, I normally would choose the latter. The historical record of course bears out why such a choice is the sensible choice. But again, usually there is some mixture at play here between the two.
Four, of course I am not going to defend everything Milei has ever said, nor who he is. For what it is worth, he calls himself an “anarcho-capitalist” and says he goes to synagogue to study the Torah. So as with so many other influential leaders, I am praying for him to come to know Christ. Something hopefully others here should be doing!
Other folks can be mentioned. Another friend began by discussing the economic questions, but then the conversation mushroomed into a much larger discussion about politics, Christianity, and how we should proceed. Here is how that more lengthy debate unfolded:
Him: I don’t agree, look at what has happened to our power prices.
Me: You may not understand how our energy prices actually work. They are NOT just the result of private companies wanting to make a profit, but of all sorts of government policies and regulations (including what energy sources they allow, what dumb agendas like net zero they are promoting, etc) that radically impact on the prices us consumers are forced to pay.
Him: Yes I understand that, but before all of this nonsense started, remember when the State Governments owned and operated their own power generation system. We had some of the cheapest power in the World.
Me: State and federal governments STILL effectively own energy, and are making things worse – see for starters just some of the hundreds of important and detailed articles on these matters at this site: https://www.regulationeconomics.com/
Me: Not to belabour all this, but a final point: Dutton is far from where he should be on these things – he should say NO to net zero, the expensive and counterproductive renewables, to the climate change scam, and so on. But even still, a Dutton government should mean lower energy prices than an Albo government. We are seeing the exact same thing in the US with Trump bringing down costs. That tells us just how much the state (for good or ill) is involved in the determination of energy costs.
Him: Yes but you missed my basic point.
Him: Dutton is not up to the task. How would a LNP Government reduce our energy costs?
Me: You miss mine sadly, and I already said that if Dutton just did those 3 things for starters, that would make a huge difference. Whether or not he is up to it is another matter of course. But bringing in nuclear, getting rid of burdensome regulations, and a zillion other things CAN be done. They will NOT be done by Albo however – that much we know.
Him: Dutton has already ready said he will not withdraw from the Paris Agreement or Net Zero, plus he has stated that 53% of our power will come from Renewable Energy.
Me: I already said he is not where he should be on this, but given we sadly have only two main options here, we either keep working on Dutton to move him further away from this madness, or we are stuck with Albo. I know which I prefer.
Him: How do you propose to influence Dutton?
Me. Things like prayer of course would be a first obvious step, as well as sharing truth about such matters far and wide, including to Dutton and his team.
He then asked about how things have gotten so bad.
Me: I do not have time to write a book on this now! But a few things should be rather obvious. As I say, because I am a Christian, the most obvious reason is sin and Satan running amok, as we kick God out of our lives and our nation – and as a conservative the most obvious reason is leftist loon leaders implementing destructive and useless policies on us as they run with their socialist agendas. I would have thought most of my fb friends here would more or less agree!
Him: Yes and until we get back to our Judeo Christian Foundations, this Nation is going nowhere.
Me: Yep.
Him: I will no longer comment, because no matter who you elect nothing is going to change.
Me: Because only God is omniscient, I will never say that change is impossible. All things are possible with God, and if his people pray and seek his face, then things CAN change. So I at least will keep praying, and not pretend I am God!
Him: True, I am not saying that things can’t change, but there needs to be a revival in the people. Satan is firmly in control of this nation. Personally I no longer care. I think that the Nation needs to be brought to its knees. The Lord will take care of His People.
Me: Yes the people need revival – no question about it. But I also care about the nation, so I will seek to work for both: praying for revival while seeking to get governments elected that are at least somewhat better than others. I am not a defeatist in other words, and unless and until God somehow tells me it is all curtains for Australia, I will keep seeking revival and I will keep seeking to be salt and light in a needy nation as I am commanded to be!
Me: But sure, I can easily get discouraged by the state of the nation as well – all the more reason to pray more and work harder!
Him: It’s all coming to an end one day.
Me: Of course it is – but that does not mean I stop working, eating, praying and a zillion other things. Christ may or may not return in my lifetime, so I must ‘occupy till he comes’.
Him: Have you ever heard of Johnathan Cahn
Me: Yep
And that was the end of our chat. I was wondering what he was going to say about Cahn. But of interest, at the time I was penning a piece on Cahn and his recent book, The Return of the Gods. Perhaps my friend was going to run along those lines, arguing that things are looking too grim, with all the demonic activity going on, etc. Whatever his thoughts about Cahn, my article was posted, so you can look at my thoughts about it here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2025/04/04/not-just-flesh-and-blood/
In sum, much more can be said about things like energy policy in particular, and the larger discussion of who gets things done better, more efficiently and less expensively – the state or private enterprise. And the bigger discussion about whether it is even worth trying to make Australia or the world a better place is also something that much more can be said about.
And as indicated, I have written quite a lot about all these matters, so those wanting to read further on these topics will find plenty to choose from on my website. But thanks to my two interlocutors for helping to bring about this discussion.
Capitalism Is Not Inherently Immoral, Contrary to Prof. Eric Foner.
Gary North – December 20, 2012
Capitalism follows Smith’s lead: to be successful, a producer must serve the customer. You must appeal to his self-interest. This is surely moral. It is anti-coercive. It does not rely on a badge and a gun to extract wealth from someone else.
Winthrop’s morality was theocentric. Smith’s was anthropocentric, though only in Wealth of Nations, not in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). This methodological schizophrenia was inherent in Smith’s thought. It was never reconciled in his mind or his writings.
Socialism: Illegitimate, Not Just Inefficient Gary North – June 07, 2018
THIS BREAD IS MINE
Robert Lefevre, a contemporary of and fellow anarchist with Harper, wrote a book, This Bread Is Mine. It was not a defense of capitalism’s lower cost of bread or the higher quality of its bread. It was a defense of his right to own the bread that he had produced.
It is here that the socialist begins the fight. He rejects the owner’s exclusive claim, meaning his right to exclude everyone else from this bread. Society has a moral claim on this bread, the socialist claims.
Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism
Mises Daily: Saturday, December 02, 2006 by Ludwig von Mises
[This address was delivered before the University Club of New York, April 18, 1950. First printed by Commercial and Financial Chronicle, May 4, 1950; now available in Planning for Freedom.]
The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery, oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it enriches a class of idle and useless parasites.
This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the German professors and the American Institutionalists. And it is a very significant fact that the correctness of this dogma was contested only by a few economists who were very soon silenced and barred from access to the universities, the press, the leadership of political parties and, first of all, public office. Public opinion by and large accepted the condemnation of capitalism without any reservation.
“Middle-of-the-road policy is not an economic system that can last. It is a method for the realization of socialism by installments.”
I certainly agree that small, unobtrusive government is called for and we clearly currently have a bloated third arm of government clearly designed to further Marxist ideas as can clearly be seen by how the ACT votes and how our government media acts.
On electricity, however, it is very clear that both major parties have acted wrongly. In NSW the selling of the “poles and wires” was a stupendous con job instigated by the powerful, non-conservative faction of the Liberal Party which has no interest in being moral.
People who build houses and paid their taxes already paid for this infrastructure and so to have them onsold to private interests, who did nothing to create them and then have people charged repeatedly for what they have already paid for, is clearly corruption in action and is more typical of what Labor often does with their crony deals.
This is NOT what I call free enterprise where entrepreneurs actually create something that buyers want.
Slightly off topic but I would be interested, Bill, in your opinion of Martyn Iles piece on our reliance on U.S defence:-
To me it seems spot on and in line with my views on the “head and not the tail” scripture in Deut 28. People criticise the U.S and its Christian, free-enterpise ideology forgetting that the only reason we and many other nations have freedom is because of the U.S and by my reckoning, because of this better attitude.
Yes Michael, I do agree with what Martyn has said there.
Capitalism Is Not Inherently Immoral, Contrary to Prof. Eric Foner.
Gary North – December 20, 2012
Capitalism follows Smith’s lead: to be successful, a producer must serve the customer. You must appeal to his self-interest. This is surely moral. It is anti-coercive. It does not rely on a badge and a gun to extract wealth from someone else.
Winthrop’s morality was theocentric. Smith’s was anthropocentric, though only in Wealth of Nations, not in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). This methodological schizophrenia was inherent in Smith’s thought. It was never reconciled in his mind or his writings.
https://www.garynorth.com/public/10456.cfm
Socialism: Illegitimate, Not Just Inefficient Gary North – June 07, 2018
THIS BREAD IS MINE
Robert Lefevre, a contemporary of and fellow anarchist with Harper, wrote a book, This Bread Is Mine. It was not a defense of capitalism’s lower cost of bread or the higher quality of its bread. It was a defense of his right to own the bread that he had produced.
It is here that the socialist begins the fight. He rejects the owner’s exclusive claim, meaning his right to exclude everyone else from this bread. Society has a moral claim on this bread, the socialist claims.
https://www.garynorth.com/public/18167.cfm
Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism
Mises Daily: Saturday, December 02, 2006 by Ludwig von Mises
[This address was delivered before the University Club of New York, April 18, 1950. First printed by Commercial and Financial Chronicle, May 4, 1950; now available in Planning for Freedom.]
The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery, oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it enriches a class of idle and useless parasites.
This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the German professors and the American Institutionalists. And it is a very significant fact that the correctness of this dogma was contested only by a few economists who were very soon silenced and barred from access to the universities, the press, the leadership of political parties and, first of all, public office. Public opinion by and large accepted the condemnation of capitalism without any reservation.
“Middle-of-the-road policy is not an economic system that can last. It is a method for the realization of socialism by installments.”
https://mises.org/library/book/middle-road-leads-socialism
I certainly agree that small, unobtrusive government is called for and we clearly currently have a bloated third arm of government clearly designed to further Marxist ideas as can clearly be seen by how the ACT votes and how our government media acts.
On electricity, however, it is very clear that both major parties have acted wrongly. In NSW the selling of the “poles and wires” was a stupendous con job instigated by the powerful, non-conservative faction of the Liberal Party which has no interest in being moral.
People who build houses and paid their taxes already paid for this infrastructure and so to have them onsold to private interests, who did nothing to create them and then have people charged repeatedly for what they have already paid for, is clearly corruption in action and is more typical of what Labor often does with their crony deals.
This is NOT what I call free enterprise where entrepreneurs actually create something that buyers want.
Slightly off topic but I would be interested, Bill, in your opinion of Martyn Iles piece on our reliance on U.S defence:-
https://caldronpool.com/the-usa-vs-the-west-a-must-read-viral-post-by-martyn-iles/
To me it seems spot on and in line with my views on the “head and not the tail” scripture in Deut 28. People criticise the U.S and its Christian, free-enterpise ideology forgetting that the only reason we and many other nations have freedom is because of the U.S and by my reckoning, because of this better attitude.
Yes Michael, I do agree with what Martyn has said there.