The Post-Modern Rejection of the Free Market and Why the Grass Certainly Isn’t Greener

Better the devil you know than the devil that's trying to subjugate you and poke you in the eye...

The concepts of meritocracy and the ‘free market’ came to prominence as solutions to the poverty, inequality, and social immobility of the feudal system that had dominated Europe prior to the advent of capitalism. Today, post-modernists reject these ideas in favor of government interventionism, where equity of outcome is the only priority. The top-down control necessary for such a system, however, is beginning to give rise to the very flaws which initially pushed the West out of feudalism and into the capitalist structure which persists today.

A Brief History of Capitalism

Despite its association with American industry and innovation, the modern concept of free market capitalism originated in the industrial north of England in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. In 1776, Scottish economist Adam Smith explained and championed the free market concept with his book The Wealth of Nations, which explains how the core capitalist principles of private ownership, market competition, and profit-seeking behavior maximize the wealth and productivity of nations that embrace them[1]. In the 19^th century, the Manchester School applied these concepts to government policy, attracting widespread support for its argument that an unadulterated free market, without government price manipulation, naturally produces an equilibrium of supply and demand, making essential products available to all[2]. As applied to social mobility, the free-market philosophy states that individual success is determined by meritocracy—that consumer choices will produce an objective evaluation of merit, which in turn will warrant equivalent financial success. As Smith anticipated, implementation of this system in Britain led to a sharp increase in both real wages[3] and life expectancy[4] of the British population over the next hundred years.

Particularly in the 20^th century, Western capitalism withstood competition from opposing philosophies socialism and communism, which both advocate for a large degree of government intervention and active market control, though they significantly differ on the level of control exerted. Communist governments employ total market control, regulating wages, setting price ceilings, and controlling imports/exports, all of which are facilitated by government ownership of land, natural resources, industry, banks, transportation, and communication. Socialist governments on the other hand, do not necessarily control all property and means of production, but are still responsible for setting prices, directing the progression of industry, and controlling allocation of resources. For purposes of this article, the essence of these two philosophies is the assumption that any status quo produced by a capitalistic free market[5] is inferior to the result adjudged as ‘optimal’ by the government or other ruling class.   

Post-Modernism and Government Interventionism

The broad socialist/communist concept of the government as market intervenor/controller has been favored, if not fully embraced, by the post-modernism movement of the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries[6]. Post-modernists argue essentially that no objective reality or truth exists, and that scientific logic and reason produce only a subjective analysis of reality—one among an infinite number of perspectives. This rejection of rational value-attribution underlies the post-modernist belief that capitalism is a cause, rather than an alleviator, of existent social injustice. Post-modernists believe the market, left to its own devices, will inevitably produce injustice for at least some portion of society, which can only be eradicated by actively manipulating the market to achieve a more desirable result. This concept is known as interventionism. A ‘capital levy’, or a one-time tax payment to the federal government (often applied only to individuals above a certain level of wealth), is an example of market interventionism, aimed at correcting financial inequality. In that case, the government is taking wealth accumulated by a private individual and redistributing it to the government itself, or an institution the government wishes to support[7]. Thus, interventionism typically involves taking the meritocratic, free market result and adjusting it to favor the priorities and values of the sovereign authority.

The post-modern condemnation of meritocracy and the free market has resulted in post-modernists broadly embracing government interventionism, reflecting their belief that capitalist nations must address all forms of injustice and inequality through top-down government action. Such interventionism may not always amount to full-blown communism or even socialism, but the common theme is, again, the belief that the meritocratic status quo must be overridden to achieve a particular outcome—the outcome adjudged as ‘equitable’ by those in the ruling class.

Interventionist Philosophy Run Wild

Where capitalism deems the ‘fair’ result to be an equilibrium achieved through natural supply and demand, without any subjective prioritization of such result, post-modernist interventionism prioritizes the equity of the status quo over the fairness of the system employed to achieve it. The post-modernist mentality thus requires deference to the judgment of the particular authority making the inherently subjective assessment of the ‘fairness’ of any given outcome. In recent years, the trend has been to extract this philosophy from the economic context, and to apply it to every market or system where a purely meritocratic outcome would be deemed sub-optimal by post-modernist thought. In other words, we have entered an era where, in any given system, the ruling elites decide what a desirable status quo would look like, and then proceed to influence and manipulate said system to achieve that result. Once this underlying philosophy has been clearly delineated, one begins to become aware of the truly staggering number of examples where it is being applied. In the 21^st century, there are few, if any, institutions untouched by this pervasive mentality.

Take, for instance, the concept of affirmative action. In this example, the meritocratic ‘market’ of job and college applications produces a result in which the pool of successful applicants (i.e. the most objectively qualified applicants) often contains a higher percentage of Asian and Caucasian Americans than African and Hispanic Americans. This result was deemed unacceptable by the ruling class who in turn introduced affirmative action to override the pure merit-based selection of candidates, using the ‘injustice’ produced by the meritocratic model to justify the disadvantage to Asian American and Caucasian applicants imposed by affirmative action.

In our judicial system, which is designed to produce truth through adversarialism, it should be theoretically impossible to guarantee the result of any given trial—any outcome depends solely on each opposing party’s success in convincing the jury of their position. Lately, we have seen an increasing number of “kangaroo court” trials, in which external social pressures and abuses of law conspire to heavily influence legal outcomes. One controversial example is the trial of Derek Chauvin. To preface this example, let me make clear, it is of course necessary and correct to punish unlawful use of police force, to the greatest extent permissible by law; to that end, if Derek Chauvin demonstrably murdered a man in a racially motivated attack, any decent person would be satisfied to see him locked away for life. It is not acceptable, however, for social pressures to determine the outcome of any trial through emotionally driven mob-mentality. Regardless of whether you agree with the jury that Chauvin’s actions amounted to second degree murder, the real ‘injustice’ here is the fact the result of the trial was never in any doubt. Long before any evidence had been heard (and despite no evidence even suggesting Chauvin’s actions were motivated at all by racial animus) Democrat opportunists and the media had launched a proxy-war on systemic racial injustice. The powers-that-be had already violently inflamed our society’s anti-racist passions, to the extent that no jury, nor any defense attorney, was about to allow logic or objectivity to deflate the existent racial narrative. In other words, the case was not decided on the merits—which may have produced a result inconsistent with the agenda of the ruling class—but instead by the social pressures exerted by that very same agenda-driven elite.

Perhaps an even more dangerous example of the perversion of a meritocratic system in search of a particular outcome, is the recent clamor to censor or otherwise prevent dissemination of unfavorable information or viewpoints. The meritocratic system being perverted here is the ‘marketplace of ideas’—the theory that, through free exchange of information, the common man is exposed to a multitude of ideas and perspectives on any given issue, those communicated most compellingly are retained and reiterated, and eventually a public consensus is formed on that topic. Censorship is designed to corrupt this system, limiting dissemination of viewpoints that do not align with the agenda or social narrative concocted by the ruling class. The result is that any eventual consensus is not determined by the free thought and natural inclinations of the common person, but instead resembles the answer to a multiple-choice question, in which possible responses are limited to the ‘valid’ perspectives dictated by our elites. This type of free speech intrusion has been occurring increasingly in the context of online discourse, exemplified by the ongoing war involving Elon Musk’s X platform. Local and foreign elites alike have threatened Musk financially and personally, attempting to re-impose the content-based censorship which ruled the platform before Musk’s takeover[8][9].

Perhaps most concerning are instances of viewpoint-suppression in the contexts of academia and scientific research. The scientific method, the process upon which all Western science is built, is designed to challenge and critique prevailing theories through scientific investigation involving empirical data. However, when Roland Fryer, an African American economics professor at Harvard University, published a study finding no racial bias in police shootings, the ensuing reaction was to stifle and discredit, rather than explore or discuss, his findings. Fryer’s study, which analyzed thousands of police interactions with citizens of various races, was not intended to topple the theory of systemic racism, but simply to test whether the data supported the popular assumption police were more likely to use deadly force in an encounter with an African American than a citizen of another race. Despite the objectivity of his methods, Fryer’s colleagues recommended he refrain from publishing his findings because doing so would endanger Fryer’s career. And they were right. Harvard subsequently suspended Fryer for two years, during which time he was prohibited “from teaching or using university resources”[10]. They also permanently shut down Fryer’s off-campus lab, the Education Innovation Laboratory, and Fryer was forced to live under police protection because of violent threats made against him[11]. The scientific community effectively ‘canceled’ Fryer—not because he had violated the meritocracy of the scientific method, but because his findings contradicted the story being told by the academic and political establishments.

The characteristic mentality in each of the above examples is that the natural equilibrium which would be achieved by human nature and freedom of thought must be overridden in favor of the subjective judgment of those who know better. The problem is that this 21^st century top-down interventionism, and the associated rejection of meritocracy, is starting to resemble the feudal structure that preceded capitalism, including the illiberal intrusions on personal freedom, widespread cronyism, and abuses of law.

Feudalism – Are We Going Full-Circle?

Before the advent of capitalism, feudalism reigned supreme across Europe. In feudal societies, the ruling class (feudal lords) ruled over their landholdings and occupant citizens, dictating the economic priorities, social values, and judicial systems that governed the ‘serfs’, or common people, beneath them in such a way that prioritized the subjective beliefs of the lord himself over consistency or predictability. The presumption of feudal lords was that they, equipped with superior knowledge and perspective, were better placed to determine the status quo than were common people. These lords retained their own militaries and constructed feudal courts to adjudicate disputes—in most cases, the system resembled today’s concept of dictatorship[12]. In essence, as long as they remained faithful to the king, feudal lords were given near-total authority over their sovereign realms, giving rise to widespread oppression and abuses of power[13]. Though the dictates of feudal lords were not driven by an obsession with achieving an ‘equitable result’, the justification for the power disparity between the elite and the commoner is similar to the mentality increasingly prevalent in the 21^st century.

While obviously we have yet to come close to the social immobility and poverty rife during feudal times, the sacrifice of meritocratic, free-market ideals in favor of top-down, result-driven equity has begun to re-produce the power imbalances and corruption that characterized the feudal era. Two examples of this are the power of the ruling class to determine and effectuate the ‘deemed good’, and the unchecked cronyism produced by complete prioritization of agenda obeyance.

Like the autocratic oppression of feudal society, we are today seeing an increasing intrusion upon individual liberties in favor of the ‘deemed good’: the outcome considered favorable by our societal elites. For example, feudal lords gave little, if any, encouragement to the freedom of their people to challenge the laws and mores imposed by the lord. The result was an un-challengeable status quo determined not by the desires and natural tendencies of the participants, but by the authority of the ruling class. Today, the subjective judgement of the feudal lords has been replaced by subjective moral judgements about equity, but the tyrannical result is the same. It is this so-called ‘moral’ justification that has caused freedom of speech—once considered an inalienable necessity of democratic discourse—to give way to censorship, under the guise of ‘protecting’ the public from information the ruling class has decided is unacceptable to even consider. It is this same justification that urges Asian Americans to accept the additional burden imposed on them in the college application arena—sacrificing an objectively fair system for a subjectively ‘fair’ result.

An additional similarity between modern and feudal times lies in the cronyism and corrupt practices that, today, are ignored or justified simply because the perpetrator espouses adherence to the correct ‘moral agenda’. In feudal times, feudal lords’ corrupt practices and abuses of power were overlooked by the monarchy, as long as the lord in question pledged fealty to and advanced the agenda of the Crown. Likewise, our society often overlooks and normalizes corrupt practices if the offending party or institution espouses the ‘correct’ moral viewpoints. This is typified in the pharmaceutical industry, where ‘Big Pharma’ corporations routinely manipulate patent law to exclude individual innovators[14], and have formed a perverse incentive structure with hospitals and the medical system[15][16] to the detriment of public health. Such practices escape retribution and widespread condemnation by the political establishment, simply because these companies are so crucial in establishing the ‘correct’ sociopolitical atmosphere. Further evidence of this phenomenon is the behavior of various Democrat politicians, including Nancy Pelosi, during the COVID-19 pandemic. During a time when the common person was subjected to oppressive mask-mandates and social distancing protocols, and indoor services were prohibited across the country, Nancy Pelosi received a haircut indoors without wearing a mask.[17] Pelosi was, at the time, a leading advocate for lockdown policy and censorship of COVID-19 ‘disinformation’,[18] yet the political establishment’s condemnation of Pelosi’s hypocrisy was limited—all that mattered was that she was saying the right things.

Conclusion: Stop Playing God

The obvious question now becomes: Who is this ruling class? Who is deciding what an equitable result looks like, and subsequently pushing us all toward it? The above critique may conjure images of an elite cabal, clothed in black hoods and tucked away in a pitch-dark boardroom, maneuvering societal institutions like pawns on a chess board. To be honest, it might be that. More likely, though, the majority of actors employing this anti-meritocratic philosophy are just indoctrinated do-gooders: humanities professors trapped in a post-modernist echo chamber, dead-certain of the righteousness of their preferred outcome; politicians and political commentators desperate to advance their party’s agenda at all costs; young college students gripped by the negative emotionality of the fearmongering imposed on them in their studies. A warning to these groups: The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry[19].

Far be it from us mere mortals to deem any outcome as ‘ideal’. The most we can ask for is a system where, more often than not, quality and effort are rewarded, and natural tendencies can flourish. Luckily, for about 250 years, we have had such a system. To our societal elites: No, the system is not perfect. But neither are you.

So please, stop trying to force your viewpoints on the rest of us.

---

[1] See Smith, Adam (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Vol. 1.

[2] See Palen, Marc-William (9 February 2020). "Marx and Manchester: The Evolution of the Socialist Internationalist Free-Trade Tradition, c.1846-1946". The International History Review.

[5] Although economic interventionism is obviously associated with socialist and communist economic philosophies, modern capitalist nations also exercise corrective market influence, often directed at preserving a fair competitive environment and avoiding distortion of merit-based structures. For example, monopolies tend to prevent competitors from entering the market, stifling innovative progress. The government employs Anti-trust laws to prevent or break up such monopolies, encouraging innovative challengers to threaten the status quo.