Was it the “free market” that exploited Japanese Americans in World War II? Was it “capitalism” that drafted thousands of young men to be sent off to Vietnam, with many to return in body bags? Is it the free market that implements mandatory wage and price controls, takes a third of each American’s income, and leeches money to politically connected corporations? Who is the true exploiter, free markets or government? All things involuntary and compulsory are not compatible with freedom, yet it is constantly government using its monopolized force to accomplish its various goals, not the market. In a free society and market your greed, anger, and any other such negative qualities are purely limited to free and voluntary exchange. You cannot work like government using coercion to sell your products, force to maintain your position, and threats of imprisonment as your insurance.
People often use the quote, “The only constant is change.” Sometimes this phrase (or something similar to it) is used to bash over the head those who prefer liberty and freedom to government interventions. We are told that those who don’t embrace social change through government must love the rich, hate the poor, and enjoy seeing people remain in their current undesirable status quo living situations. The irony is that government is not what initiates true change on the human level. Collective government force is no more convincing than an individual thief holding a gun to your head – you may do what he tells you to do, but you’re not going to suddenly change your view of the world because of it. If anything, you will increasingly resent the thief the longer he holds a gun to your head and tells you how to live. True change comes on an individual basis, and the only “system” in a social sense that ever truly embraces and supports this change is freedom.
It is often said that government represents the collective ability of society to come together and legislate for the “public good.” What exactly the “public good” represents is rarely agreed upon by the two dominant political parties, but they both generally agree that it is the role of government to meddle in society in one form or another. The irony is that to help “the people,” government must first expropriate money from the people it intends to help. All this is defended as “public service,” which presents a selfless image of noble representatives working for the betterment of society. The term “public service” both greatly distorts the reality of government operations and negates where the actual service really takes place: in the private sector.