What I've Been Reading

#2 has a broken link. Remove the "A".

[Thanks! Fixed.--Econlib Ed.]

>treats the business principle as if it were employing force,

Again, The Libertarian Fallacy: that coercion and constraint of freedom are only effected by government. The failure to acknowledge that any economic system -- even one with no rules and no government -- must always and everywhere coerce individuals.

The anthill does the coercing, not the (just) queen.

[Comment removed for supplying false email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog.--Econlib Ed.]

To Steve Roth:

I don't think you are using the word force in the same manner as A. Kling/Ropke. I have, ex ante, been unhappy with market transactions (and may, unbeknownst to me, have been the victim of fraud), but I don't recall ever feeling genuinely forced in the manner Ropke/Kling mean. But there was a time when I behaved and thought as a leftist, and during this time period I felt resentment towards employers and big business in general. As a leftist, I would have happily signed onto the idea that I was the victim of force. But no longer. That's what learning economics does for you.

Arnold,

I am sure I have said this before but Mind and Society by Pareto (the same guy who came up with "Pareto optimal") is well worth the (long) read.