Log in
“In a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.” Source: Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (1936), Chapter 11. Pictured: The original three rulers of […]
Saifedean Ammous, “Property Rights: The Root Cause of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict,” Property and Freedom Journal (May 7, 2026)
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the inevitable result of the destruction of a centuries-old system of private property rights and its replacement by race-based state ownership. Since 1947, property rights in Palestine have been replaced by a government agency that owns the majority of land, constantly steals more, never sells, and only leases land to one racial group. Religious and racial conflict are not destined in Palestine; they are historically rare occurrences, but this system of property rights would create violent conflict anywhere.
In 1945, the British mandate government surveyed land ownership in Palestine and found that Jews owned 5.67% of the total land, while Muslims, Christians & other denominations owned 48.31% of the land. The remaining 46.02% was public land, mainly in the sparsely inhabited desert in the south, most of which was de facto owned by the Bedouins who herded there. Among the privately-owned lands, only 10.5% was owned by Jews, while 89.5% was owned by non-Jews. There was not a single district in Palestine in which Jews owned a majority of the land, as this illustration makes clear.
Modern politics operates on a contradiction so obvious it should collapse under its own weight:
The same people who condemn corporations for “capturing government” are the ones demanding a government powerful enough to control prices, wages, energy, healthcare, housing, banking, land use, transportation, and investment itself.
They denounce cronyism while advocating the exact mechanism that creates it.
Because cronyism is not a corruption of capitalism.
It is the predictable result of centralized political power over economic life.
Capitalism Does Not Create Political Favoritism
Under actual capitalism, wealth is earned through voluntary exchange.
A business succeeds by persuading customers, not commanding them. Profit comes from offering value people willingly choose to buy. If a company fails to satisfy consumers, it loses money. If it mistreats workers, workers leave. If it overcharges, competitors emerge.
The defining feature of capitalism is not that businesses exist.
It is that force is removed from economic relationships.
The moment government gains discretionary power to pick winners and losers, the game changes entirely.
Now success no longer depends primarily on satisfying customers.
It depends on influencing politicians.
The Incentive Structure Changes
Once the state has the authority to hand out subsidies, tariffs, bailouts, licenses, tax privileges, regulatory exemptions, land grants, exclusive contracts, or barriers to entry, lobbying becomes rational.
Not because businessmen are uniquely evil.
Because the incentives changed.
Imagine two competing companies.
One spends its resources improving products and lowering prices.
The other spends its resources influencing regulators to cripple competitors or secure political advantages.
Under a heavily interventionist system, the second strategy often becomes more profitable.
That is not capitalism functioning.
That is political allocation replacing market competition.
And the more power centralized institutions possess, the more valuable political influence becomes.
Central Planning Manufactures Dependency
Every new layer of economic control creates another pressure point where favors can be exchanged.
If government controls energy approvals, corporations lobby energy regulators.
If government controls housing permits, developers lobby zoning boards.
If government controls healthcare reimbursement, pharmaceutical companies lobby health agencies.
If government controls trade access, industries lobby trade officials.
The pattern is universal because it is structural.
You cannot create a system where politicians control economic outcomes while simultaneously expecting economic actors not to compete for political influence.
That is like placing gold in the middle of a room and acting shocked when people try to grab it.
The False Narrative
The modern political narrative reverses cause and effect.
We are told:
“Corporations corrupted the state.”
But the deeper truth is:
The state became corruptible because it possessed powers worth corrupting.
A government limited to protecting individual rights has far less ability to dispense special favors.
A government empowered to manage the economy becomes a marketplace for influence.
And once political favoritism becomes profitable, every major interest group is pushed toward lobbying, regulatory capture, and alliance-building with the state.
Not because capitalism failed.
Because politics replaced capitalism.
“Public Ownership” Does Not Eliminate Power Concentration
One of the most persistent myths is that public ownership prevents monopolization.
In reality, it simply transfers monopolistic authority from private individuals to political institutions.
Under private ownership, property can be bought, sold, competed against, challenged, or replaced.
Under state ownership, control is centralized.
Access becomes political.
Permissions become political.
Allocation becomes political.
The politician now decides who may use land, build infrastructure, extract resources, receive contracts, or gain access.
Supporters call this “democratic control.”
In practice, it becomes bureaucratic discretion.
And bureaucratic discretion is exactly what attracts corruption.
The More Power the State Has, the More Dangerous Corruption Becomes
Ironically, the people most obsessed with corporate influence are often the loudest advocates for expanding the authority of the institutions corporations lobby.
That is backwards.
If you genuinely fear corruption, favoritism, or elite capture, you do not hand more power to centralized authorities.
You reduce the ability of anyone to dispense coercive economic favors in the first place.
Because concentrated political power guarantees concentrated lobbying pressure.
Always.
The Seen and the Unseen
When people see corporations lobbying government, they often conclude:
“Capitalism caused this.”
But they ignore the unseen question:
Why does government possess the power to grant these favors at all?
A business cannot lobby for special privilege unless politicians possess the authority to provide it.
A corporation cannot manipulate regulations unless regulations are expansive enough to weaponize.
A wealthy donor cannot profit from state favoritism unless the state controls economic outcomes.
The corruption is downstream of the power.
The Real Divide
The real divide is not “corporations versus the people.”
It is voluntary exchange versus political allocation.
One system rewards persuasion.
The other rewards influence.
One disperses power across millions of independent decisions.
The other concentrates it into institutions people endlessly fight to control.
And every time central planning expands, the incentives for cronyism expand with it.
Then the resulting corruption gets blamed on “capitalism.”
Not because capitalism created it.
But because calling it socialism would expose the real source of the problem.
The post Why the Red/Blue Button Moral Dilemma is a Trap appeared first on New Ideal - Reason | Individualism | Capitalism.
Download video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/SzfiohcZhGo
Download audio: https://media.blubrry.com/new_ideal_ari/content.blubrry.com/new_ideal_ari/20260507_Red-vs-Blue-Button_v2.mp3
Next Page of Stories