The free market is the great equalizer of man. It makes no distinction of his creed, race, or hair color, but rather ranks a man according to his ability to provide a good or service that his fellows voluntarily wish to purchase.

It is protested at times that some of us are born with more ‘capital’ than others, but what is the real claim being made? Is the objection that man should be unable to inherit from his father? If so, then it would follow that we should destroy the sum savings of our ancestors and revert to a state of primitivism.

There is nothing inherently wrong with primitivism, but it is doubtful that much of the present society would be able to tolerate the living standards of such society. If present living conditions are to be retained then inheritance from father to son in any sum must be regarded as legitimate and any talk of inheritance tax ceased.

There is admittedly the issue of inheritance involving wealth unfairly gained. If a robber, or the 32nd President, stole a gold coin it would be wrong to allow his son to inherit it. In regards to the market though this is a non-issue for the entrepreneur did not steal his wealth. He gained it by providing goods and services that others voluntarily bought.

Regardless of inheritance we all are born with one minimum piece of capital; ourselves. Like any other piece of capital it may be further refined through training or education. In this sense we are all capitalists.

Michelangelo Landgrave
CSUN Libertarians
Economics Undergraduate