Editor’s note: This is an expanded version of a review that was first published on 22 January.

In early 1776, when many Americans still hoped for reconciliation with Britain, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, stripping monarchy of its pretenses and making the case for American independence. Later that year, as Washington’s army reeled from defeat, Pai…

Read more

As William F. Buckley’s 100th birthday nears, conservatives will pretend that he was a man of principle, civility, dignity, honor.

He was not.

Buckley was cowardly, dishonest, unjust, and racist.

Set aside the trivia that he occasionally challenged communists. So do fascists, theocrats, and anarchists. Saying “down with communism” is not what matters in the moral-political sphere. What matters is being able and willing to defend freedom and capitalism on solid moral and philosophic ground.

Who showed the world how to do that? Ayn Rand did.

How did Buckley treat Rand—the one philosopher in all of history who identified the objective moral foundation for individual rights? He treated her horribly. He misrepresented her ideas, mocked the straw men he fabricated, and made this the MO of his magazine, National Review.1

Why? Because Rand required evidence in support of the ideas she accepted as true; consequently, she was an atheist. And Buckley couldn’t countenance an atheist—no matter her virtues—because his parents, priests, and fraternity brothers would disapprove.2

Among other acts of injustice against Rand, in National Review, which he edited from 1955 to 1990, Buckley published a patently dishonest “review” of Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. As I wrote in “How Conservatives Begat Trump,” this “review” was penned by ex-communist Whittaker Chambers.

The reason for the scare quotes around the word review in the previous sentence is that it was not a review but a lie. A big lie. Indeed, it was and remains an unsurpassed (although often aspired to) model of intellectual dishonesty, injustice, malice.

The screed claimed, among myriad additional lies, that “From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber—go!’”

To those who have read Atlas, that one claim is sufficient to convey the jaw-dropping depths of dishonesty involved in the so-called review. For those who haven’t read Atlas, I’ll indicate briefly, without spoiling the plot of the novel, how obscenely dishonest this claim and the entire review it represents are.

Atlas is a story about the role of reason in human life—about the fact that the individual’s reasoning mind is his only means of knowledge and his basic means of living—about the principle that each individual is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others—and about the principle that being moral consists in using one’s mind to pursue one’s life-serving values while respecting the rights of others to do the same.

Among the countless ways in which these ideas are vividly depicted and illustrated in Rand’s thousand-page novel, the heroes of Atlas take an oath, which they all uphold unwaveringly: “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

As part of their commitment to living by this oath, the heroes call for a government that does one thing and one thing only: protects the rights of all individuals by banning physical force and fraud from social relationships so that everyone can act on his own judgment, produce goods and services, trade them with others by mutual consent to mutual advantage, and flourish in a land of liberty.

Also as part of their commitment to living by the principle that no one should ever sacrifice or be sacrificed for anyone, the heroes in Atlas, time and again, refuse to cooperate with government officials or unscrupulous businessmen who seek to violate anyone’s rights for any reason in any way whatsoever.

From this book, the reviewer for National Review heard a voice commanding: “To a gas chamber—go”?

He did not. He lied.

He lied to discredit Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. He lied to stop people from reading her work or taking her ideas seriously. And William F. Buckley and the editorial staff at National Review not only published this big lie and stood by it in 1957; they also have republished it repeatedly since then, most recently just a few years ago.

Following this initial conservative big lie about Rand’s ideas, similarly malicious treatments of Rand and her philosophy became the modus operandi of the leaders of the conservative movement. To this day, with few exceptions (Ted Cruz being one), if conservative leaders don’t ignore Rand’s ideas (as Dennis Prager, Jay Cost, and Matt Walsh do), they misrepresent her ideas (as Daniel Flynn, Roger Scruton, Anthony Daniels, Andrew Klavan, Bill Whittle, and countless others do).

With their commitment to ignoring or maligning Rand and her philosophy of rational egoism, individual rights, and laissez-faire capitalism, leaders of the conservative movement have decisively severed themselves and their movement from any affiliation with the one philosophy that could support freedom, capitalism, and the American republic.3

Unfortunately, that was not the only manifestation of Buckley’s dishonesty and injustice. Among other consequences of these vices, Buckley was a racist.

In his editorial “Why the South Must Prevail” (National Review, August 24, 1957), Buckley argued for coercive, governmental segregation of blacks and whites in the South. As he put it:

The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? sic The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. . . .

National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.

So, in the same year that Ayn Rand published Atlas Shrugged—a hymn to individualism and individual rights—William F. Buckley published a collectivist screed claiming that whites are “the advanced race” and contemplating when it is “worth” using violence to keep blacks in their place.

Yet conservatives lie about Rand and celebrate Buckley.

That speaks volumes.

On October 7, 2023, Israel experienced one of the darkest days in its history. In the early morning hours, Hamas launched a brutal surprise attack, murdering more than a thousand Israelis and taking more than two hundred hostages. Since that day—indeed, since its inception—Israel has been fighting a war for its survival.

Two years later, the war is still…

Read more

Earlier this week, Jimmy Kimmel Live! was abruptly suspended by ABC after the late-night host made remarks about Donald Trump and the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. In his monologue, Kimmel said:

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other…

Read more

New York: Knopf, 2025
245 pp. $30

Thomas Chatterton Williams has recently emerged as one of the most interesting American intellectuals writing on questions of race and “identity politics.” Son of a black father and a white mother, Williams previously published Self-Portrait in Black and White (2019), in which he offered an eloquent autobiographical accou…

Read more

On “Liberation Day,” April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs. Declaring a national emergency, he argued that these tariffs are needed to “liberate” the United States from the alleged problems caused by global trade.^[1] He imposed a 10 percent universal tariff on all imports effective April 5 and country-specific “reciprocal”…

Read more

Image: Jonah Elkowitz / Shutterstock.com

Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—the vanguard of his stated effort to gut the federal workforce and agencies—claims to cut waste and rein in the reckless spending of the state. Trump’s supposed attempt to reform this by presidential decree is not genuine and will not ultimately succeed bec…

Read more

Written by Scott Payne with Michelle Shephard
Narrated by Scott Payne
New York: Simon & Schuster, 2025
6 hrs 55 mins (audio), $14.99

Scott Payne (aka “the hillbilly Donnie Brasco”) is one of the most well-known and respected undercover law enforcement officers of his generation. When Payne retired in 2021—which meant that he no longer had to conceal his tru…

Read more

Ryan Holiday, popularizer of Stoic philosophy and author of such books as The Daily Stoic and The Obstacle Is the Way, was invited to give a lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy in April. Then, one hour before the lecture, the academy canceled it.

The reason? Holiday had planned to criticize the Trump administration’s executive order banning all “DEI-relate…

Read more

Author’s Note: This article is a companion piece to my previous portrait of Ingersoll, “Robert Ingersoll: Intellectual and Moral Atlas.” Whereas that article focused primarily on his free-thought legacy, this one focuses on his defense of capitalism.

Robert Green Ingersoll (1833–1899), known as “The Great Agnostic,” is widely recognized for his powerful oratory in defense of free thought, secularism, and individual liberty. However, Ingersoll was also a dedicated advocate of capitalism, entrepreneurship, and the American ideal of self-reliance.

Ingersoll was a lifelong Republican during an era when the party generally defended economic liberty and limited government. He was a prominent campaigner for Republican presidential candidates, leveraging his oratorical prowess to support figures such as Maine senator and presidential candidate James G. Blaine. He admired Blaine for his abolitionism, his pro-business stance, and his strength in navigating the difficult Reconstruction period after the Civil War as speaker of the house. He nominated Blaine for the Republican presidential candidacy in 1876 in what became known as the “Plumed Knight” speech:

This is a grand year—a year in which the people call for a man who has preserved in Congress what our soldiers won upon the field. . . . a man who, like an intellectual athlete, stood in the arena of debate, challenged all comers, and who, up to the present moment, is a total stranger to defeat. Like an armed warrior, like a plumed knight, James G. Blaine marched down the halls of the American Congress and threw his shining lances full and fair against the brazen foreheads of every defamer of his country and maligner of its honor. For the Republican party to desert a gallant man now is worse than if an army should desert their general upon the field of battle.1

Subscribe now

Although Blaine ultimately lost the nomination to Rutherford B. Hayes, the rousing speech made Ingersoll a sought-after Republican stump speaker. He went on to campaign for Hayes in 1876 and James Garfield in 1880. He supported these candidates because they stood for the party’s post–Civil War goals of Union preservation, economic progress, and limited government, which aligned with Ingersoll’s political priorities as an advocate for individual liberty. He also supported William McKinley during the 1896 campaign, speaking at events such as the massive Chicago rally in October to promote McKinley’s platform of economic prosperity and his advocacy of a gold standard. Through his campaign speeches and political lectures, Ingersoll championed sound money (meaning a stable currency that retains its value over time because it’s backed by a tangible asset such as gold), criticized inflationary policy, and rejected the popular idea that free enterprise conflicted with the welfare of workers.

Ingersoll’s views on capitalism and free markets stemmed from his philosophic commitment to liberty and individual rights. He recognized that economic freedom is inseparable from personal freedom. Just as he sought to protect the right of individuals to think and speak freely, he also sought to protect their rights to work, trade, and create wealth without interference from the state. His defense of capitalism was based not merely on economic efficiency but on moral grounds—he viewed the abilities to create, trade, and prosper as essential expressions of individual liberty. He often called this “the liberty of hand and brain.”2

Defense of the Gold Standard and Sound Money

Ingersoll strongly supported the gold standard, believing that a stable currency backed by tangible value was essential for economic integrity and long-term prosperity. He warned against the dangers of debased currency, arguing that dishonest money (i.e., currency that wasn’t redeemable for gold or silver, such as the “greenbacks” issued during the Civil War) robbed workers and savers of their hard-earned wealth by reducing the purchasing power of their money through inevitable inflation.3 After the Civil War, the national economic debate was about what should serve as the basis for the nation’s money supply and how its value should be maintained. Should it be backed by gold or should it be fiat currency (currency created by government decree)? Although the gold standard was adopted in 1879, the panic of 1893 (which caused bank failures and high unemployment) fueled calls to abandon it and inflate the money supply. Farmers and debtors wanted this to ease debts and boost prices; bankers and industrialists wanted to stick with the gold standard for stability. In his 1896 speech on the currency question, Ingersoll stated,

The government cannot create wealth by printing paper. Every promise made beyond the power of redemption is fraud. Every effort to create value by decree is destined to end in ruin. The worker who receives his wages in honest gold holds in his hand the fruit of his labor—a token the world over of real value. But to give him payment in depreciated paper is to steal from him in the name of the law.4

Ingersoll understood that inflation is not merely an economic issue but a moral one. He viewed it as legalized theft wherein the government diminishes the value of a person’s labor by manipulating the value of currency. To Ingersoll, the gold standard ensured that laborers and entrepreneurs alike were rewarded fairly for their efforts and that wealth retained its relative economic value across generations.

Harmony between Capital Holders and Laborers

Although some of his contemporaries painted business owners and workers as opposing forces in perpetual conflict, Ingersoll rejected this idea. He believed that the interests of workers and entrepreneurs were naturally aligned—when markets are free, and contracts are voluntary. In a speech extolling the mutually beneficial relationship between business owners and employees, he declared,

There is no conflict between capital and labor. Capital is the fruit of labor, and labor is the father of capital. The man who builds a factory gives work to others; the worker who produces wealth creates the capital that funds future labor. They are not enemies but partners, standing together in the creation of civilization and prosperity.5

Ingersoll understood that capitalism is not a zero-sum game in which one party’s gains come at the expense of another. He viewed wealth creation as a mutually beneficial process in which successful entrepreneurs and investors provide opportunities for workers, and industrious workers (including managers) create the value that enables businesses to grow. This harmony, however, depends on the government protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and not interfering in people’s voluntary transactions.

Praise for Entrepreneurs and Builders

Ingersoll deeply admired the people who created and built industries. He was acquainted with many of them, including Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Henry Flagler. Ingersoll saw these men as embodiments of human ingenuity and the American spirit. In a tribute to the country’s industrialists and inventors, he remarked,

The men who have made this country possible, who have built its roads, bridged its streams, and turned the wilderness into wealth—they are not robbers, but builders. They have given work to the idle, homes to the homeless, and raised the standard of life. The cry against them is the cry of envy, not of reason.6

Ingersoll did not romanticize wealth in and of itself; he admired the process of wealth creation and the effort behind productive achievements. He believed that wealth honestly earned through production and trade was a noble achievement, not something to be resented or confiscated. Ingersoll stood firmly in the tradition of classical liberalism, a philosophy rooted in the primacy of individual rights, limited government, free markets, and freedom of thought.

Ingersoll’s secular liberalism sharply contrasted with two other growing forces in that era: Christian nationalism and democratic socialism, represented by figures such as William Jennings Bryan and Eugene V. Debs, respectively. Despite their appeals to justice, both movements ultimately wanted to subordinate the individual to a collective cause through force. Bryan sought to bind politics to religious morality, using the state’s power to impose a Christian vision of virtue on the public. He portrayed the working class as righteous victims, and capitalists as oppressors, famously saying, “You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold!”7 Bryan would later face off against Clarence Darrow in the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial, portrayed in the film Inherit The Wind.8 As for Debs, though he was a well-meaning advocate for the working class, he embraced a secular Marxist vision of economic equality that called for state control over private property and commerce. He went on to run for president as the Socialist Party candidate five times between 1900 and 1920. Although both men invoked the language of “the rights of the people” and “economic justice,” their movements marked a turn away from the Founders’ vision of individual rights and toward a politics of group identity and coercive redistribution. Ingersoll, by contrast, remained loyal to the American idea that rights belong to individuals—not to classes, creeds, or collectives.

Interestingly, both Bryan and Debs had great admiration for Ingersoll. When Bryan was a young man, he wrote to Ingersoll to ask about his views on God and immortality (he was not comforted by Ingersoll’s reply).9 Despite their political differences, Debs and Ingersoll were friends, and Debs idolized Ingersoll for his “noble character.” Ingersoll viewed Debs as a sincere but misguided “dreamer.” After Ingersoll’s death, Debs wrote to his granddaughter, “I was the friend of your immortal grandfather and I loved him truly. The name of Ingersoll is revered in our home, worshipped by us all, and the date of birth is holy in our calendar.”10

Unlike many reformers of his era, Ingersoll was uncompromising in his defense of liberty across the board—in politics, religion, economics, and speech. He championed the individual’s rights against every form of imposed authority, whether from the church, the state, or the mob.

The Value of Art and Culture

Ingersoll’s admiration for wealth creation included admiration for those engaged in artistic and intellectual pursuits. He recognized that free markets and economic prosperity created the conditions under which art and culture could flourish. He observed that societies that valued property rights and free exchange were more likely to produce great works of art, literature, and music. In his lecture “The Liberty of Man, Woman, and Child,” he said,

Culture is the child of liberty. Where the mind is free, there art and beauty grow; where chains bind thought, there is only barrenness. Art is the blossom of civilization. It softens the heart, refines the mind, and turns the savage into a man. Music is the voice of the soul, the language of all hearts. It lifts us above the dust and tells of infinite hope.11

In Ingersoll’s time, many in the new but growing socialist movement argued that capitalism stifled art and “noble pursuits” by prioritizing profit and fostering a “vulgar materialism.”12 However, Ingersoll recognized that the flowering of art, music, and culture was not opposed to capitalism; these things were natural products of it. Just as the industrialist envisions and creates bridges and factories for material needs, the artist creates works that entertain and inspire, nourishing our souls. Both forms of creation require liberty and the security of property to thrive.

Opposition to Forcible Redistribution of Wealth and Class Warfare

Ingersoll rejected the growing tide of Marxist ideology that depicted society as being embroiled in “class warfare” between irreconcilably opposed camps of rich and poor. He saw efforts to forcibly redistribute wealth through state action as unjust and counterproductive. In one of his more pointed attacks on socialist ideas, he remarked,

The man who has made money by his brain and hands has the right to enjoy it, and you have no more right to take it from him than he has to take your wages from you. Socialism is theft dressed as philosophy. The war of classes is the war of ignorance, and its fruit is misery.13

Ingersoll’s defense of capitalism was ultimately rooted in his defense of individual rights. He saw the right to own property and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor as a natural extension of one’s right to live freely. Ingersoll understood that any attempt to undermine those rights—whether in the name of equality or fairness, or for any other reason—is a violation of justice. He recognized that political and economic freedom are inseparable—a society that protects freedom of speech and conscience but restricts the rights to trade and to own property would ultimately fail to be free.

Robert Ingersoll’s praise for entrepreneurs, builders, and workers was not only based on economic theory but on a profound moral belief in the dignity of labor and the creative power of human effort. His unwavering support for the gold standard, sound money, and the harmonious relationship between capital holders and laborers reflected his conviction that freedom, prosperity, and justice could only flourish when individuals were able to think, create, and trade freely.

This article is based on Tom Malone’s forthcoming anthology, The Portable Robert Ingersoll, to be released on May 5th.

This article appears in the Summer 2025 issue of The Objective Standard.

On February 1, 2025, President Donald Trump reinvigorated America’s long-standing tariff debate, imposing a 25 percent tariff on many goods from Canada and Mexico, a 10 percent tariff on Canadian oil, and a 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports.1 After negotiations, the administration agreed to a thirty-day pause on tariffs on Canada and Mexico in exchange for the promise of stronger border security measures. Meanwhile, China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. goods, escalating trade tensions and imposing additional costs on businesses in both countries. Ten days later, Trump announced sweeping tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, slapping a 25 percent tariff on metals from all other countries.2 Unlike during Trump’s first term, the administration says it will grant no exceptions for American companies that rely on foreign steel and aluminum.

These measures were welcomed by some domestic steelmakers who had been lobbying the Trump administration for “protection” against foreign competition. Kevin Dempsey, the president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, stated that the group welcomed Trump’s “continued commitment to a strong American steel industry, which is essential to America’s national security and economic prosperity.”3 However, businesses that use metals to make other products, such as car manufacturers and food packaging companies, objected to the rising costs. Robert Budway, president of the Can Manufacturers Institute, supported the tariffs but nevertheless warned of “unintended consequences” for the nation’s food security when tariffs are placed on tin-plate steel.4

Subscribe now

Supporters of Trump’s tariffs include politicians such as Senator Josh Hawley and former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Both argue that tariffs protect American industries from “unfair” foreign competition, particularly from nations such as China where the government heavily subsidizes many industries. Hawley, who has introduced multiple bills in Congress that would impose tariffs on goods from China, argues that America has an “unsustainable trade deficit”; and Lighthizer claims that without tariffs, “[w]e and our children are poorer and our ostensible trading ‘partners’ are richer.”5

Trump champions tariffs as part of his broader economic protectionist agenda, arguing that they safeguard American industries and help rebuild the nation’s manufacturing base. He also claims his tariffs combat fentanyl abuse in America by punishing the Canadian, Chinese, and Mexican governments for their alleged roles in the crisis (citing the production of fentanyl precursors in China and Canada and Mexico’s failure to prevent the trafficking of the drug into the United States).6

But tariffs don’t tax foreign businesses or governments—they tax you. Every time you buy groceries, fill your gas tank, or replace your car or appliances, you’re paying the price for these government-imposed penalties on your freedom to trade, which restrict your choices and force you to pay more for less. Tariffs won’t stop addiction or protect American producers; they’ll just make life more expensive. Tariffs aren’t a solution—they’re a blatant violation of individual rights masquerading as economic policy in service of political power and cronyism. The evidence is clear: history, economics, and rational moral principles all demonstrate why tariffs fail—and why free trade is the only rational alternative.

A History of Failure: Tariffs in America

From the founding of the American republic, politicians and businesses have used tariffs as tools of political favoritism. The Tariff Act of 1789 had the stated intention of funding the federal government, but it quickly became a way for northern manufacturers to shield themselves from competition. Throughout the 19th century, high tariffs were promoted under the so-called American System, an interventionist program that also involved federally funded infrastructure, and a national bank to manage credit and currency. Although these measures were ostensibly intended to foster economic growth and national unity, they ultimately distorted markets, entrenched political favoritism, and inflamed tensions between the North and South by increasing prices for northern farm equipment that southern farmers needed.7

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, imposed despite dire warnings from economists, triggered an escalation of reciprocal tariffs, collapsed international trade, and worsened the Great Depression. Levied under the guise of protecting American industries by raising tariffs on more than twenty thousand imported goods, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs instead triggered a devastating global trade war that deepened the Great Depression. Economist Thomas Rustici, in his analysis of Smoot-Hawley, describes how protectionism crippled entire industries, leading to mass unemployment, bankruptcies, and severe financial hardship for American families.8

Before Smoot-Hawley, the U.S. automotive sector thrived on exports. However, retaliatory tariffs from other countries slashed international demand for American-made cars. By 1933, the industry had lost an estimated $1.5 billion in exports, devastating firms such as Ford and General Motors. Factory closures and layoffs followed, sending thousands of auto workers into unemployment.

Farmers, already suffering from falling crop prices, were particularly hard hit. Smoot-Hawley raised import duties on foreign agricultural goods, prompting other countries to retaliate by blocking U.S. farm exports. The result was catastrophic: wheat and cotton prices collapsed, farm incomes plummeted by more than 60 percent, and thousands of farmers lost their land. Many resorted to extreme measures, including slaughtering livestock they could no longer afford to feed.

By 1933, U.S. unemployment had reached 25 percent, and Smoot-Hawley worsened the downturn. Families endured widespread poverty, losing homes and life savings as businesses and banks failed. Many survived only by growing their own food and making their own clothes. Rustici describes how some unemployed men rode freight trains across the country searching for work, while others stood in bread lines for basic sustenance. The human toll of this outbreak of protectionism was incalculable.

Although economists highlighted the destructive consequences of Smoot-Hawley in economic terms, they failed to make a compelling moral argument against the tariffs. By focusing solely on economic efficiency—how tariffs distort markets, reduce trade, and hinder economic growth—they overlooked the most important issue: tariffs violate individual rights. A rational moral argument shows that tariffs are fundamentally unjust because they impose coercive restrictions on individuals, limiting their ability to exercise their judgment, produce values, and freely trade them with others—which, in turn, leads to economic disaster and widespread human suffering. Without moral clarity, the tariff debate remains fixated on numbers and ignores the essential point that economic freedom is a right that must be protected absolutely. This leaves the tariff debate wide open for advocates of government intervention to falsely claim the moral high ground and thereby win popular support.

Following World War II, successive U.S. administrations, particularly those of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, reduced trade barriers, which promoted global economic stability and growth. This policy shift led to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, which laid the foundation for freer global trade. Although protectionist pressures persisted, especially in such sectors as agriculture and manufacturing, later administrations, including those of Reagan and Clinton, advanced significant trade liberalization efforts, such as the reduction of tariffs and the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. However, in recent decades, the United States has lurched back toward protectionism, with policies such as Obama’s “Buy America” mandate and Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs. Once again, history repeats itself, and the same moral and economic fallacies drive destructive policies.

The False Promise of Protectionism

Tariff advocates make several arguments supporting these taxes—all of which fall apart under scrutiny. Let’s look at three of the most common.

Tariffs Protect Jobs: Politicians claim that tariffs shield American workers from so-called unfair foreign competition. But history shows that tariffs destroy more jobs than they preserve. By raising prices on raw materials and finished goods, tariffs make it harder for businesses to compete, leading to layoffs and closures. For every job “saved” in a protected industry, many more are lost in industries that rely on affordable inputs. Kadee Russ and Lydia Cox’s analysis of the Trump administration’s 2018 steel tariffs provides a compelling example of how protectionist policies harm the broader economy. Although these tariffs were intended to protect American steel manufacturers, their research shows that the costs to downstream industries far outweighed any benefits to steel producers.9

According to Russ and Cox, the tariffs led to only about one thousand additional jobs in steel production. However, the increased cost of steel created a severe disadvantage for industries that rely on it as an input, such as automotive manufacturing, construction equipment, and household appliances. By mid-2019, these industries had suffered an estimated seventy-five thousand fewer jobs than they would have without the tariffs—meaning that for every one job gained in steel production, approximately seventy-five jobs were lost elsewhere in manufacturing.

The reason is straightforward: higher domestic steel prices raised production costs for U.S. manufacturers, making it harder for them to compete with foreign firms that could still buy steel at lower world-market prices. As Russ and Cox explain, this put U.S. exporters at a disadvantage in global markets and made domestic manufacturers less competitive against foreign rivals within the United States. The burden of these tariffs was particularly acute in steel-intensive sectors, leading to layoffs, plant closures, and slowed investment.

The researchers also highlight how tariffs increased economic uncertainty, further undermining business confidence. Companies filed more than one hundred thousand exemption requests in an effort to avoid the increased costs, but the approval process was slow, opaque, and rife with concerns over political favoritism. Meanwhile, retaliatory tariffs from other countries compounded the damage, reducing export opportunities for American manufacturers.

By early 2020, the Trump administration attempted to extend tariffs to derivative steel products, such as nails and wire, to curb import substitution. However, as Russ and Cox argue, this strategy only exacerbated the economic harm, deepening the disadvantages for industries that depended on steel as an input.

Their findings confirm the broader principle that protectionism does not “save” jobs—it merely shifts economic burdens, destroying far more jobs than it preserves. Tariffs on intermediate goods, such as steel and aluminum, ripple through the economy, punishing industries that create far more value and employ far more people than the protected sector. Rather than shielding American workers, these policies erode economic growth and competitiveness, proving once again that free trade—not government intervention—is the path to prosperity.

Tariffs Counter Foreign Protectionism: Some argue that if other countries impose tariffs, we should, too. But matching bad policies with more bad policies doesn’t make sense. Responding to another country’s tariffs with tariffs does not punish the other country—it punishes your country’s citizens. If your neighbor shoots himself in the foot, why would you shoot yourself in your foot? Some advocates of tariffs rightly argue that when foreign governments subsidize industries, they are using political force to grant those businesses a competitive advantage. This, in turn, harms unsubsidized businesses and violates the rights of producers and consumers by coercively redistributing wealth and distorting the market. If a foreign government subsidizes its industries, it is engaging in economic destruction at home and distorting trade abroad—but the answer is not to mimic its mistakes. A moral government does not interfere in markets; it protects individual rights. The rational response to foreign subsidies is not more government control but the elimination of the domestic regulations, tariffs, and subsidies that make American industries less competitive in the first place. The best weapon against economic intervention is capitalism itself—free individuals, free markets, and the removal of all state-imposed distortions in trade and production.

For instance, the Chinese government’s subsidies to its electric bus industry artificially depress prices, depriving Western manufacturers of contracts they might otherwise have won. However, the proper response to such coercion is not to impose new coercion in the form of tariffs, which further violate the rights of consumers and businesses in both countries. Instead, the morally and economically correct course of action is to remove domestic barriers—especially subsidies, mandates, and regulations—that make U.S. businesses less competitive in the first place. Freer societies are always better to live in than less free societies, and a free economy is a critically important part of a free society. The solution to foreign intervention is not domestic intervention but the complete separation of economy and state, which would ensure that American producers succeed on merit, not government favoritism. Nevertheless, figures such as former Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro argue that “tariffs are a necessary weapon in economic warfare” and that the United States must match foreign protectionist policies to avoid being “exploited” by trade partners.10 But this approach concedes the false premise that government interference in trade is necessary.

If the Canadian or Chinese governments harm their own citizens through protectionism, the rational response is not to impose self-inflicted harm through retaliatory tariffs but to embrace greater economic freedom. If Canadian businesses are forced to pay higher prices for steel due to their government’s restrictions but American businesses can freely source materials at the best prices available, which economy will thrive? A freer market, with fewer trade barriers and less regulation, fosters greater innovation and growth, leaving protectionist nations with little choice but to deregulate or fall behind—just as the European Union is now reconsidering its regulatory policies in response to competition from the United States and China.11 The solution to foreign economic controls isn’t more control at home—it’s unleashing the productive power of free individuals.

Tariffs Strengthen National Security: Some industries are indeed vital to national defense. But tariffs do not aid these industries or any other—they are exclusively harmful. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has defended tariffs under the notion that America must maintain control over critical supply chains.12 Navarro has insisted that “China’s economic aggression is the single biggest national security threat of our time.”13 Although China is a threat to the United States in some respects, that fact does not legitimize self-destructive tariffs (which are not synonymous with sanctions or other interventions necessary to protect national security in certain contexts).

Regardless of whether China poses a national security threat to the United States, it is not rational or appropriate to mirror China’s interventionism with our interventionism, whether in the form of tariffs or any other rights-violating measures. Instead, the proper solution is to remove domestic restrictions that prevent U.S. businesses from thriving in a free market. America cannot protect critical supply chains by restricting trade; rather, it must remove burdensome regulations, lower corporate tax rates, and eliminate barriers to domestic production and innovation. Rather than shielding American companies from foreign competition, the best way to neutralize strategic threats is to increase domestic productivity, foster competition, and allow businesses to shift suppliers dynamically based on market conditions, not political mandates.

For legitimate security concerns, a free-market approach includes targeted policies such as strategic stockpiles, defense contracts, and voluntary industry incentives—not blanket tariffs that punish all trade. Protectionism weakens America’s economic strength by limiting flexibility, increasing costs, and making industries dependent on government intervention. If the United States truly seeks economic resilience against potential strategic competitors, it should embrace the power of a free market to outproduce and out-innovate authoritarian regimes—rather than adopting their policies.

Why Tariffs Stick Around: Politics over Principles

If tariffs are so destructive, why do politicians continue to impose them? The immediate answer is economic ignorance. Many policy makers and voters misunderstand basic trade principles, falsely believing that tariffs protect jobs, strengthen industries, and prevent trade deficits. Politicians exploit this misunderstanding, portraying tariffs as a tool to shield American workers from “unfair” foreign competition.

But economic ignorance alone does not explain why tariffs persist. If bad economics were the sole cause, protectionism would have collapsed long ago. A deeper reason sustains tariffs: moral collectivism—the belief that the “nation” must come before the individual and that individuals should sacrifice for some alleged “greater good.” Supporters frame tariffs as a patriotic duty, a way to “put America first,” as if restricting trade strengthens the country. This same moral premise underlies other forms of government intervention—the idea that individuals must subordinate their interests to the collective, and that economic freedom must yield to national solidarity.

Even the way politicians sell tariffs reflects this moral failing. Senator Josh Hawley claims that tariffs “protect the American worker,”14 as though workers have a moral right to government-imposed shields from competition rather than a right to freely produce and trade. Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer argues that without tariffs, “[w]e and our children are poorer and our ostensible trading ‘partners’ are richer,”15 implying that other nations’ success harms America—a classic example of zero-sum, tribalist thinking. These arguments rely not just on faulty economics but on the false premise that the government must control trade to engineer social outcomes.

Tariffs also persist because they protect entrenched interests. Politicians secure votes from industries that gain an advantage in the short term, while the costs—higher prices, job losses in downstream industries, and economic inefficiencies—spread across millions of individuals who may not realize how tariffs harm them. This redistribution of wealth through government coercion is not just economically disastrous but morally indefensible. So, although politicians push tariffs as populist rhetoric, the only “beneficiaries” are those who rely on government protection to keep producing products that would not be competitive in a free market. And once in place, tariffs are embedded in bureaucratic structures, making them difficult to repeal despite their clear harm.

Free Trade: The Moral and Practical Alternative

Tariffs don’t just hurt your wallet—they violate your freedom. They reduce your access to the best goods at market prices, forcing you to enrich politically connected industries while limiting your ability to act in your rational self-interest.

At stake here are your rights—including your right to produce, trade, and keep the rewards of your work. A free economy enables you to act in your self-interest without political interference. Tariffs violate this principle by forcibly limiting your choices and making it harder (or impossible) to purchase goods that best meet your needs—and to freely produce and trade your goods.

The next time a politician defends tariffs as a way to “help” America, ask yourself: Who, exactly, is being helped? Not the consumer, who is forced to pay more. Not the honest businessman, who is fully capable of creating value without such “help.” Not the entrepreneur, who is denied access to affordable materials. The only ones who “benefit” are those who have successfully lobbied the government to rig the game in their favor and politicians who get reelected for peddling economic nationalism as a substitute for improving human flourishing. And in the long run, even these people suffer from a weaker economy, deprived of the wealth, innovation, and opportunities that tariffs stifle.

The only morally justifiable trade policy for a free society is free trade—trade without interference, without coercion, and without government picking winners and losers. The question before us is simple: Do we want a society in which individuals are free to trade and prosper, or do we want a society in which bureaucrats dictate the terms of economic exchange? If we value liberty, the answer is clear. Tariffs must be abolished because they are an affront to the fundamental principle of human freedom—and that is why they fail in practice.

The Path Forward: Embracing Free Trade

Tariffs don’t make America great—they make life harder and worse for Americans. The proper trade policy for a free people is simple: Let people trade. If other nations choose protectionism, that’s their mistake. America should lead by example, showing the world that economic freedom leads to prosperity.

It’s time to stop letting politicians and special interests rig the game and start letting Americans make their own choices.

This article appears in the Spring 2025 issue of The Objective Standard.

Donald Trump ran on a platform that promised major cost-cutting initiatives spearheaded by a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The head of DOGE, Elon Musk, is now under fire from Democrats for allegedly overstepping his authority, and the creation of DOGE by executive order is being challenged as unconstitutional.¹ Republicans argue that Musk has statutory authority, pointing out that DOGE is not a Cabinet agency and does not have to be approved by Congress (and will only last until July 4, 2026). Historian Victor Davis Hanson makes the point that “it’s not a permanent agency, but he has the same power, or lack of such, as the national security adviser, who does not have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”2 Legal wrangling aside, the most fundamental question is whether the government should even be engaged in the spending DOGE is now investigating.

Granted, questions about DOGE’s legitimacy as a government agency are valid, given that it was created by executive order. In a truly free society, the president should not and would not have the power to unilaterally create such an agency but for an emergency; checks and balances within the American government were created for important, rights-protecting reasons. But we find ourselves in a situation in which politicians have lost sight of those reasons, resulting in a government that has grown massively beyond its proper, rights-protecting function. That growth and its economic consequences have arguably created an emergency in which Americans are faced with unsustainable rises in cost of living, a debt burden that exceeds annual economic output, and increasing restrictions on their freedom. In that context, DOGE’s efforts to curtail those activities are legitimate.

Government Power in General Is the Issue, Not Only DOGE’s

The federal government has long abandoned the constitutional limits that the founders set to prevent it from violating Americans’ rights to life, liberty, and property. Rather, it has engaged in massive redistribution of wealth, reckless spending, and programs that have no basis in the enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “A wise and frugal government . . . shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”3 Yet today politicians openly disregard this principle, taking from productive citizens and spending so recklessly that our debt burden is now $36 trillion.

DOGE says that it has already uncovered numerous instances of wasteful and rights-violating spending within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Among the most controversial findings is the revelation that USAID unknowingly funded the college tuition of Anwar al-Awlaki, a future al-Qaeda recruiter linked to the 9/11 hijackers.4 The audit also exposed funds allocated to controversial cultural projects, such as a $47,000 grant for a Colombian opera about transgenderism. Other expenditures included $1.5 million to promote “diversity and inclusion” initiatives in Serbia and $70,000 for a DEI-themed musical in Ireland.5

Perhaps most alarming, the report found that millions of taxpayer dollars were directed to public international organizations (PIOs) with ties to terrorist groups, even after an inspector general launched an investigation into those organizations’ activities.6 In addition, DOGE revealed that USAID has funded a vast media network, including payments to more than six thousand journalists and support for more than seven hundred media organizations globally.7 The report also pointed to millions in funding granted to EcoHealth Alliance, an organization tied to gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.8

These revelations have sparked intense debate over the role and oversight of USAID and other agencies, fueling calls for budget cuts and restructuring efforts. Musk and his team at DOGE argue that such wasteful, rights-violating spending highlights the broader issue of government overreach and inefficiency. As the administration moves to slash funding and increase oversight, it is already facing intense backlash and legal challenges from Democrats.

Musk and Trump should seize the opportunity to reframe the conversation: The real issue is not whether DOGE has the right to curb spending but whether the government should be able to take money from individuals by force and use it in ways that violate their liberty and property.

Individual Rights: The Moral Foundation of Government

If one recognizes the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness outlined in the Declaration of Independence, then the role of government becomes clear: to secure those rights and nothing more. The philosopher Ayn Rand articulated this beautifully when she wrote, “The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.”9 By this standard, the federal government should be restricted to its only proper functions: national defense, the courts, and policing.

The vast majority of federal spending is immoral and unconstitutional. Government programs that forcibly redistribute wealth through welfare, corporate subsidies, foreign aid, federal grants, or toward any other purpose outside the proper role of government—violate individuals’ rights to their earnings.

The Danger of Appealing to Democracy

Musk has attempted to counter criticism by stating that the goal of DOGE is to “restore democracy.”10 But this is a fatal error—one that plays directly into the hands of his critics. The concept of “democracy” is widely misunderstood today. Most people take it to mean something along the lines of “a broadly free society in which leaders are elected by popular vote.” But the literal and historical meaning of “democracy” is mob rule. If we accept actual “democracy” as a value, we implicitly accept that majority opinion justifies any and all government action—including the very overreach DOGE is working to correct. If democracy is good, then what happens when the majority elects outright socialists or communists who decide that wealth confiscation should be even more aggressive?

This is precisely why the founding fathers were skeptical of democracy. James Madison wrote, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”11 The Constitution was designed not as a tool of majority rule but as a bulwark against the violation of individual rights. America is not—and was never meant to be—a democracy; it is a constitutional republic where laws are meant to protect against mob rule.

The Founders’ Vision versus Mob Rule

The founding fathers deliberately structured the government to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Instead, they established a system in which individual rights were never to be violated, even if the majority wished otherwise. The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the government from infringing upon freedom of speech, property, and commerce, no matter how many voters support such violations.

Anyone who wants to defend DOGE’s cost-cutting mission effectively should reject the false moral premise that spending cuts are only justified if they have democratic backing. Instead, we must champion the objective principle of individual rights and argue that the government has no moral right to confiscate and redistribute wealth.

Rather than appealing to democracy, Musk should make the case for a government limited solely to the protection of individual rights. With this kind of system, there would be no need for initiatives such as DOGE because the rights-violating spending it seeks to eliminate would not exist in the first place.

Trump, too, should frame the fight against wasteful spending in moral terms. It’s not just about finding “waste, fraud, and abuse” in a corrupt system—it’s about rejecting the immoral premise that the government has a right to spend taxpayer dollars however it pleases. The goal should not be to enable the government to violate rights more efficiently—the goal should be to make it properly delimited and stop rights-violating government spending.

Musk and Trump are right to challenge the bloated federal budget and should be commended for doing so—but they must go further; they must challenge any and all rights-violating government spending. The proper defense of DOGE is not that it serves “the will of the people” but that it aligns (or at least that it should align) with the foundational principles of America—individual rights and limited government.

As Jefferson put it, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”12 To reverse this trend, Trump and Musk must make a principled stand: The size and scope of government should be dictated not by democracy but by individual rights.

This article appears in the Spring 2025 issue of The Objective Standard.

Traveling to different countries to speak at conferences is a big part of my work, and I love it. But when I was asked to speak at Ayn Rand Center Ukraine (ARCU)’s 2025 Intellectual Bootcamp in Kyiv, I was hesitant. I have enough Ukrainian friends to know that large parts of the country are safer than it appears in Western news coverage. Nonetheless, the real danger of frequent Russian air raids, the nationwide state of martial law, and the complexity of visiting a country with completely closed airspace were all off-putting.

What convinced me to go regardless was the remarkable spirit of the people organizing and attending the event. Although this would be my first time visiting Ukraine in person, I had previously spoken at several ARCU events remotely, my face and presentation projected onto a wall at the conference. Each time, I was impressed by the dedication of the people coming together in the middle of a war to sit in a shelter and discuss ideas for living better lives and advancing the cause of freedom. Not only were they not letting the war stop them from living their lives—they were proactively working to enhance their lives despite it. Their spirit embodies much of what I believe in, and it was clear to me that taking the comparatively small risk of going to join and support them was the right thing to do.

Now, looking back on the conference, I’m enormously thankful that I went. My goal in taking part was to inspire, educate, and motivate the attendees, but in truth it was they who inspired me. Here were people who took the ideas they believed in so seriously that they’d taken trains across a country constantly threatened by drone and missile attacks to discuss and promote those ideas. If they could display such dedication, how could I justify letting the trivial inconveniences of everyday life in the West hold me back from advancing my goals to the best of my ability?

Virtually all the young students I met at the Intellectual Bootcamp had a proactive, optimistic outlook. I see that kind of mentality in only a select few individuals at such events elsewhere. These were people who, faced with the massive threat to human life that is Putin’s war machine, were determined to embody the very human spirit that the invaders seek to crush. Their spirit reminds me of the stories I’ve heard of Britain during World War II—a culture of defiant positivity, of laughter in the face of tyranny, and of an unashamed commitment to living life.

Ukraine is one of the front lines in the fight not only for freedom but for the human spirit. That spirit was embodied beautifully in Ayn Rand Center Ukraine’s Intellectual Bootcamp. For all my trepidation before the trip, I am enormously glad I went, and I cannot wait for my next opportunity to benefit from spending time with such passionate advocates of freedom and human life.

Author’s note: The following is adapted from talks given to participants of the Students For Liberty Prometheus Fellowship.

Think about all the years you spent in school, all the books you read, all the facts you learned, all the things you know.

Or should I say, all the things you think you know. Are we actually capable of knowledge? Today, there is broa…

Read more

In my high-school freshman English class, I had some of my first serious discussions on difficult but important topics. I recall, for instance, learning about suicide and racism while diving into Romeo and Juliet and To Kill a Mockingbird, respectively. Thoughtfully reading and discussing good books helps students understand important principles for liv…

Read more

Contemporary intellectual culture is rife with moral criticisms of Western civilization and white people. These accusations stem from a constellation of beliefs, among them that Western civilization is exploitative and that white people are inveterately racist. Proponents of these beliefs teach history with an emphasis on Western imperialism, claim that…

Read more

In recent years, the federal government has aggressively targeted crypto firms, projects, and exchanges. Attacks on the industry have come from all directions, including lawmakers, bank regulators, the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Representative Brad Sherman says, “Bitcoin, it’s …

Read more

Washington, D.C.: Academica Press, 2024

228 pp., $29.95 paperback

According to an old wisecrack, the reason arguments between college professors are often so nasty is that the stakes are so small. But in Elizabeth Weiss’s case, the stakes are nothing less than the destruction of an entire science. In her new memoir, On the Warpath, she reveals how anthrop…

Read more

My motive and object in all my political works . . . have been to rescue man from tyranny and false systems and false principles of government, and enable him to be free, and establish government for himself. —Thomas Paine1

Benjamin Franklin told Thomas Paine that he was “more responsible than any other living person on this continent for the creation of …

Read more

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2021

288 pp. $9.99 (Kindle)

Is America on its last leg? Will some Edward Gibbon of the next generation be writing The Rise and Fall of the American Empire? And if so, will the knockout punch come from the “woke” left—or from reactionary national conservatives; from a Chinese social media company—or from WWIII? Or…

Read more