[Zionist Conspirator]

You are very confused. Lemme guess, you attended public schools?

Lemme guess, you're a John Bircher?

I used to be one too!

[wideawake]

We've talked about these matters before ZC and we share a general critique of man as homo oeconomicus - that it is better to be good in general (and perhaps terrible at business) than to be simply good at business.

However, I note a parallel phenomenon at work on these threads.

That is, the notion that economic success is probably immoral by nature and certainly morally inferior to political success.

The fact is that successful politicians and successful generals are as much directed by personal ambition as successful businessmen.

Many Europeans revere Napoleon as an almost semi-divine figure. Those same Europeans usually despise his contemporary Mayer Rothschild, who in my opinion was equally important historically and a much more benign figure.

If we set aside the most sinister motives for this discrepancy in relative appreciation, it comes down to this: Napoleon was successful at war and politics, while Rothschild was "only" successful at commerce.

When Napoleon indulges in naked self-interest under the guise of "the nation" he is a noble hero.

When Rothschild intelligently manages a strong return on capital for himself and his business partners, he is a crass opportunist.

This notion that people involved in voluntary commerce are morally inferior to people involved in coercive government action seems to suffuse the clouded minds of the left and the so-called "Old Right."