Rupert Murdoch On Morality Of Free Market & Immorality of Socialism

In his speech at the Institute of Public Affairs this year, Rupert Murdoch said:

“What they wanted was simple: an Australia where men and women would rise in society not because they were born into privilege – but because they earned it with their hard work, their thrift, and their enterprise…Success is not something we can take for granted. Success must be fought for. Success most be won…But, instead of hearing about new initiatives that would make Australia more competitive and open up new opportunities for the Australian people, we hear more of the class warfare rhetoric that has proved so toxic and so damaging for older nations. And, here is something else we are not hearing about: we must argue the morality of free markets and the immorality of markets that are not free…The cold, commercial word ‘market’ disguises its human character – a market is a collection of our aspirations, exertions, choices and desires…too many people think that the market succeeds because it is based on a vice – greed. And that socialism is better, because it is based on a virtue – sharing…The market succeeds because it gives people incentives to put their own wants and needs aside to address the wants and needs of others. To succeed, you have to produce something that other people are willing to pay for.”

During the course of the rest of his speech, Murdoch extols Capitalism, as it has fundamentally helped Australia; and berates Obama for promoting “government mandated sharing.” In his speech, Murdoch touches on many points brilliantly regarding the misconceptions of Capitalism versus Socialism.

First, he notes that being handed something simply because–being born into it, or due to poverty–is not how Capitalism should function. It is toxic. He rightly claims that a free market exists in order to provide the opportunity for success, rather than simply guaranteed success.

Second, he notes that success must be “won.” Liberals in America have a twisted expectation that they deserve something in life; that life is theirs merely because they are participating. That should not be the case. Success is hard fought. Not everybody wins.

Third, Murdoch mentions the morality of a free market. This, in my opinion, is his most salient point. The free market, as described by Murdoch, is a collection of individual wants, needs, and desires of a large number of people. But to succeed in the market, one must make an extraordinary effort to provide others with something that they need or want badly enough. Socialism, on the other hand, is truly the beast with a greedy nature. Socialism, and redistribution, is rooted in envy and hate of those who have prospered.

In the minds of Liberals, the inverse of the truth is what drives their thinking. Capitalism is greedy, and Socialism is altruistic. The opposite is actually true.

Rupert Murdoch, in a single speech, has encapsulated the argument for a free market. He notes that, of course, the market should be celebrated because of its efficiency and stability. But more than that, he tackles the underlying issue that at which Liberals throw darts: that Capitalism is lesser because Socialism is inherently moral and the free market is inherently immoral.

Socialism is the farthest thing from moral. It takes individuals and pits them against others based on class and rate of success. Capitalism takes the needs of the many into a place where competition can provide the best possible product and price.

Liberals love a good high horse from which they can preach. But when Liberal ideas are explained in stark detail, the horse suddenly doesn’t seem so high. Thank you, Rupert Murdoch, for explaining so eloquently the superiority of the free market.