** The Myth of the “Mixed Economy”**
The first issue with the middle ground position is that there’s really no such thing as a “mixed” economy. As Ludwig von Mises explains in his magnum opus Human Action, a market economy and a socialist economy are mutually exclusive in a very technical sense, so mixing them, even in theory, is impossible:
The market economy or capitalism, as it is usually called, and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would be in part capitalistic and in part socialist. Production is directed either by the market or by the decrees of a production tsar or a committee of production tsars. What gets euphemistically called a “mixed economy,” Mises explains later in the book, is more accurately called a system of interventionism. It is still a degree of market economy, but instead of a free market, it’s a hampered market.
This has implications far beyond changing our terminology. Once we see that there is no mixing capitalism and socialism, the very concept of a spectrum between them is vitiated, and thus, so is the concept of a middle ground. As Mises writes in another place, “Interventionism is not a golden mean between capitalism and socialism. It is the design of a third system of society’s economic organization and must be appreciated as such.”
Rather than thinking of capitalism, socialism, and interventionism as being in a line, think of them arranged in a triangle. There are simply three independent systems to choose from, and none of them is “in between” any of the others.
Aside from being more economically accurate, this new configuration also helps us avoid the temptation of the middle ground fallacy, also known as the argument to moderation. The middle ground fallacy is the assumption that the best position must be the compromise between two extremes—sometimes it is, of course, but often it’s not. It’s quite likely that this fallacy has played a role in the current popularity of the “middle ground” interventionist position. Mises hints at this with his “golden mean” comment. It’s tempting to assume that the middle is best.
The only real downside of the free market is that people are allowed to do things we don’t like. The downsides of interventionism—and these become more prominent as we move toward higher degrees of intervention—are that economic well-being is compromised and liberty is violated. Given these realities, the only reasonable position for those who cherish freedom and prosperity is the radical one: a pure market economy.
Yep, in a free market and a free world, people will do things that other people do not like!! Imagine that! So, we must intervene and make them do as we want them to do no matter what they want, after all, it is for their own good!
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis,