Definition of economic freedom.

1. Economic freedom exists when men's goods or their qwn services may be exchanged as they choose, without hindrance. Competition is but another expression for economic freedom. Where men are free to exchange their goods and to get the best price they can, and actually do so, they are said to compete. The action of men in the mass follows pretty regular lines, corresponding to certain abiding motives. If one man dictated all industry, a very fragmentary science of economics would be possible; but the mass of men act according to some rule and are free so to act. When men are free to bring their goods to a market and get the best price possible, a single market price results.

When cost of production was believed to be the regulator of value, it was said that the law of value laid down was true "within the limit of free competition." Market price varied ceaselessly from cost of production, and whenever it did "the law of value" as then formulated was admittedly invalid or inapplicable. The law of monopoly price was supposed to be in marked contrast to the law of competitive prices. The law of prices, as followed in our study, stated in terms of marginal utility, is equally valid in competitive and in monopolistic conditions if there is merely one-sided, or buyers', competition. Two-sided competition is not the sole, though it is the usual condition, which the economist takes account of in reasoning on the problem of price. Anything that keeps men from exchanging what they have for the best price, interferes with competition. Some of these hindrances have been noted, others are now to be.

2. Economic freedom does not mean equality of power or of efficiency. It was said in discussing monopoly that it was not to be understood to be merely either scarcity or superiority. To speak of the class of laborers of ability above that of the average day laborer as having a monopoly is certainly a confusion of monopoly with the scarcity of efficiency. The term competition is not easy to define in practice; for it is not easy to see just what part of a man's inability to exchange is due to his own lack of efficiency, and what to things outside of himself which prevent him from exchanging his labor. But the thought is clear that free competition - economic freedom - is limited whenever men, are hindered by any power outside themselves from using their economic power as they prefer. The limitations of competition, thus understood, are essentially social limitations, imposed by other men either unconsciously by custom, convention, tradition, or consciously by force or by laws. When, among Polynesian tribes, the custom of taboo prevailed, by which certain things were reserved to the rulers and were forbidden to the common man, there was a limitation on his economic freedom. Contrast such limits with those set by the penury of nature. The savage may like best to hunt, but if there is no game, he must fish; he may like best to make arrowheads, but in need of food he must dig roots. Economic action is limited by lack of knowledge and skill; the resources of nature lie unused under the feet of savages who are suffering from their lack. These are limitations not of economic freedom but of economic efficiency.

Economic freedom vs. equality of efficiency.

Limitation by custom in early society.

3. In early society custom limits economic freedom in many ways. The savage is not a man without law; he is bound in many ways to prescribed lines of conduct. Primitive custom usually takes on a religious sanction, and every member of the tribe is compelled to do as his fathers have done and as his neighbors are doing. He is not free to choose. Custom in some ways is favorable to the welfare of society, for it limits the power of masters and rulers, preserves the rights of individuals to common property, and is in the interest of the weak as well as of the strong. In an age of force if it were not for custom, he who had might on his side could take all. So in early society even economic relations were complex and yet almost fixed - changing only slowly from generation to generation. Every such social custom that limits the choice of men limits economic freedom.

Limitation by custom in the Middle Ages.

4. Custom ruled a large share of the industrial life of the Middle Ages. Political and economic interests were not clearly divided in the Middle Ages. Land was the all-important kind of wealth. Military and other public services were performed by the vassal, who thus at the same time paid his taxes and the rent of the land. The landlord was at once the ruler, the receiver of rents, and the collector of taxes. The rent, however, was not a competitive price, but consisted of the dues and services the forefathers had been accustomed to pay. This limited slavery, like all other slavery, was wasteful, as it did not give to the individual the strongest motive to increase the quantity and to improve the quality of his service. Trade became limited in almost every direction. Crafts and gilds arrogated to themselves the right of employment in their industries. No matter what talent the son of a peasant might show, he usually found it impossible and always found it difficult to follow the occupation of his choice. Privilege pervaded all the life of that time. In such conditions economic friction is great. Men are kept in trades below their ability, while others gain comma ad of monopolistic and unearned returns.

Yet through all the Middle Ages ran the forces of competition. The inefficiency of customary services was a constant invitation to competitors. Men were striving to break over the barriers of custom and prejudice. The strife for freedom was the vital economic force even of the Middle Ages. The industrial history of that time is largely the story of the struggle of the forces of competition against the bounds of custom.