We argue differently. To believe that the political apparatus can serve as the premier and ultimate expression of the popular will constitutes the "fatal conceit" of 20th Century social thinking. As amply shown by economists in the public choice tradition, our analysis argues that even if it actively sought the common good, a government could not define a social welfare function even in theory. To pursue such a lofty goal, the state should possess a full knowledge of each and every individual subjective preference in society. In a valid concept of social welfare, there is no special value attached to a majority opinion, or to the interests of any particular social grouping, be it composed of farmers, members of the middle class, part of large families or unattached individuals. In contrast with the rest of us, politicians and bureaucrats should be immune to self-interest and greed and predisposed to adopt strictly altruistic behaviour. In fact, under present less than encompassing political rules, politicians respond to the preferences of successive majorities or to the interests of narrow factions. Because they receive their mandate for a few short years, immediate popular gratification is the preferred political option. Consumption at the expense of saving and investment prevails.

          Another dogma in the social democratic religion holds that "free goods" at the point of consumption is the unquestionable symbol of social justice, the purest expression of our compassion, in clear contrast with the rugged individualism of materialist Americans. As the indictment pronounced by the socialist tradition against the capitalist system has it, the wealth-creating virtues of free markets solely rest on unfettered selfish and materialistic instincts. Even organized churches hit upon this straw man.

          Our counter attack to this superficial analysis goes broadly as follows. Far from embodying the noble ideal of sharing, the apparent predilection for the state monopoly in education and health care expresses the concern of a majority to access services with other people's money. In a similar vein, law students are reminded that confiscating other people's wealth in the private sphere is called stealing. When carried out collectively by state coercion, it becomes income redistribution or social justice. Charity is the product of an honourable instinct; stealing, legally or illegally, remains morally despicable, a necessary evil in a free society.

          We also reflect before our law student audience on how in little more than a generation, the concept of social justice and collective rights have driven out individual rights as the organizing principle of society. The notion of collective rights implemented by state action have now supplanted property rights for the benefit of all sorts of minorities, including racial or ethnic groups, women in the labour force, homosexuals and cultural communities. Forced equality of results, not their quality or diversity, is the defining concern of egalitarians.

          We argue by contrast that opposing collective rights to individual rights is repellent to free minds. In direct contrast with collective rights, a right is the freedom to escape from state power. Suggesting a trade-off between social justice and simple justice is to legitimise state action without the consent of one contracting party; it is to subscribe to the violation of property rights. History teaches that this perversion feeds antagonisms and hampers wealth creation.

          This contrast between the two protagonist schools in the culture war brings out the century-old opposing views on the place of government in society and its relation with individuals. As was the case throughout the history of industrial countries, the defining distinction between these two philosophies is the primacy accorded to equality on the one hand as opposed to liberty on the other. Collectivists of all stripes prescribe coercive redistribution in the service of egalitarianism. Their idealized outcome? A population relying on the state to alleviate life fears: old age, illness, unemployment and reversals of fortune. Equal dependence of all on socialized risk protection has undermined self-reliance and self-esteem while encouraging dependency, poverty and relative decline.

          Our line of analysis argues that inequality of results is an expression of freedom and the necessary concomitant of wealth creation. In a word, the welfare state has been a failure and it has done substantial damage to society and economy. Institutionally, political calculus determines the options of these two doctrinal schools. Groups who live by the state tend to support its growth and to vehemently oppose arrangements favourable to freedom of choice and private initiatives: school vouchers, health and retirement accounts and tax cuts. Winning this battle of ideas would be ample reward for us. However, simply being able to exercise our right to openly discuss the issues in a university environment without being the subject of institutionally-condoned hostility remains, for the time being, a battle that we are still fighting.