I don’t know who introduced the idea that the market is something egocentric and perverse, but it has distorted its meaning. Originally, those who spoke about the market were not “economists” but—like those of the School of Salamanca—theologians and moral philosophers, or—like Adam Smith—who dedicated himself to moral philosophy.

These moralists did not intend to found another science, only to explain people’s behavior within something as natural as the market. The “market” was considered theoretically as just the gathering of all ordinary people in a place, cooperating voluntarily and peacefully, exchanging products and services in order to improve their lives and collaborate with others. Since all voluntary exchange only occurs if each person receives what benefits them more than what they give, markets are self-evidently welfare-maximizing.

Being “egocentric,” of course, leads to the idea that the government must “regulate,” coercively, which ends up, not in natural regulation, but in a distortion of the spontaneous development of society. The “market” goes from being an arena of cooperation—where everyone decides and wins in real time—to becoming an arena interfered with by the arbitrary decisions of a bureaucrat.

Indeed, such interventions transform the market into a realm of egocentrism where what is advantageous is to convince—or corrupt—the bureaucrat so that the “regulations” benefit them at the expense of others, as when business owners obtain subsidies paid for by ordinary citizens. Or, in the area of prevention, when officials impose capricious state directives over the opinions of those concerned—the public.

For example, the US Army—specifically the Army Corps of Engineers—built and maintained the canals and walls protecting New Orleans. Unfortunately, they knew that they would fail to withstand storms of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, leaving the city devastated. Insurance and reinsurance companies could easily have erected adequate defense infrastructure if state regulations had allowed it.

Swiss Re estimated global insurers’ contributions for natural disasters in 2024 at over $135 billion, but total economic losses from disasters were higher, exceeding $318 billion, leaving a significant protection gap because states interfere by discouraging—if not outright prohibiting—coverage in many cases.

Now we have this terrible train accident that claimed more than forty lives in Adamuz, Spain. Among other testimonies, a letter came to light in which a Spanish train drivers’ union had warned, in August 2025, about serious deterioration of the high-speed rail lines, including the section where the accident occurred. Everything seems to point to a problem with the tracks, whose care and maintenance is in the hands of state bureaucrats.

Be that as it may, there are two things that must be made clear and that make “state control” counterproductive. First, people—the market—risk their own lives and fortunes, while, for the bureaucrat, preventing an accident is just another tedious task; therefore, no one will be more careful than people are with themselves. Additionally, a bureaucracy is guaranteed funding via taxation, which means no profit and loss, and no economic calculation.

The market regulates accidents very effectively. If the state does not coercively interfere, competition between companies forces them to improve services to the maximum (as well as the threat of tort law for harm). Then, in cases such as transportation, both employees—drivers, pilots, etc.—and managers will be the first to monitor the situation since any accident would directly affect them. The users—who also risk their own lives—will be relentless regulators with their observations, experiences, and opinions, praising or discrediting and denouncing companies.

Second, the market works in real time and on a personalized basis, while bureaucrats respond to outdated and general regulations, laws, and protocols when each person and each situation is a special case. For example, during the covid crisis, I personally know that, “for protocol reasons,” many people were subjected to procedures that were not suitable for them, seriously endangering their lives, and I don’t want to know how many died as a result.

Image Source: Adobe Stock

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.