Introduction

A central argument proponents of capitalist-inclined policy make is that it leads to increasing material prosperity. Few deny that claim any longer, even if people disagree about the relative extent to which markets by themselves, or markets combined with various government supports and restrictions, are responsible for that prosperity. But proponents of socialist-inclined policy respond with two other claims. First, whatever capitalism’s benefits, it also issues in costs—not only in the “destruction” part of its characteristic “creative destruction,” but also in costs it imposes on unwitting third parties via various forms of externalities. Is it always clear that capitalism’s alleged benefits outweigh these costs? Second, even if it transpires that socialist-inclined policy does issue in net costs—that is, that it reduces material prosperity overall—some goals might be worth the price. Sometimes sacrificing some of one’s wealth is required, or justified, by allegiance to important moral goals, including perhaps fairness, equality, or community.

What exactly are the gains in prosperity that decentralist capitalism proposes, then, and what are the costs it imposes? Are the latter always justified by the former? And, if conflicts between material prosperity and moral goals that we share, or that we should share, do arise, is it clear that we should always find in favor of the former?