Mr. Pier reads these ancient observations correctly, and the moral conclusions he draws are precisely those I would want to refute.

While private property is essential to a free and stable society, "economic liberty" understood in terms of wealth rather than property contributes to a society's disintegration. It is unfortunate that this profound distinction between property and wealth has been lost in our age -- and it is perhaps tragic that circumstances make its recovery unlikely.

Mr. Pier's comments seem ironic in our present moment, given that it is precisely the long "truce" or "fusionism" between classical liberals (libertarians) and traditionalists that have done so much harm to our country and, less importantly, the reputation of conservatism. This circumstantial alliance, which was quite justifiable because of the grave evil and threat presented to the West during the Cold War, led to the cementing of statism on both the right and the left.

I should be happy to fight the collectivist liberals wherever they may be found; I find many of them posed as conservatives.

The current crisis of 'turbo-capitalism' has manifested how cozy big government and big business are. Where does Goldman-Sachs end and the Department of the Treasury begin?

But does recognition of this not really so strange bedfellows relationship necessarily mean that an economy 'organized around private profit' is inherently unjust or even sinful? Surely the 'organic' (whatever that means) farmer is not looking to take a loss or even to break even, any more than is the owner of an auto-body shop or of a neighborhood bodega in Manhattan. If being in the black is a sin, then surely General Motors is a paradigm of sanctity.