 In his great book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, the economist Joseph Schumpeter offered a scathing critique of current day intellectuals by which he meant professional writers, politicians, think tankers, and others who try to influence public opinion, the same group of people Hayek would later call the second hand dealers in ideas. As Schumpeter pointed out, one thing that characterizes these intellectuals is the absence of direct responsibility for practical affairs. In other words, these people don't know much about the world of business, the world of commerce, the world of everyday ordinary activities. This absence of direct responsibility leads to an absence of firsthand knowledge about how the economy works. According to Schumpeter, the critical attitude of these intellectuals towards capitalism arises no less from the intellectual status as an onlooker, in most cases also as an outsider, than from the fact that his main chance of asserting himself lies in his actual or potential nuisance value. I was reminded of this quote when reading some of the reactions to Monday's US Supreme Court decision, in the case Burwell versus Hobby Lobby. The Supreme Court ruled in a five to four decision that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which had exempted churches and some religious organizations from particular provisions of President Obama's Affordable Care Act, also applied to for-profit companies, at least small closely held for-profit companies. Now much of the reaction has been very animated on both sides, with some viewing this decision as a victory for religious liberty, others viewing it as an attack on affordable health care, an attack on reproductive freedom, and even an attack on women. However, this case was ultimately not about gender or about reproduction or about health, but about property rights, namely the rights of business owners to offer whatever compensation packages to employees they choose. And employees are free to accept those offers, to try to negotiate them or to reject them and try to work for another company. In other words, everyone in a free market is able to negotiate and barter and offer for whatever kinds of compensation packages they want. No one is compelled to offer anything, and no one is compelled to accept any particular job. The Progressive Website Think Progress had an interesting commentary on this case, arguing that in fact the decision was harmful to religious liberty. It protected only the religious liberty of a few wealthy individuals, such as the owners of Hobby Lobby. According to Think Progress, the pro-Hobby Lobby decision isn't about protecting religious liberty. Instead, it's just a victory for one kind of religion, specifically the usually conservative faith of those privileged enough to own and operate massive corporations, those privileged enough to own and operate massive corporations. Think about this concept of privilege. This is something we hear often today, where people are urged to quote-unquote check their privilege and see if they're benefiting from any sort of bias that operates in their favor, even without them realizing it. Now, what does it mean to say that the owners of Hobby Lobby are protected because they're privileged enough to own a large company? Hobby Lobby was founded by a man named David Green in 1970 in Oklahoma City. He started a home business assembling picture frames using a $300 loan. He then purchased a very small store. He grew it into a local and then a regional chain. His first store opened in 1972, had annual sales of $3,200. By 1989, Hobby Lobby had grown to 15 stores. By June of 2014, the chain had 561 stores throughout the United States and over $2 billion in annual revenue. Now, nothing stops a writer from think progress or any other website from taking out a small loan, starting a company in their basement, trying to grow it into a larger company, and maybe eventually having control over a large nationwide corporate empire. Nothing except their lack of ability, I might add. The think progress writer would then be free to offer whatever combination of salary, fringe benefits, and other rewards he or she wishes to offer to workers. All that's required is some entrepreneurial initiative, 80, 100-hour weeks for many years, slowly and gradually attempting to build a business into a larger enterprise. In other words, Mr. Green was not privileged enough to inherit Hobby Lobby from a rich uncle. He didn't grow up with a trust fund. He was an ordinary middle class guy who invested time and energy and a lot of hard work into creating this company. If this is privileged, then we should all be so privileged as to put forth that much effort to build a company. Those who operate businesses in a free market society do so in order to satisfy consumer wants. Those who are the most successful are those who provide goods and services that benefit us, the consumers. And in the process, they benefit large numbers of workers, suppliers, distributors, and others. So thank goodness people like Mr. Green are willing to do the hard work to create large enterprises that make all of us better off.