The free market. Capitalism. Call it what you will. The truth is that people often don’t understand the difference between capitalism and what we currently have. They mistakenly call our current mixed economy capitalism, and they blame companies that try to stamp out competition as being capitalistic. They’re wrong.
Today, many companies spend a great deal of money on lobbyists that take their wish list to Congress. That wish list does occasionally call for relaxing of some regulations, but more often than not it calls of increases in regulation. Why? Because they like the idea of making in harder to enter the market and provide competition. Increase regulations also give them the benefit of possibly stamping out smaller competitors. That forces consumers to go to one of the big guys for their products.
This, my friends, is not capitalism in any way, shape, or form. It’s not. This is corporatism, plain and simple.
In capitalism, these regulations designed to stamp out the little guy wouldn’t exist. Would the little guy thrive? Maybe, maybe not. It would be up to that little guy to make it though. He (or she) would have to work hard, make good decisions, and convince his potential customers that they should be from his company. If all that comes together, then he’ll survive just fine. If not, well…it’s all on him.
Capitalism isn’t a pretty system, but it actually is the most fair. When progressives talk about fairness, they never consider capitalism as being just that. However, it really is. An open market, where each individual is free to determine their own destiny. If they want to start a company, there’s not a governmental body standing in the way trying to keep them from it. There’s nothing to it but their own determination and skill.
Ok, so it’s not really this bad… yet. But if the incremental intrusions into our privacy aren’t stopped, a phone call like this isn’t so far-fetched for our future.
In this video, Dr. Paul cuts to the chase by pointing out that Obama is really making an argument for more and bigger government, while attempting to camouflage it behind fanciful (perhaps one could say “Orwellian”) rhetoric.
No other election day has held the level of significance for me than this one does. While I’ve always voted, this was the first election cycle in which I took an avid interest and actually became involved in the political scene. For nine months, I was an active supporter of my hero, Dr. Ron Paul. After Super Tuesday, and it became evident that Dr.
Glen Beck is right- as usual- and it scares me.
Over the last few years, John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, has been increasingly outspoken about his libertarian viewpoints and support of the free market.
While President Barack Obama was pushing his healthcare proposal back in 2009, Mackey offered some sound, patient-friendly solutions to deal with the issue in an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal. Mackey also earned some attention due the way Whole Foods handled healthcare for its employees. By providing high-deductible coverage along with a health savings account (HSA), Mackey noted that individuals do care about their their well-being, despite the rhetoric from the left.
President Obama has often been accused of pushing a socialist agenda because of his healthcare law and other economic policies. But during an interview yesterday on National Public Radio (NPR), Mackey explained that a law like ObamaCare isn’t socialism, but rather fascism, noting the difference between the two ideologies:
When [NPR host Steve] Inskeep asks him if he still thinks the health law is a form of socialism, as he’s said before, Mackey responds:
“Technically speaking, it’s more like fascism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it — and that’s what’s happening with our health care programs and these reforms.”
On Wednesday, I noted a 1998 speech given Barack Obama, then a state senator in Illinois, at Loyola University. As he wound down his comments, Obama made it clear that he believes in redistribution of wealth. As I explained, the comments aren’t surprising. During a 2008 campaign stop in Ohio, Obama told “Joe the Plumber” that he believes in “spread[ing] the wealth around.” And since that time, Obama has pushed his tax hikes along the same rhetorical line.
But more comments have surfaced in the last couple of days that show how deep-rooted this belief in wealth redistribution is. In 1995, Obama called for a collectivist society, based in “democracy — with a ‘small-d,’” which is essentially the rule of the mob, for the “common good”:
In a new video from Learn Liberty, Professor Aeon Skoble explains why smoking bans violate the private property rights of business owners. He notes that if someone that doesn’t want to eat at an establishment that allows smoking, the market allows them to find another restaurant that is more suitable to them:
I had the displeasure of reading a Paul Krugman column a short while ago after reading a link to it in a Reason comment thread. (That, of course, was quite pleasant.) Naturally, Krugman spouts off utter stupidity:
Watching the evolution of economic discussion in Washington over the past couple of years has been a disheartening experience. Month by month, the discourse has gotten more primitive; with stunning speed, the lessons of the 2008 financial crisis have been forgotten, and the very ideas that got us into the crisis — regulation is always bad, what’s good for the bankers is good for America, tax cuts are the universal elixir — have regained their hold.
On the face of it, this seems bizarre. Over the last two years profits have soared while unemployment has remained disastrously high. Why should anyone believe that handing even more money to corporations, no strings attached, would lead to faster job creation?
And now trickle-down economics — specifically, the idea that anything that increases corporate profits is good for the economy — is making a comeback.
Americans have this tendency to pick a President that will promise to give them a better life. They want prosperity, and any failure to deliver can kill a political career almost as fast as a dead girl or live boy. In all of this hoopla, something gets missed. One key factor that is constantly overlooked. It’s not the government’s job to give you a better life, it’s their job to make sure you have a chance to do that for yourself.
The truth is that government hasn’t been doing their job lately. Many regulations actually prevent entry into various fields, lobbied for by corporations looking to protect their profit share. Licensing requirement for jobs with such high risk towards human life like interior decorator and hair stylist put up ridiculous barriers for people to make a living. This isn’t how it should be.
Unfortunately, this nation is no longer capitalist, but corporatist. Corporations lobby for massive regulations that they know will choke out smaller competitors. Why choke out the little guys who pose no real threat? Because enough little guys can make up a sizable market share, something the big guys covet. By choking out these smaller companies, they grow without having to really compete with like sized companies.
For some people, the American Dream is their own business, but the various levels of government have put up so many obstacles that many have had to abandon their version of The Dream. Now, if so many politicians are concerned with fairness, tell me where the fairness is in that?
Of course, fairness isn’t something the government can or should provide. There will always be unfairness in the world. Efforts to create “fairness” automatically create “unfairness” for someone else.