The Moral Case for Free Enterprise

[Billy000]

Don't Eat Your Dog: The Surprising Moral Case for Free Enterprise - YouTube

As we on the right now, free enterprise is unquestionably the way to improve the economy and help the most people. But too often, liberals are able to win these arguments by framing things like income inequality, the minimum wage, and unemployment benefits as being about morality/fairness. We need to fight the left on their own turf, and we need to win.

Here's the most salient points in defending free enterprise.
1) Supporters of the free market believe that every individual should be free to pursue their own happiness. We think people should be able to follow their own hopes and dreams without excessive intervention by the government. Some people turn out richer and some poorer than others, but that's OK. In fact, studies have confirmed this. People who say they feel they've earned their success are much happier than those who do not, regardless of income. A study showed that people who delayed gratification in kindergarten, by waiting 15 minutes for a 2nd marshmallow rather than eating the first one right away, had higher SAT scores and GPA's, and were less likely to do drugs, than those who were not. We think people should be able to pursue their own happiness, and live in their image, not Barack Obama's or some government bureaucrat's.
2) Inequality is the price of a free society, but rich people are the ones who are making life better for everyone. A poor person in the US today has a cell phone(quite possibly an iPhone), a microwave, a car, a fridge, clean water, a computer with Internet, and air conditioning. 30 years ago, a middle class family wouldn't have a lot of these things, and the wealthiest would have none of these things 120 years ago. People act as if the rich are taking up a bigger slice of the pie, but in reality, the rich are the ones baking the pies.

3) We have to argue for basic fairness. For most Americans, a fair society is one in which hard work, creativity, and honest competition result in financial reward. It does not mean that we redistribute resources through government power just to get more equality. It also does not mean rewarding the government's cronies in favored industries - from green energy, to banks, to labor unions. It means rewarding merit and creating opportunity. It does not mean insider dealing, social engineering, equalizing economic outcomes, and pork-barrel spending.

4) Finally, and this is alluding to point #2, we have to argue for the rights of the poor, and fight for the system that lifts them up by the billions. Between 1970 and 2010, the percentage of the world's population living on less than a dollar a day has been reduced by about 80 percent. What explains this miracle? The United Nations or International Monetary Fund? U.S. foreign aid? Of course not. It was globalization, free trade, entrepreneurship, property rights, and the rule of law spreading around the world.

In conclusion, economic freedom isn't just right economically. It's right morally. We need to show the compassion that underlies support of free enterprise policies, and stop letting liberals claim the mantle of morality.

Can you link to me a noted liberal who wants to do away with our free enterprise system?

You can't. This thread is a waste of time. You have a poor understanding of what liberals believe in.

 

[editec]

Your economic freedom to swing your cash ends at the point where your swinging cash is effecting my nose, lad.


Its not really economic FREEDOM anyone is debating against.

Free enterprize is not anarchy.

 

[American4Americ]

Don't Eat Your Dog: The Surprising Moral Case for Free Enterprise - YouTube

As we on the right now, free enterprise is unquestionably the way to improve the economy and help the most people. But too often, liberals are able to win these arguments by framing things like income inequality, the minimum wage, and unemployment benefits as being about morality/fairness. We need to fight the left on their own turf, and we need to win.

Here's the most salient points in defending free enterprise.
1) Supporters of the free market believe that every individual should be free to pursue their own happiness. We think people should be able to follow their own hopes and dreams without excessive intervention by the government. Some people turn out richer and some poorer than others, but that's OK. In fact, studies have confirmed this. People who say they feel they've earned their success are much happier than those who do not, regardless of income. A study showed that people who delayed gratification in kindergarten, by waiting 15 minutes for a 2nd marshmallow rather than eating the first one right away, had higher SAT scores and GPA's, and were less likely to do drugs, than those who were not. We think people should be able to pursue their own happiness, and live in their image, not Barack Obama's or some government bureaucrat's.
2) Inequality is the price of a free society, but rich people are the ones who are making life better for everyone. A poor person in the US today has a cell phone(quite possibly an iPhone), a microwave, a car, a fridge, clean water, a computer with Internet, and air conditioning. 30 years ago, a middle class family wouldn't have a lot of these things, and the wealthiest would have none of these things 120 years ago. People act as if the rich are taking up a bigger slice of the pie, but in reality, the rich are the ones baking the pies.

3) We have to argue for basic fairness. For most Americans, a fair society is one in which hard work, creativity, and honest competition result in financial reward. It does not mean that we redistribute resources through government power just to get more equality. It also does not mean rewarding the government's cronies in favored industries - from green energy, to banks, to labor unions. It means rewarding merit and creating opportunity. It does not mean insider dealing, social engineering, equalizing economic outcomes, and pork-barrel spending.

4) Finally, and this is alluding to point #2, we have to argue for the rights of the poor, and fight for the system that lifts them up by the billions. Between 1970 and 2010, the percentage of the world's population living on less than a dollar a day has been reduced by about 80 percent. What explains this miracle? The United Nations or International Monetary Fund? U.S. foreign aid? Of course not. It was globalization, free trade, entrepreneurship, property rights, and the rule of law spreading around the world.

In conclusion, economic freedom isn't just right economically. It's right morally. We need to show the compassion that underlies support of free enterprise policies, and stop letting liberals claim the mantle of morality.

Unlike the leftists, whose platform advocates the destruction of dreams.

 

[Bombur]

People don't become rich just because they invent things. They become rich because they own the means of production. It is called capitalism.

A "Free Market" society is dependent on the market being free of problems other than just government. Healthy markets are the best chance any economy has at producing good results. The government is needed to ensure that those markets are healthy and laissez faire economics is based more on ideology than reality.

In the real world people take moral stands about things like feeding the poor and providing health care. In the real world other nations are involved and their decisions matter to us. In the real world markets can favor one group over the other. Blindly believing they are some how sacred is naïve and ignorant.

Government has problems there is no denying that. The problem is that government is still responsible for addressing the issues that crop up.