Why is there so much hostility towards economic freedom?

[f252863]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

And your premise fails because no one is making the argument that ‘economic freedom’ is ‘harmful.’

You're joking right? From a progressive web site discussing Michael Moore:

"Moore attempted to reveal Capitalism's dark side by showing how Capitalism systematically causes serious, unnecessary harm, inconsistent with our basic moral commitments. Perhaps more important, Moore attempted to break the taboo around criticizing Capitalism and to say the words aloud -- "Capitalism Is Evil."

or from Huffpo:

"Global Capitalism Is Destroying the Middle Class, Say the Global Capitalists"

Ironically many people cannot make the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism, they believe it is one and the same.

We do not have a capitalist economy in the U.S., it is a state directed economy. When you go to a bank and open an account who determine the interest rate you'll be paid? Not the bank, it is set by the Federal Reserve.

 

[georgephillip]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

And your premise fails because no one is making the argument that ‘economic freedom’ is ‘harmful.’

You're joking right? From a progressive web site discussing Michael Moore:

"Moore attempted to reveal Capitalism's dark side by showing how Capitalism systematically causes serious, unnecessary harm, inconsistent with our basic moral commitments. Perhaps more important, Moore attempted to break the taboo around criticizing Capitalism and to say the words aloud -- "Capitalism Is Evil."

or from Huffpo:

"Global Capitalism Is Destroying the Middle Class, Say the Global Capitalists"

Ironically many people cannot make the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism, they believe it is one and the same.

We do not have a capitalist economy in the U.S., it is a state directed economy. When you go to a bank and open an account who determine the interest rate you'll be paid? Not the bank, it is set by the Federal Reserve.

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

 

[Samson]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. ......

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous.

Not sure where you have developed the logic behind your If-then statement, particularly after you make the "as a general tenet" caveat in your opening sentence,

Clearly, there are EXCEPTION's.

We "must accept" that ALL freedoms CAN BE demonstrably dangerous.

This includes economic freedom, which has, and can, lead to exploitation (child labor, environmental pollution, monopolistic economies, etc.). This is not to say that centralised regulation resolves any of these evils: to the contrary, mismanaged regulation can have equally devestating results.

Similarly, I cannot follow the logic behind your assertions. I'll focus on one of them to avoid getting bogged down into endless tangents.

Maybe you can educate me on the history of child labor because I seem to have it all backwards here. This is my understanding, tell me where I am wrong:

1. Child labor goes back thousands of years, it was not introduced by the industrial revolution or the economic freedoms of the 19th century in the U.S.
2. The main impetus for child labor was survival, that is why people in poor countries have lots of children and put them to work at an early age.
3. The wealth created by capitalism led to the development of a middle class that no longer had to depend on children for survival. This is happening in China right now.
4. If you passed a regulation against child labor in an impoverished country you will condemn many to starvation and destitution.
5. Child labor laws were not passed until 1938, yet the participation rate of children in the labor force was declining rapidly well before that. By 1930 only about 6% of children aged 10 to 15 were employed, and 75% of them were in agriculture (family farms) not industrial concerns. How do you reconcile this with the idea that unregulated capitalism leads to an increase in child labor?

I'd like to make this thread about how many misconceptions you've developed around another (off-topic) subject, but I'll spare the board.......

Plus, if you cannot connect the dots between unregulated capitalism and increased child labor, then you have not developed the intellect worth my time connecting them for you.

 

[oldfart]

Not sure where you have developed the logic behind your If-then statement, particularly after you make the "as a general tenet" caveat in your opening sentence,

Clearly, there are EXCEPTION's.

We "must accept" that ALL freedoms CAN BE demonstrably dangerous.

This includes economic freedom, which has, and can, lead to exploitation (child labor, environmental pollution, monopolistic economies, etc.). This is not to say that centralised regulation resolves any of these evils: to the contrary, mismanaged regulation can have equally devestating results.

Similarly, I cannot follow the logic behind your assertions. I'll focus on one of them to avoid getting bogged down into endless tangents.

Maybe you can educate me on the history of child labor because I seem to have it all backwards here. This is my understanding, tell me where I am wrong:

1. Child labor goes back thousands of years, it was not introduced by the industrial revolution or the economic freedoms of the 19th century in the U.S.
2. The main impetus for child labor was survival, that is why people in poor countries have lots of children and put them to work at an early age.
3. The wealth created by capitalism led to the development of a middle class that no longer had to depend on children for survival. This is happening in China right now.
4. If you passed a regulation against child labor in an impoverished country you will condemn many to starvation and destitution.
5. Child labor laws were not passed until 1938, yet the participation rate of children in the labor force was declining rapidly well before that. By 1930 only about 6% of children aged 10 to 15 were employed, and 75% of them were in agriculture (family farms) not industrial concerns. How do you reconcile this with the idea that unregulated capitalism leads to an increase in child labor?

I'd like to make this thread about how many misconceptions you've developed around another (off-topic) subject, but I'll spare the board.......

Plus, if you cannot connect the dots between unregulated capitalism and increased child labor, then you have not developed the intellect worth my time connecting them for you.

I notice you did not attempt to rebut the evidence or contest the reasoning. Simply restating a failed argument and adding insults is proof you have lost the debate. One more logic error and you will qualify for EPIC FAIL status.

 

[Indeependent]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. ......

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous.

Not sure where you have developed the logic behind your If-then statement, particularly after you make the "as a general tenet" caveat in your opening sentence,

Clearly, there are EXCEPTION's.

We "must accept" that ALL freedoms CAN BE demonstrably dangerous.

This includes economic freedom, which has, and can, lead to exploitation (child labor, environmental pollution, monopolistic economies, etc.). This is not to say that centralised regulation resolves any of these evils: to the contrary, mismanaged regulation can have equally devestating results.

Similarly, I cannot follow the logic behind your assertions. I'll focus on one of them to avoid getting bogged down into endless tangents.

Maybe you can educate me on the history of child labor because I seem to have it all backwards here. This is my understanding, tell me where I am wrong:

1. Child labor goes back thousands of years, it was not introduced by the industrial revolution or the economic freedoms of the 19th century in the U.S.
2. The main impetus for child labor was survival, that is why people in poor countries have lots of children and put them to work at an early age.
3. The wealth created by capitalism led to the development of a middle class that no longer had to depend on children for survival. This is happening in China right now.
4. If you passed a regulation against child labor in an impoverished country you will condemn many to starvation and destitution.
5. Child labor laws were not passed until 1938, yet the participation rate of children in the labor force was declining rapidly well before that. By 1930 only about 6% of children aged 10 to 15 were employed, and 75% of them were in agriculture (family farms) not industrial concerns. How do you reconcile this with the idea that unregulated capitalism leads to an increase in child labor?

Number 3 is where reality does not match the theory.
More children were going to school and others were forming gangs that got their bread the old fashioned way...grabbing it and running for the hills.
If what you state state regarding Child Labor Laws were true, then those laws would be unnecessary.

Plus, do you have any relatives old enough to know when they were too poor to pass up any lousy job?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We don't object (as a general tenet) to free speech, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. yet when it comes to economic freedom some vociferously oppose it on the grounds that it leads to exploitation. Yet exploitation is not possible when there is choice, it can only occur when force is brought into the equation.

The alternative to a free market is crony capitalism, a political economy directed by special interests. Instead of creating capital via production the masses divide into factions fighting for the spoils. Large, entrenched interests run the show in collusion with the political class and woe to anyone who seeks to disrupt the established order. You'll quickly find yourself lost in a maze of regulations and taxes purposefully designed to thwart newcomers.

How does voluntary trading between two individuals constitute a threat to the social order or a potential for exploitation? Neither one is beholden to the other, each is free to do business elsewhere. This is especially manifest in the internet age where consumer ratings are extremely effective in curbing bad business practices.

If you are going to make the case that economic freedom is harmful then you must accept the proposition that all freedoms are demonstrably dangerous. How many people lost their lives to religion or new ideologies (with the objective of creating a perfect society) in the last 500 years?

And your premise fails because no one is making the argument that ‘economic freedom’ is ‘harmful.’

You're joking right? From a progressive web site discussing Michael Moore:

"Moore attempted to reveal Capitalism's dark side by showing how Capitalism systematically causes serious, unnecessary harm, inconsistent with our basic moral commitments. Perhaps more important, Moore attempted to break the taboo around criticizing Capitalism and to say the words aloud -- "Capitalism Is Evil."

or from Huffpo:

"Global Capitalism Is Destroying the Middle Class, Say the Global Capitalists"

Ironically many people cannot make the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism, they believe it is one and the same.

We do not have a capitalist economy in the U.S., it is a state directed economy. When you go to a bank and open an account who determine the interest rate you'll be paid? Not the bank, it is set by the Federal Reserve.

Now we have to ask if you’re joking.

Is it truly your position that the likes of Michael Moore is representative of all ‘progressives’?

If so you need to do a search for ‘hasty generalization fallacy,’ because your premise is indeed a fallacy.

And after you’ve learned about logical fallacies, start to research Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the Constitution affords Congress the authority to create regulatory measures designed to ensure the integrity of commerce and the economic well-being of the Nation.

This will help get you started and demonstrate to you that there is no ‘hostility’ towards economic freedom:

WEST COAST HOTEL CO. v. PARRISH et ux. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

United States v. Darby | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. FILBURN. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Indeependent]

Economic Freedom for some populations can be stifled by Fiscal policies.
Especially those that inundate the job market and thus lower wages.

 

[georgephillip]

Economic Freedom for some populations can be stifled by Fiscal policies.
Especially those that inundate the job market and thus lower wages.

In the OP "Economic Freedom" seems to be defined as a "free market." Is that correct? If so, are we talking about a market free of government regulation or high speed algorithmic stock trades?

 

[Indeependent]

Economic Freedom for some populations can be stifled by Fiscal policies.
Especially those that inundate the job market and thus lower wages.

In the OP "Economic Freedom" seems to be defined as a "free market." Is that correct? If so, are we talking about a market free of government regulation or high speed algorithmic stock trades?

There is always an intelligent medium between too much freedom and too many rules.
Anyone with children knows this.

 

[georgephillip]

Economic Freedom for some populations can be stifled by Fiscal policies.
Especially those that inundate the job market and thus lower wages.

In the OP "Economic Freedom" seems to be defined as a "free market." Is that correct? If so, are we talking about a market free of government regulation or high speed algorithmic stock trades?

There is always an intelligent medium between too much freedom and too many rules.
Anyone with children knows this.

As I understand it, the phrase "free market" originated hundreds of years ago referring to a market that was free of undue rentier (FIRE sector) influence. Lately, I've come to notice "free market" relates more to a market that's free of any significant government (democratic) regulation.

 

[Moonglow]

In the OP "Economic Freedom" seems to be defined as a "free market." Is that correct? If so, are we talking about a market free of government regulation or high speed algorithmic stock trades?

There is always an intelligent medium between too much freedom and too many rules.
Anyone with children knows this.

As I understand it, the phrase "free market" originated hundreds of years ago referring to a market that was free of undue rentier (FIRE sector) influence. Lately, I've come to notice "free market" relates more to a market that's free of any significant government (democratic) regulation.

Hookers would like a free market system.

 

[f252863]

Not sure where you have developed the logic behind your If-then statement, particularly after you make the "as a general tenet" caveat in your opening sentence,

Clearly, there are EXCEPTION's.

We "must accept" that ALL freedoms CAN BE demonstrably dangerous.

This includes economic freedom, which has, and can, lead to exploitation (child labor, environmental pollution, monopolistic economies, etc.). This is not to say that centralised regulation resolves any of these evils: to the contrary, mismanaged regulation can have equally devestating results.

Similarly, I cannot follow the logic behind your assertions. I'll focus on one of them to avoid getting bogged down into endless tangents.

Maybe you can educate me on the history of child labor because I seem to have it all backwards here. This is my understanding, tell me where I am wrong:

1. Child labor goes back thousands of years, it was not introduced by the industrial revolution or the economic freedoms of the 19th century in the U.S.
2. The main impetus for child labor was survival, that is why people in poor countries have lots of children and put them to work at an early age.
3. The wealth created by capitalism led to the development of a middle class that no longer had to depend on children for survival. This is happening in China right now.
4. If you passed a regulation against child labor in an impoverished country you will condemn many to starvation and destitution.
5. Child labor laws were not passed until 1938, yet the participation rate of children in the labor force was declining rapidly well before that. By 1930 only about 6% of children aged 10 to 15 were employed, and 75% of them were in agriculture (family farms) not industrial concerns. How do you reconcile this with the idea that unregulated capitalism leads to an increase in child labor?

I'd like to make this thread about how many misconceptions you've developed around another (off-topic) subject, but I'll spare the board.......

Plus, if you cannot connect the dots between unregulated capitalism and increased child labor, then you have not developed the intellect worth my time connecting them for you.

Child labor existed before capitalism.

Ironically it was capitalism that ended child labor.

If you can't connect those dots you are seriously deluded.

 

[f252863]

And your premise fails because no one is making the argument that ‘economic freedom’ is ‘harmful.’

You're joking right? From a progressive web site discussing Michael Moore:

"Moore attempted to reveal Capitalism's dark side by showing how Capitalism systematically causes serious, unnecessary harm, inconsistent with our basic moral commitments. Perhaps more important, Moore attempted to break the taboo around criticizing Capitalism and to say the words aloud -- "Capitalism Is Evil."

or from Huffpo:

"Global Capitalism Is Destroying the Middle Class, Say the Global Capitalists"

Ironically many people cannot make the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism, they believe it is one and the same.

We do not have a capitalist economy in the U.S., it is a state directed economy. When you go to a bank and open an account who determine the interest rate you'll be paid? Not the bank, it is set by the Federal Reserve.

Now we have to ask if you’re joking.

Is it truly your position that the likes of Michael Moore is representative of all ‘progressives’?

If so you need to do a search for ‘hasty generalization fallacy,’ because your premise is indeed a fallacy.

And after you’ve learned about logical fallacies, start to research Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the Constitution affords Congress the authority to create regulatory measures designed to ensure the integrity of commerce and the economic well-being of the Nation.

This will help get you started and demonstrate to you that there is no ‘hostility’ towards economic freedom:

WEST COAST HOTEL CO. v. PARRISH et ux. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

United States v. Darby | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. FILBURN. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

Hostility towards economic freedom is not about Supreme Court decisions, it is about media, academia, the public and our government. You are going way off base here.

Insofar as Congress and the commerce clause is concerned the original meaning to it and the phrase "general welfare" has been perverted beyond anything the founders intended.

The founders enumerated the powers of government, they didn't give it carte blanche to do whatever it saw fit.

 

[georgephillip]

Have you decided on a definition of "economic freedom"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is there so much hostility towards economic freedom?

Very little hostility exists towards business.

Businesses, however, may not exist if they harm people's lives, welfare, and environment.

We will not move toward a business standard in China.

 

[f252863]

Have you decided on a definition of "economic freedom"?

Long time ago.

A market economy bereft of government interference, e.g., tariffs, favoritism, subsidies, manipulation of interest rates, etc.

 

[f252863]

Why is there so much hostility towards economic freedom?

Very little hostility exists towards business.

Businesses, however, may not exist if they harm people's lives, welfare, and environment.

We will not move toward a business standard in China.

Right..

Every day I read articles bashing Walmart, McDonalds, and other large American companies.

 

[f252863]

From a Huffington Post article:

"In many ways, America today resembles the conditions in the late 1800s that was called the Gilded Age. It was an era of rampant, unregulated capitalism."

Laughable. To call this economy capitalist is beyond the pale, it is heavily regulated.

One crazy regulation:

"The state of Texas now requires every new computer repair technician to obtain a private investigator’s license. In order to receive a private investigator’s license, an individual must either have a degree in criminal justice or must complete a three year apprenticeship with a licensed private investigator. If you are a computer repair technician that violates this law, or if you are a regular citizen that has a computer repaired by someone not in compliance with the law, you can be fined up to $4,000 and you can be put in jail for a year."

 

[georgephillip]

Have you decided on a definition of "economic freedom"?

Long time ago.

A market economy bereft of government interference, e.g., tariffs, favoritism, subsidies, manipulation of interest rates, etc.

Would you deprive your economy of the free lunch landlords "earn" while sleeping?

"Classical economists characterized the rent and interest accruing to the FIRE sector as 'unearned income,' headed by land rent and land-price ('capital') gains, which John Stuart Mill described as what landlords made 'in their sleep.'

"Milton Friedman, by contrast, insisted that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch' – as if the economy were not all about a free lunch and how to get it. And the main way to get it is to dismantle the role of government and sell off the public domain – on credit."

The Chicago Boys? Free Market Theology » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[jasonnfree]

Have you decided on a definition of "economic freedom"?

Long time ago.

A market economy bereft of government interference, e.g., tariffs, favoritism, subsidies, manipulation of interest rates, etc.

How about regulations, pollution standards, workers rights. Are these considered gov't. interference also?