Why is there so much hostility towards economic freedom?

[jasonnfree]

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.

The founders also didn't trust corporations. Corporate charters used to be for a fixed number of years and serving the public interest had to be part of their mission. Things have changed. Now corporations are given citizenship status with the ability to buy political elections legally. Citizens that don't have to serve jury duty, get drafted, or go to jail for their crimes like us second class citizens have to do. They can run their operations in the USA but can claim Ireland as their residence for tax purposes, and their only mission is profit at any cost, even if they destroy communities and pollute our environment.

 

[editec]

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?

I now declare this straw man's ass completely and totally kicked.

Good job f(somenumber).


You have completely proven to us that that which NOBODY BELIEVES is, in fact, unbelievable.

We are all mightily impressed.

 

[Sallow]

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?

You may have a point.

It's high time to get rid of copyrights, patents, licenses, charters, laws and regulations.

What the heck.

Let make it a really free market.

Either you are willfully misrepresenting what a free is economy or you are struggling with the definition. I'll assume the latter and try to provide some clarification:

Free Market:

"An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses."

This excerpt from Wikipedia is even closer to the discussion at hand:

"The free market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative."

So, we have private property laws, contract law and the rule of law in general, nowhere is there an assertion that a free economy operates without laws.

Where you and I most likely differ is the intervention of the state in our economy. You seem to believe that creating an uneven playing field where nobody is equal under the law is justifiable and necessary. I don't agree with that, it is discriminatory, counter productive and intrinsically corrupt.

No I believe all these private property laws, contract laws, patent laws and copyright laws favor the wealthy. Along with a state sponsored police force to enforce those laws. Additionally so do laws against the use of force and violence.

It's hindering a "totally free market".

Why do you support that?

 

[Samson]

You may have a point.

It's high time to get rid of copyrights, patents, licenses, charters, laws and regulations.

What the heck.

Let make it a really free market.

Either you are willfully misrepresenting what a free is economy or you are struggling with the definition. I'll assume the latter and try to provide some clarification:

Free Market:

"An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses."

This excerpt from Wikipedia is even closer to the discussion at hand:

"The free market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative."

So, we have private property laws, contract law and the rule of law in general, nowhere is there an assertion that a free economy operates without laws.

Where you and I most likely differ is the intervention of the state in our economy. You seem to believe that creating an uneven playing field where nobody is equal under the law is justifiable and necessary. I don't agree with that, it is discriminatory, counter productive and intrinsically corrupt.

No I believe all these private property laws, contract laws, patent laws and copyright laws favor the wealthy. Along with a state sponsored police force to enforce those laws. Additionally so do laws against the use of force and violence.

It's hindering a "totally free market".

Why do you support that?

Who exactly are you quoting?

Where has anyone supported lawlessness?

Are red herrings the only tactic you have to support social engineering projects?

 

[expat_panama]

...red herrings the only tactic you have to support social engineering projects?

Of course not! In fact, usually it's straw-men!

 

[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.

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

Not sure how you classify a landlord as someone who gets "unearned income". You have to work very, very hard to save and buy property that you rent to others.

Smart people put aside money into investments and let the money work for them, it is a much better system than living paycheck to paycheck.

 

[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.

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

Enforcement of laws that protect individual rights are not interference. You can't dump trash on my property or pollute the air I breathe.

I am all in favor of rights provided they are negative rights, e.g., the right of free speech, assembly, practice of religion, private property, etc.

I do not support positive rights as these require the use of force and inevitably lead into the enslavement of a portion of the population to support the privileged political class and their supporters (like we saw in the U.S.S.R.). These would include the right to housing, food, a living wage etc. All these "rights" can only be satisfied by the threat of force by the state against the individual.

There is no equality under any form of socialism, your fortune depends on party affiliation. If Obama likes your business, you will get a nice subsidy, if he doesn't...you will find yourself on the receiving end of onerous regulation designed to drive you out of business.

 

[oldfart]

Who exactly are you quoting?

Where has anyone supported lawlessness?

Are red herrings the only tactic you have to support social engineering projects?

Well, since you bring it up, one of Rothbard's pet schemes was the privatization of all judicial process and law enforcement. All government courts, police, investigative services, and so forth would be eliminated.

I'll go back to my social engineering while you check with the Conservative thought police to find out which side advocates "market anarchy".

 

[oldfart]

Enforcement of laws that protect individual rights are not interference. You can't dump trash on my property or pollute the air I breathe.

I am all in favor of rights provided they are negative rights, e.g., the right of free speech, assembly, practice of religion, private property, etc.

I do not support positive rights as these require the use of force and inevitably lead into the enslavement of a portion of the population to support the privileged political class and their supporters (like we saw in the U.S.S.R.). These would include the right to housing, food, a living wage etc. All these "rights" can only be satisfied by the threat of force by the state against the individual.

I have rarely seen such a load of inconsistent statements. How do you think pollution standards are enforced without threat of force? You go to a judge who decides your neighbor is in violation of the law and has committed a tortous action against you. He tells the police who serve the action on him to get off his property. Without threat of force you have no remedy. ALL rights are enforced by threat of force.

There is no equality under any form of socialism, your fortune depends on party affiliation. If Obama likes your business, you will get a nice subsidy, if he doesn't...you will find yourself on the receiving end of onerous regulation designed to drive you out of business.

Exactly what kind of business do you own? And how many years did you study the Soviet system to become such an expert on Soviet life? Can you recommend a few titles so I might understand what I have missed?

 

[Spiderman]

I still fail to see why people don't want to keep as much of their own money as possible?

I have yet to hear a cogent argument as to why people want to have the government steal more of their money than it already does.

Oh yeah those who cry for higher taxes want other people to pay them they don't want to pay more of their own money

 

[georgephillip]

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

Not sure how you classify a landlord as someone who gets "unearned income". You have to work very, very hard to save and buy property that you rent to others.

Smart people put aside money into investments and let the money work for them, it is a much better system than living paycheck to paycheck.

Classical economists referred to income not subject to competition as rents or unearned income, examples include incomes attributable to monopolization or land ownership. Those who follow the Labor Theory of Value take it a step or two further and refer to it as all income that is not a direct result of labor.

Unearned income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The classical economists saw rent and interest as a carry-over from Europe’s feudal conquest of the land and the privatization of money and finance into an institutionally based debt and monopoly overhead.

"The classical economists sought to tax away such 'unearned income,' to regulate natural monopolies or shift them into the public domain.

"Needless to say, this history of economic thought will not be taught at the Friedman Center.

"The first thing that the Chicago Boys did in Chile when they were given power after the 1973 military coup was to close down every economics department in the country – and indeed, every social science department outside of the Catholic University where they held sway.

"They realized that 'free markets' for capital required total control of the educational curriculum, and of cultural media generally.

"What free marketers realize is that without an Inquisition authority, you cannot have a 'stable' free market – that is, a market free for the financial predators..."

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

"Smart" people may have forgotten how, at one point or another, all major religions opposed the charging of interest to "earn" income