What is with the "Free Enterprise" support on this forum?

[CharlieFinley]

Why do so many people believe that free enterprise is some magical wonder-drug that will make the world a good place? What's more, why do so many people on this forum insist that Republican presidents and congresses have established laws in favor of free enterprise when they've also massively increased subsidies to business (which is essentially the opposite of free enterprise).

Finally, what's with the fellating of the wealthy? The top 1% of America controls 40% of the wealth in this country, while the bottom 20% controls something like 1% of the wealth. In what possible world can that be considered equitable?
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

As always, in intellectually honest debate, you are expected to back up your claims with evidence.

[Korashk]

What are you talking about? Basically nobody on this forum is a proponent of free enterprise (most of them are left-leaning at the mildest) and most of us that are don't support the damn Republican party.

Also an informed proponent of free enterprise doesn't claim that it makes the world a good place; they should be claiming that it makes the world a BETTER place. Free enterprise making things BETTER can be empirically proven basically across the board. Countries with the freest economies have better standards of living and GDP than economies that are less free.

The top 1% of America controls 40% of the wealth in this country, while the bottom 20% controls something like 1% of the wealth. In what possible world can that be considered equitable?
Speaking for the proponents of free enterprise, we don't give a shit about equality after the fact. The only thing that matters is that nobody is prohibited from doing things that don't violate another person's autonomy.

As always, in intellectually honest debate, you are expected to back up your claims with evidence.
I always try to.

[IAMWILL]

Countries with the freest economies have better standards of living and GDP than economies that are less free.

I just wanted to point out that this is not necessarily true, as countries that are Socialist or have stricter economic regulations (ie Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark) have some of the highest HDIs (human development indexes), which include standard of living, GDP, education etc in one statistic.

To OP: in general, especially it seems among more active members (I'm not sure why), VT is very liberal.

[Korashk]

I just wanted to point out that this is not necessarily true, as countries that are Socialist or have stricter economic regulations (ie Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark) have some of the highest HDIs (human development indexes), which include standard of living, GDP, education etc in one statistic.
And all of those countries rank amongst the most free economies in the world (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking). Having more social programs doesn't mean that their economy is less free, it means they pay more taxes.

People tend to think that economic regulations in the Nordic countries are way more than the regulations in places like America, but that's not really true.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I would rather have free enterprise than socialism.

I'd like a world with fewer welfare programs, excluding Medicare.
More taxes for the rich as well. We should just stick to that. Less power of the rich, but still some unfortunately. More or less, something the dumb idiots of the Republican Party would never do.
like the Op said, the wealthy have power, the top 1% of all Americans in wealth have 40 percent of American capital. This is mostly supported by the song "Billionaire," where the singer sings about wealth, he sings like he's in poverty himself, which is what at least half of America experiences due to it. As well, about how there are billionaires out there, one example Oprah Winfrey and there's my own family, where for the most part we are bankrupt, we survive narrowly off of agriculture, and wise saving. There it is.

[Korashk]

I would rather have free enterprise than socialism.

I'd like a world with fewer welfare programs, excluding Medicare.
More taxes for the rich as well. We should just stick to that. Less power of the rich, but still some unfortunately. More or less, something the dumb idiots of the Republican Party would never do.
like the Op said, the wealthy have power, the top 1% of all Americans in wealth have 40 percent of American capital. This is mostly supported by the song "Billionaire," where the singer sings about wealth, he sings like he's in poverty himself, which is what at least half of America experiences due to it. As well, about how there are billionaires out there, one example Oprah Winfrey and there's my own family, where for the most part we are bankrupt, we survive narrowly off of agriculture, and wise saving. There it is.
You can't really advocate free enterprise and higher taxes on the rich. It's a contradiction.

[CharlieFinley]

What are you talking about? Basically nobody on this forum is a proponent of free enterprise (most of them are left-leaning at the mildest) and most of us that are don't support the damn Republican party.
No, but some of the stupidest and loudest ones are. :( I direct you to the thread about unhealthy food.

Also an informed proponent of free enterprise doesn't claim that it makes the world a good place; they should be claiming that it makes the world a BETTER place. Free enterprise making things BETTER can be empirically proven basically across the board. Countries with the freest economies have better standards of living and GDP than economies that are less free. Fair point.


Speaking for the proponents of free enterprise, we don't give a shit about equality after the fact. The only thing that matters is that nobody is prohibited from doing things that don't violate another person's autonomy.
I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to conflate the two. But I frequently see "free enterprise is the way the world should work so taxes are bad" on this forum.
You can't really advocate free enterprise and higher taxes on the rich. It's a contradiction.

Oh. Oh dear. How so?

[Korashk]

Oh. Oh dear. How so?
Free enterprise is basically the idea that the government should have as little of its hand in economics as possible, eventually actually happening at the most extreme of no involvement. Taxes are a major aspect in which the goverment involves itself in economics.

Increasing taxes on anybody or anything is in direct conflict with the very notion of free enterprise, which is that the government should stay out.

[CharlieFinley]

Free enterprise is basically the idea that the government should have as little of its hand in economics as possible, eventually actually happening at the most extreme of no involvement. Taxes are a major aspect in which the goverment involves itself in economics.

Increasing taxes on anybody or anything is in direct conflict with the very notion of free enterprise, which is that the government should stay out.

So you don't think it's within the demesne of the government to address social inequality?

[Korashk]

So you don't think it's within the demesne of the government to address social inequality?
I don't think you're using the word "demesne" correctly, but I think I get what you're trying to say and the answer is no for a number of reasons.

The first is that free marketers hold that the government is responsible on an underlying level for the level of social inequality that exists today in America because of things like the minimum wage and highly restrictive business regulations that create very strong barriers to entry caused by rampant corporatism. Basically, society would be more equal without government involvement in the economy which eliminates a good chunk of the real issue by lessening the wealth gap.

The second is an ideological stance that prioritizes individual rights that basically consists of keeping what you earn and voluntary interaction between consenting parties. This makes taxes a huge no-no because taxes are involuntary by nature. This relates to welfare because welfare programs are funded primarily with taxes. A person supportive of free enterprise will typically not have a problem with welfare in and of itself. The problem they have with welfare programs is that they're almost always funded by taxes.

[CharlieFinley]

I don't think you're using the word "demesne" correctly, but I think I get what you're trying to say and the answer is no for a number of reasons. Sure I am. I even looked it up. :P

The first is that free marketers hold that the government is responsible on an underlying level for the level of social inequality that exists today in America because of things like the minimum wage and highly restrictive business regulations that create very strong barriers to entry caused by rampant corporatism. Basically, society would be more equal without government involvement in the economy which eliminates a good chunk of the real issue by lessening the wealth gap. And that's utter crap, because we've seen what society was like without minimum wage and other restrictions on corporate abuse, and it was massively unequal.
The second is an ideological stance that prioritizes individual rights that basically consists of keeping what you earn and voluntary interaction between consenting parties. This makes taxes a huge no-no because taxes are involuntary by nature. This relates to welfare because welfare programs are funded primarily with taxes. A person supportive of free enterprise will typically not have a problem with welfare in and of itself. The problem they have with welfare programs is that they're almost always funded by taxes.
That's also ridiculous, but moderately less so. That carries a strong implication that financial success is predominately under one's own control, which is untrue. Moreover, if you're opposed to taxes, are you also opposed to roads, a capable military, a police force, the justice system as a whole, etc.?

[Korashk]

Sure I am. I even looked it up. :P
So did I, because before that post I'd never heard it before and every resource I can find says it refers to the land around an area typically governed by a lord or other entity, not to the responsibilities or duties of those lords or entities. I could just not be looking hard enough.

And that's utter crap, because we've seen what society was like without minimum wage and other restrictions on corporate abuse, and it was massively unequal.
No we haven't. The only thing we've seen is no minimum wage coupled with rampant corporatism that was arguably worse than it is today. Tons of Robber Barons would lobby congress to pass laws that literally outlawed competition. The "Golden Age" (which is what I assume you're referring to) was a classic example of high barriers to entry in the marketplace which is the major contributing factor to the disparity of wealth. Minimum wage is the minor factor and it has more of an effect the more free the economy. The economy of the early 1900s was anything but free.

That's also ridiculous, but moderately less so. That carries a strong implication that financial success is predominately under one's own control, which is untrue.
Your financial success being under your own control or not has nothing to do with the concept. It is entirely about not being forced to do things. This four minute long video does a great job at explaining why people like myself oppose taxation.

PGMQZEIXBMs

Moreover, if you're opposed to taxes, are you also opposed to roads, a capable military, a police force, the justice system as a whole, etc.?
Just because the government forces you to pay for those things, doesn't mean that people wouldn't pay for them voluntarily in order to keep them. I'd think that a private company could find all of those things very profitable business ventures.

This is a common and pathetic statist tactic.

[IAMWILL]

And all of those countries rank amongst the most free economies in the world (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking). Having more social programs doesn't mean that their economy is less free, it means they pay more taxes.

People tend to think that economic regulations in the Nordic countries are way more than the regulations in places like America, but that's not really true.

Forgive my complete mental lapse there, I wasn't thinking straight.