In the U.S. today, it seems that we may have lost a bit of the ideas of where we started off economically. The idea was that a business should be allowed to be a business without much government interference and that the market would decide how that business did. These days, it seems more like the government and lawsuits determine how businesses do through legislation enacted to make people behave in a certain nature, thus limiting the freedom of the business greatly.

It begs the question, however, as to where to draw the line to have a more purely capitalistic system. Do we say “anything goes?” or do we have to limit it to “You need 9,000 laws to control what you can or cannot do, because otherwise the government can't trust you”

Let's examine the “anything goes” philosophy. First we'll look at a smaller issue, then one that's more extreme...

You walk into a restaurant, hungry. The food here is cheap, but smells delicious. You look across the room and notice that everyone is smoking a cigarette. Would you stay? Would you go? Even if you are a smoker, you have to admit that smoking around other people will affect them, but how about if you are the owner. Should you have the right to say, “If you don't like smoke, you don't have to eat here?” Maybe.

If you said yes, the owner should have the right to make the decision, consider this; You are about to walk into the same restaurant. You see a sign in the window that says “We don't serve sand niggers” How about now? Still support anything goes? Is it the owner's prerogative to do such things, and then let the public decide whether or not to patronize them? Or do we say that the sign and the smoking may in fact be harmful overall to the public, thus the owner has lost the right to carry on such practices?

Now let's look at the other side of things. Ron Paul says that we should have fewer laws, or at least stop making new ones, perhaps maybe just get the ones we have shaped up to work. When Enron went under, the SEC (securities and exchange commission) which regulates stock trading, wrote about a gazillion new laws regarding public trading, company filings, etc. This is no where near the first time. So, do we need the government to protect us? Have they helped in the housing crisis by bailing out Bear Stearns so JP Morgan could buy them and lay off 4,000 of it's own employees? Again, let's look at two scenarios...

Scenario 1: Companies are forced abide by thousands of laws, as are investors, brokers and everyone involved, thus causing everything to take much longer just to get done. Companies still find ways to bilk investors for money by cooking books and over-inflating the numbers to look good for investors and customers alike. Companies eventually crumble anyway and investors and customers alike are out billions of collective dollars. Thousands of laws also allow companies to use legalities to manipulate market conditions and force their business on people or sue them into submission (take for example, a corn company trespassing on peoples' farms then suing them because they weren't able to keep their genetically altered corn under wraps – think it's nothing? Consider that pharma companies have patents on DNA and certain genes.)

Scenario 2: All involved parties are bound by far fewer laws, and we stick with fraud being illegal and a liability. People are forced to actually think about where they shop and invest and companies who are deemed less trustworthy or cannot perform up to expectations get less business and fewer investors and fail into non-existence. Capitalism plays itself out and people are eventually forced by market conditions to provide a reliable product or service at a set price that others can afford and thus supply and demand still play a part. People find out that companies pull crap such as the above mentioned corn company and stop buying corn produced by such unethical means and business practices. People are responsible for their own choices. Craziness.

Unfortunately for some, the purist of capitalistic models allows for things that would be considered unthinkable in today's market. It also seems harsh the manner in which companies in more purely capitalistic markets crash and go out of business, as opposed to the softer cushions offered by conditions today, which allow our government to borrow and print more money to provide a pillow for mega corporations which causes inflation to skyrocket and the investor and customer still to be on the losing end of the money game.

Would you be willing to let business owners decide the course of their business' future even if it meant that they practiced in ways you disagreed with openly? Or would you prefer to keep things going on the path they're on?

Recommend this article...

---