Last evening Hillary was giving an interview (and I'm not picking on Hillary in particular as all politicians do this). She quite assured the interviewer (and us) that as President she was going to wake up every morning caring for the people of Ohio. I tried to visualize how a President (or anyone)wakes up every morning "caring" for the particular citizenry of a particular State but Hillary promised she would.
I would think people would feel cared for when they are receiving a paycheck and able to care for their own families. This condition is provided for by the very people you laud in your article. Politicians can never create wealth. They can only tax and take it from those who do.

If only politicians would limit their activity to speeches at the starting line. Unfortunately they don't stay at the starting line. They venture into the bleachers and coerce spectators to give them money which they then use to put obstacles in front of the runners that don't bribe them. They also buy off the officials.

It comes down to respect, humility, honesty - free enterprise thrives on these values, while the political class makes a mockery of them.

I will take an honest and respectful world over political arrogaqnce any day.

Thanks! I liked it.

Like Cal Coolidge said "The business of America is business"; those that concentrate on buying, building, and selling that improves people's lives through voluntary exchange.

The other world is that of politics; robbing Peter to pay Paul. And, one can always count on the support of Paul in such transfers which, by the way, are usually anything but voluntary.

This was a good and interesting article from Mr. Tucker.

We were designed by God to work, as the Garden of Eden story in Genesis makes clear. But we were not all gifted equally in kind or quantity. For that reason, we have bright lazy people and bright industrious people and even stupid lazy people.

Put here to work, we are asked by God to take risks and work with the talents we have been given. Those talents will lead us -- if we let them -- to the work for which they are best suited. Meeting with others following the same path, we will exchange our surpluses and distribute the goods of this world in the most efficient and equitable way.

Rent-seekers, be they Pharisees or tax collectors or Greens or trial lawyers, will look for a way to skim from the production machine. A theologically grounded political system like the feudal system of the Middle Ages (in which the King must answer to the Vicar of Christ for his care of his vassals), or a secular political system based on balancing the worst instincts of men against the worst instincts of other men (as was the case with the original American system of government) offers some hope of controlling rent-seekers.

Since we are not likely to go back to some kind of monarchical system from the Middle Ages, our best hope is to re-limit the power of our secular government. But how?

I agree that much of America's greatness is due to the exercise of the free market system. Several of my ancestors, in fact, were entrepreneurs.

Given Mr. Taylor's scenario with a new auto plant, where does government step in? Well, we do need roads to drive those KIA cars on. (That would be from the tax money Mr. Tucker mentions.) Then, we need safety on those roads--police officers and emergency services, traffic lights, etc. (More taxes.) And so on.

The government also has a role in limiting what companies want to do. Please recall that corporations used child labor, controlled fire-trap "sweat shops," polluted streams and lakes into sterility, created price-gouging monopolies, and lied to consumers about the safety of their products for years--until stopped by regulations put forward by the government.

I love our country, and I wouldn't live in any other. But one reason why I love it is because of the wisdom of the government in curbing the excesses of unrestrained capitalism.

Politicians are like game commentators who discuss the flaws they think they see in the game they are watching. The real players are really playing and the flaw is the politicians.

EK,
I respect your comments, but let me say that regulations are "reactionary" in nature. They do very little, if anything, to prevent actual abuses. They are reactions to findings/events in the marketplace or brought about through media coverage. Did regulation stop Enron? No, but that didn't stop our politicians from creating new regulations after the fact. The market place reacts to "excesses" and "abuses" of capitalism much faster and in an ever-changing way that cannot be even closely challenged by static regulations. Regulations also tend to create incentives to abuse and lobby for exceptions that will create even worse abuses and inequities.

How? Getting involved in the process ourselves and holding fast to our principles. Businessmen should consider devoting a part of their time and personal effort to pr0-business political causes. We need their talent at the helm of the country. And remember NOT TO VOTE into office ANYONE who has never held a job in his life. Too many government officials have been politicians from day one.

It's true that government makes the roads. There is an easy answer here: sell them or give them to private enterprise. That would save money, lives, and stop the amazing corruption inherent in the whole government road business.

Yes, I'm serious. Private roads are obviously viable as the experience of millions of subdivisions and shopping centers proves. In fact, roads were originally private and only later nationalized.

The government also has a role in limiting what companies want to do. Please recall that corporations used child labor, controlled fire-trap "sweat shops," polluted streams and lakes into sterility, created price-gouging monopolies, and lied to consumers about the safety of their products for years--until stopped by regulations put forward by the government.

I love our country, and I wouldn't live in any other. But one reason why I love it is because of the wisdom of the government in curbing the excesses of unrestrained capitalism.[/quote].

Actually there are very rare instances of businesses deliberately lying to customers. Child labor is still practiced out on the farm or in the acting industry and all but dissapeared in most industries by the time most child-labor laws were put into place. Child labor is the result of poverty, usually caused by government to begin with. And price gougin is often necessary in order to get other to conserve products so that there will be more left over for others.

What is the difference between someone using enterprise to bring about change and a politician? It has to do with the environment within which the ego operates.

The politician starts with the ego directed outward with intentions to intervene in the lives of others. Since this lack of self-examination encourages a poisonous expansion of the ego-psyche the problem becomes more and more outwardly focused with more and more desire to intervene. This poisoned ego-psche is addictive and corrupting and when society is designed politically to accomodate these types of persons they lust for power and become tyrannical rulers of some type. In America they end up being the populist socialist/fascist speaker of rhetoric and spoiler of the nation's wealth.

The person choosing to change things using enterprise starts with the ego directed inward, constantly examining himself (herself) and his surroundings. This self-examination is one of the beneficial traits that makes successful those who are enterprising individuals. The healthy ego-psche of alertness for ways to make things better is most productive in a society where there is no arbitrary control by the ego-driven interventionists.

The prosperity that we all hold up as an ideal is in jeopardy when the politicians are shown respect. They do not have any moral authority since they are consumed by an immoral ego-psyche. It is not an issue of being polite. It is an issue of the preservation of liberty and justice.

Great article. Sometimes people confuse politicians and entrepeneurs. It's important to make that difference. Thanks for your article.

May we please hear more from Mr. Tucker?
Thank you for a wonderful article.

Thanks for a great article, and for reminding us that it is private enterprise, not big government, which has made this nation the greatest in the world. There will always be bad apples in both business and government, but socialism is not the answer.

You can always tell what kind of country you live in by answering one question: Are people trying to get into your country, or are they trying to leave?

Mr. Tucker,

Thank you for an excellent essay. It's one thing to talk about free market economics in the abstract, and there is definitely a place for that, but the real world example you've given makes it so easy for any reasonably intelligent person to understand how it works in reality.

Very nicely done.

Actually, there are very many instances of businesses deliberately lying to their customers - the tobacco industry, the automobile industry (Ralph Nader built a career on challenging their lies), the pharmaceutical industry, Enron, Tyco - the list is extensive.

Jeffrey Tucker has lots of great articles on http://www.lewrockwell.com. Just use that site's search box to look for "Jeffrey Tucker".

The pharm industry is a special case: protected against competition through privileges and patents. As for Enron and Tyco, it is impossible to consider their rise and fall apart from inflationary finance courtesy of the usual suspects.

The "roads" you speak of are our national interstate system. It was originally designed as a "defense highway", to move military around our country to protect in case of invasion. As with most great things in this country, the interstate came from great minds thinking about WAR. (That's where we get most of our great scientific achievements in this country... people thinking of how to kill people more easily.)

And as far as "curbing the excesses of unrestrained capitalism" goes, do you really think that without our government companies could continue to produce unsafe products, destroy the environment and exploit the workers?

Why does it have to be the government that prevents this kind of thing from happening? I know I wouldn't repeatedly buy an inferior, unsafe product. And if a company was violating my private property rights through pollution, I would sue them. I wouldn't allow my child to work in a sweat shop either. Most of these problems WILL be solved by free enterprise, if you don't allow the government's heavy hand in the middle first.

Politicians should take the "ceremonial first pitch" approach to governance. Go out there for the first pitch ceremony, the starting gun, and let the rest of us play the game.

Mr. Tucker brings much to consider. That's not the norm these days. Thanks to him and thanks to the editors, again.

We're very pleased everyone enjoyed the piece. Jeff is a regular contributor to Inside Catholic, so you'll see him here frequently.

And as Frank mentioned, do check out www.lewrockwell.com and www.mises.org for more from Jeff.