Today’s America is pervaded with a plethora of economic proposals aimed at improving the current state of the American economy. Ideas range from tax cuts economy-wide to tax hikes on a specific section of the American population. However, the ideas that threaten the consumer controlled market are especially dangerous.
The free market is essentially superior to a command economy. Capitalism acknowledges the freedom of people to make their own economic decisions, while socialism relies upon the supposed naïveté of people, thereby establishing an incentive to intervene.
The basis of a command economy is that the world’s riches are finite and it is the duty of the government to allocate these riches equitably. Socialism inherently accords the government the capability to impose limits, rather than enhance opportunity. On the contrary, the free market stimulates enthusiastic entrepreneurship, affording people the right to generate their own economic prosperity.
The foundations upon which America and its economy were built are threatened when socialist ideals are circulated and accepted. The main criticism of capitalism is the level of income inequality, but the issue is often inaccurately portrayed and understood.
The notion that those who earn more money effectively make others poorer is simply untrue. It is simply unintelligent to compare the wealth of billionaires to the wealth of the poorest people in the country when discussing the issue of income inequality. If those who advocate for widespread economic change actually cared about people of low-level income, they would be encouraging economic growth, even in companies of substantial financial worth.
In most cases, ingenious entrepreneurship actually guides many from destitution. If innovative ideas lead to economic empowerment for consumers far and wide, why should the people who are responsible for this economic growth be punished by surrendering their money to the government?
It is foolish to think that a large portion of the population should be disadvantaged because their income is deemed unfair compared to the poorest people in the world. A wise decision would be to recognize the benefits of large businesses within small economies.
Often, larger businesses help produce larger discretionary incomes and larger tax incomes. This is an exceptionally successful system, where small businesses thrive as a result of a stable economic infrastructure. The alternative is, in a sense, a political tyranny where the government controls the means of production in every way.
That is the prized solution for all economic problems, according to socialism. However, government officials who advocate the use of political power to disperse equal wealth set dangerous precedents. This does not imply that the government is incapable of assisting Americans, but that the government should not be given the power to intervene in everyday life. These types of ideas are perilous and threaten the American ideal of committed labor and generating your own economic profit.
If there exists a limit on the money that one can earn, what happens to the incentive to work? And without the incentive to work, where can economic success exist?
This begs the question, if the government begins to control your money and spending, what stops them from controlling more?
The issue of capitalism vs. socialism is altogether an issue of freedom. Thus, a fight for equality in civil rights quite literally contradicts the idea of socialism, which designates the government as elitists. Civil rights goes hand in hand with economic rights, and that is the opportunity to establish your own life, free from the control of powerful elitists.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.