The prospect of freeing our government-constrained market is getting bleaker by the day

Much of the government reformists' advocations to re-establish the free market are well-thought out; however, there seems to be a basic flaw in the plan, a fly in the works, or more accurately, an omission of a very important consideration. Most focus on removing the minimum wage, omitting the necessity of a Social Security number to acquire employment, and other necessary corrections that are required to institute the free market. This focus on the rights of the employee, while necessary, has overshadowed the direct government/employer relationship.

The government uses private companies to complete projects that would, in a free market, be implimented in the private sector without government intervention. The simple fact that we give money to the government so that they can pay private companies for products (streets and other improvements) fundamentally hampers the free market. Invariably, the construction of mass scale endeavors invites the sort of corruption and inefficiency that disallows any productive use of money that would be better spent in the free market by citizens. Before the mid to late 1800s, streets and other improvements were accomplished by the private sector. For example, businesses would pool together funds to pay a street-construction company to build roads in order to improve commerce. There were in fact several of these companies in place. Of the first transcontinental railroads built, only one was actually solvent and efficiently run. Predictably, it was also the only one created completely out of private-sector funding with no government subsidy.

Government regulation also greatly hampers the free market process. Regulation requires regulators, which in turn requires a regulation bureaucracy. This "bureau" will require tax money to maintain itself. Moreover, regulation breeds more regulation. Safety regulations, investment regulations, and every other government sponsored regulatory agency requires its own separate bureacracy and its corresponding own piece of taxpayer pie. If these regulatory agencies actually corrected problems perhaps it wouldn't be quite as bad, but in addition to wastefully using money better spent in the private sector, rules and regulations are applied across the board indiscriminately as if competing businesses in an ever-evolving free market could subscribe to a "cookie cutter" system of running business. The whole idea behind the free market philosophy is that if left alone, the employer/employee relationship will find the best possible equilibrium and at the same time create the best possible products and services for the most reasonable price. If this idea is abandoned, then the free market must be abandoned as well.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is what the government uses to ensure that investors in publicly-owned companies provide adequate information so that investors can be properly informed when making investing decisions. That's the cover story anyway. In reality, what it does is create another reason for the government to extract more tax money from the citizens of this country so that they can make sure the big bad businesses don't do anything bad to the poor innocent investor. The free market theory advocates, generally, that business practices that are not strictly conducted for purposes of improving business (creating better products or services, or lowering prices) is eventually punished by the market itself, just as racist or sexist hiring practices, payment of wages less than adequate, and other potentialities that the bureaucratic institutions of government are in place to protect us from are similarly discouraged. This government invasion of our business/investment sector is a direct result of FDR's "New Deal". Utilizing an administration largely composed of those with heavy socialist/communist leanings (many even openly so, citing the "advancements" of government in the USSR and joining socialist political parties here in the US), the government instituted every conceivable control over business that it could get through Congress, using the Depression as an excuse for doing so. These policies not only prolonged the greatest economic slump in history, but continue today to hamper the progress of the free market. The philosphy of the "New Dealers" was that government should control business because business creates depressions. This is the exact opposite stance from the free market philosophy. Just as Lincoln's "internal improvements" (government funded nation building) created streets, railroads, and other urban improvements only after grossly exceeding their budgets, funding political criminals who would take advantage of the system to extort tax payer money, and throwing the American people into a sea of debt that is beyond comprehension (for example, take a look at our national debt -you can say the number and see the zeros, but can you really imagine anything that numbers in the hundreds of billions? How much space would a billion one dollar bills take up?) The truly free market must by definition free itself from this sort of government occupation. Additionally, when the government utilizes a private sector company to complete a large scale endeavor, it gives that company unfair advantage by paying it for a nationwide project while competing businesses have to rely on traditional advertising and marketing to get business. The same is true for statewide projects. The negative impact on the free market increases correspondingly with the increase in level of centralization undertaking the project. All "internal improvements" should be relegated to the smallest possible governing entity with a clearly stated option to relegate them to the private sector. The free market would likely privatize things like road building and other conveniences.

The corporate entity itself also hampers the free market. By creating an "entity" that for all practical purposes has no physical identity (no actual person to be responsible) from a legal standpoint, we have allowed a primary check on the system of the free market to be removed. Accountability is a fundamental requirement on the market. Additionally, the publicly owned corporate entity invites intervention of the government for purposes of "protecting" individual private investors. Such intervention can be compared to the owner of a gambling house that sets the odds. Their job is to make sure that everyone knows the odds of winning and losing and also that all games are played fairly. While the intentions are good, the fact that the market itself would regulate such things internally without the inefficiencies and corruption of government regulation are lost on most in this nation. Even some free market advocates often do not consider these sorts of issues and relationships between our dollars and our government.