So why is there such an outcry of what’s wrong with the Free Market system?

Without attempting to go into specifics too deeply let’s examine the history of government. Since the beginning of man there have been many forms of governing, or providing a reasonably safe style of life for a group of people to exist. Obviously in the beginning there was an emphasis on safety since man was confronted largely by hostile creatures and environmental hazards which called for the combined efforts of the group to survive. There were obvious advantages to the group to hunt and forage in groups. It was logical in the beginning that the system of governing fell to the strongest and shrewdest of the tribe— which we have termed as the survival of the fittest. Those that were the strongest and offered the most protection to the tribe were its leaders. They dictated how each person could live within the system.

Evolution brought better tools for survival, and different forms of governing. Tribes, Clans, eventually Dynasties, Monarchies, Empires,  etc.

Almost every form of government had some form of the survival of the fittest at its core, but, as the art of leadership evolved so did benefits for the weaker, or less capable, or the infirm, among the group— the beginning of socio-politics. The most important groups became the political forces, legal, and law enforcement as well as other public services.— the government, most important in the eyes of the politicians at least

Eventually, as it was inevitable, there were classes of people that had to be dealt with as powerful because they were the energy that fostered the progress of the group. These were the industrialists driven to provide the economic basis of the people as a whole. They constructed the buildings, they developed goods of clothing and furnishings and provided the food, and designed the weapons for protection. In short, they made the system work— this is a very important word in a free market society.

No matter how powerful the leaders, and their representatives, there needed to be the industrious people who provided the energy for the system. So it didn’t take long for the political thinkers in the group to realize the harnessing of the energetic people was the key to a successful and profitable government.

Now I’m hoping that those of you who have followed my various essays to this point, have a pretty good idea where the argument must go from this point. And that argument is at the center of where we are in the United States of America today.

Almost everyone in this country believes in this energy. It is the product of a bountiful, physically beautiful country, and a spirit of long standing tradition for getting things done, and finding the best, most profitable way of doing it. That spirit is referred to as an entrepreneurial spirit. It is an integral part of the American Heritage— and another important concept of the free market system..

But now there is a component being added that threatens to destroy that sovereignty and the very government which has been carefully structured to nurture its survival. We are smack in the middle of a revolution of social change which purports that America’s Free Market System favors only the very wealthy and creates a caste system which tends to leave out people of color. The solution they say is to regulate business to the point where the wealth is redistributed to people at the lower ends of the scale. In addition there must be more weight given to the unions so that they will have more control over recruiting new members for their ranks and the kinds of benefits that will be available to them. This, in my view at least, is how the socialist creates the kind of power that enables their survival. They do not produce anything, but they do control it through their support of those that sense they will receive from the government if they cater to it.

The argument presents itself more or less in this innocent sounding basic statement, "Let’s be honest folks. Only the white man has any chance of attaining the American dream. The odds are terribly stacked against any man of color. After all, people of color simply can’t avail themselves of the type of education needed to take advantage of opportunity in today’s highly technological society." Aside from the racial bent of their arguments, their causes also include any group that needs an advocate for rights from the government; included but not limited to: gay rights, ecological rights, conservation, anti-war activist, and not to forget, abortion rights. The list goes on farther but it doesn’t take much to understand how a political party catering to such issues gains power and doesn’t really care who gets hurt in the process of gathering this power. And if you truly want to think in economical terms about it, there is absolutely no way they can actually take care of the specific needs of all these groups without inevitably taking away from people who have the most income. (Eventually that taking away from the wealthy finds its way down to the lesser and lesser wealthy.)

I can answer the argument of race on a personal level. Those of you who know who I am, know my family ranges from whites to blacks to browns and yellow as well. I am the ‘white guy’ in the wood pile. From there the picture is blurred almost immediately from marriages that seemed to be arranged by a color-blind cupid. There’s no accounting for what afflicts people who love ‘indiscriminately.’ But that’s another lesson for another time.

Let me first tell you that my wife, who is Filipino and Spanish, and myself, mixed bag Caucasian, have no degrees between us. Our children have no degrees— though some are still working toward them, their spouses, however have a total of two bachelors degrees and one Masters degree and then into the grand children, with all that mixed bag of color, ooowee, wait! the numbers go up exponentially, ten bachelors and counting still. So ask me again about people of color not having equal opportunity. Yeah right...NOT! And by the way, if you believe it was because all of us parents and grandparents were rich and so were able to give more to our kids, forget that stuff. Some got help, its true , and some worked hard to squeeze out a scholarship, and some are still working and going to school because they believe that the American dream still exists and doesn’t have to be given to them, they’ll earn it.

The point is, Socialism is fine in doses that make it clear there are no free rides. We help those who want to help themselves. We believe people who have a stake in their future do not want charity, they want opportunity. We have an obligation to assist people in preparing themselves to gain control over their own lives. But we are sadly mistaken when we allow ourselves to believe we are helping people when we make them slaves to a system of total care from the state. (This is called the Nanny State.)

The treatment of people who simply give up and refuse to help themselves must be vastly different from those who demonstrate the desire and willingness to work toward becoming independently able to take care of themselves. At the same time the opportunity to improve oneself should always be available.

The goal of the socialists says we give everybody whatever they need from their government to exist in a moderate society. Unfortunately, when we start taking from the successful to give to the masses, there is a blurring of the necessity for the general population to determine what their responsibility should be. The greatest danger, however, is what happens to a population of people who have their incentive removed to excel as the American citizen has always done in the past.

We are already seeing some of the signs of unrest and discontent among people who have been told, constantly, they have a right to receive from a system that will give them anything they need. Sadly, some of these people are not even legal citizens of this country and are being used as pawns in a deadly game that has at its core the overthrow of government as we know it. The end result of all of this does not insure having all of ones needs met but it does end in the diminishing of the standard of living being highly reduced, which in turn must necessarily have a deleterious effect on the productivity of the country. The standard of living must come down. None of this is possible when the energetic citizens are encouraged to compete for their place in the system.

Can the free Market system be made stronger? Most assuredly, yes. But, not by removing competition and incentive, not only for owners and management but also for the workers.

The real key is to keep the government out of businesses with the exception of making sure that conditions are safe and everyone is given a fair shake in competing and demonstrating their skills.

We are somehow going to need to get back to the Free Market System that we know works. Going down the socialistic government road is not the answer. That promises only a lessening of standards and a stifling of creative business, and the American Spirit.

D. Kenneth Ross

7-1-2010

p.s. - this article ends my series on Socialism vs. Free Market SocietyI would be very much interested in hearing from anyone regarding some other subject regarding politics or government that you feel would make a great area of examination. Thanks.