Large corporations do not desire free markets; in fact they desire regulated and government controlled business climates that are far easier to control solely with money. This is evident the moment a person honestly removes the rhetoric and emotion from nearly all arguments to the contrary, by simply recognizing the facts.
Free markets mean:
· More competition
· Easier advancement of smaller businesses
· Quicker declines of industry leaders
· Zero favoritism and coercion purchasable by those with the most money to spend
Those who advocate for government regulation are fighting for those corporations that desire an ever increasingly monopolistic or oligopolistic business climate so they may impose their will upon Americans and ever increasingly over our children’s lives.
Free Markets Mean More Competition
Free markets are exactly that: Markets absent any attempts to initiate coercion upon consumers or competitors. There are no dues, no forced joining of groups, and easy entry and exit to and from the marketplace.
One may ask, ‘Without government regulation, who will ensure products are safe?’
In the electronics industry there exists a private entity that has a voluntary relationship with the producers of electronics, to test and ensure product safety. Underwriters Laboratories (UL), a private, limited liability company, works in conjunction with both public and private entities, and their UL ratings are a regulator in the marketplace without the undesirable and un-American effects of government micromanagement.
One could, if they so choose, buy a product without a UL rating, but no one ever does because electronics without a UL rating are almost impossible to find. There exists a huge value in the third party certification process in which businesses share the burden of proof that a product is safe. This model is applicable to all markets.
A company competing in a free market, and therefore without the purchased protections of political regulation, understands it will be severely punished for producing a harmful product. In a free market, poorly made products are used as a hammer by companies to destroy their inept competitors, and consumers equally fight back by refusing to support the product and producer again. In a society where government practices its primary function; the protection of equal rights, punishment for actually committing a crime regulates the market – without the concentrated power of a political and monopolistic government.
Free Markets Mean Easier Advancement of Smaller Businesses and Quicker Declines of Industry Leaders
As easily observed over the past decade, big businesses either resist failure so much so they are willing to use the coercive power of government to extort money from the taxpayers, or create profit models based upon politically motivated handouts of taxpayer money. From the banks to the auto industry, big businesses are shielded from failure and it is all orchestrated by the government.
Free markets mean freedom to both profit and fail from one’s actions WITHOUT the ability to distort the freedoms of consumers or coerce people to save another person’s job. This right includes the right of every individual to not patronize a particular company; a right that is the very foundation of free markets and the antithesis of a pro-corporatist state.
As exemplified in the farming industry, the more government hands out money, the more it is able to pick winners and losers. Concluded by the Heritage Foundation, “Farm subsidies are promoted as assistance to family farmers. In reality, they finance the demise of family farms and prevent young people from entering farming.”
It is evident that those who win are those who are politically connected, seldom the businesses with the better product or service. Those who are left are caught trying to compete in a wholly uneven playing field. Some innovators with the foresight and drive to adapt may survive, but most others will simply go out of business unable to compete with a business empowered with the coercive power of government.
Free Markets Mean Zero Favoritism or Coercion in the Market
The only entity in a moral society that can legitimately initiate force against people and their property is government. The only way a business can survive after years or even decades of poor decision making is often by forcing the purchase of their products regardless of their value. This coercion must be initiated by government. When this happens, the free market no longer exists and a corporate government enters in its place.
Freedom implies freedom for all, never the freedom of a few to take from the many or the many to take from the few.
Consider the events surrounding the present market in the United States, its recent history, and then determine if it is in fact free:
First, of course, is the process used to determine the structure of the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare:
From The Wall Street Journal:
June 13, 2012: ObamaCare’s Secret History How a Pfizer CEO and Big Pharma colluded with the White House at the public’s expense.
Second, of course, is the process used to determine the distribution of taxpayer earnings used as corporate bailout money:
November 19, 2008: Big Three auto CEOs flew private jets to ask for taxpayer money . . .
December 11, 2008: WASHINGTON (CNN) — The House of Representatives handily passed a bill Wednesday night that would provide up to $14 billion in bridge loans to automakers . . .
Does anyone seriously believe these meetings are about saving citizens of the United States money or from harm, when the net of it all is that they are either using coercion to force law abiding citizens to buy their products and services or handing billions of dollars to corporations to account for their failures?
Large corporations are just groups of people; people that make mistakes like everyone else. Sometimes mistakes that can cost millions or even billions of dollars. No one in their right mind wants such a failure to happen on their watch. Therefore, corporations, i.e. the people that comprise them, will do just about anything to avoid such failure. Can we blame them for acting on such an immoral premise? Yes, but more so than those who are enabling such behavior – The government? No.
People do not want to suffer the consequences of their own bad behavior, even many adults. Nothing will change this. Yet what can change is the government’s actions that enable these companies to avoid suffering the consequences of their actions and the subsequent destruction of the free market. This is why those who do not favor a free market in fact favor and benefit the biggest of corporations . . . often without even realizing it.
The fact is that one cannot be both pro-government regulation and also be pro-consumer.