If a survey were to be conducted asking the American people whether they favor America’s system of “free enterprise,” my hunch is that at least 90 percent of them would respond, “Of course. As an American, I strongly support our nation’s system of free enterprise.”
But how many people actually ponder the meaning of that term? My hunch is: Not very many. I’d say that most people favor America’s “free-enterprise” economic system simply because that’s what everyone is taught to favor since the day they enter first grade in America’s state-controlled educational system.
The true meaning of “free enterprise” is a system in which economic enterprise is free of governmental control, management, and regulation. That’s what is meant by “free” enterprise. Yet, that is clearly not what we have here in the United States.
For example, there are minimum-wage laws. These are laws requiring employers to pay a legislatively established wage to employees. If an employer pays an employee less than the state-mandated wage, the state imposes severe penalties on that employer.
How can a state-mandated minimum wage possibly be reconciled with a system of “free enterprise”? It can’t be. A system of free enterprise, again, is one in which economic enterprise is free of government control, management, and regulation. Under a genuine free-enterprise system, the matter of wage rates would entirely be a matter of agreement between employer and employee. There would be no state involvement at all.
Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Consider licensing laws. Here, the state determines who is going to be permitted to engage in certain occupations and professions, such as medicine, law, hairdressing, shoe shining, floral arrangements, and others. Without a state-issued license, which usually costs lots of money to attain, a person cannot legally engage in certain economic activity.
How can a system based on occupational licensure possibly be reconciled with a system of free enterprise, which, again, is a system that is free of government control, management, and regulation? It can’t be. A system in which people are required to secure the permission of the state before engaging in certain economic activity is the opposite of free enterprise. In a genuine free-enterprise system, everyone would be free to engage in any economic enterprise he desired without having to seek state permission.
In zoned communities, people are prohibited from opening certain businesses without being issued a “certificate of need” by government officials. If they do so anyway, officials will immediately go into court and secure a judicial order shutting them down. That’s because it is the government that determines whether a certain business is “needed” in that part of town.
How can a system based on a governmentally issued “certificate of need” possibly be reconciled with a system of free enterprise — that is, a system in which the state does not manage, control, and regulate economic activity? It can’t be. Such a system is the opposite of a genuine free-enterprise system.
What about “anti-gouging” laws? These are laws that prohibit businesses from selling their goods and services at a price that is higher than the state permits. How can such a system be reconciled with free enterprise? It obviously cannot be.
Oftentimes there are businesses that decide to merge. Yet, if the federal government decides that a merger is not in the best interests of society, the government will nix the merger. How can governmental control over mergers possibly be reconciled with a system of free enterprise? It can’t be. A genuine system of free enterprise is one in which the state does not manage, control, or regulate economic activity.
What if a person decides to go into the business of delivering first-class mail? A federal judge will immediately shut him down. That’s because no one is permitted to compete against the U.S. Postal Service, which is a government monopoly when it comes to the delivery of first-class mail. How can that type of system be reconciled with a free-enterprise system? It can’t be. In a genuine free-enterprise system, anyone would be free to open any mail-delivery business.
With sanctions, embargoes, and trade restrictions, the federal government prohibits Americans from entering into economic exchanges with people in designated foreign countries. If an American is caught violating those rules and regulations, he is prosecuted, convicted, and punished for a felony offense. How can such measures be reconciled with a system of free enterprise? They can’t be. They are the exact opposite of a free-enterprise system.
Under legal-tender laws, people are forced to use the federal government’s paper-money system, one in which the government plunders and loots people through the inflationary expansion of its paper-money supply. If someone decides to use an alternative currency, he is indicted, convicted, and punished as a felon. How can that type of monetary system be reconciled with a free-enterprise system? It can’t be.
So, the question naturally arises: If Americans were to be asked in a survey whether they favor a genuine “free-enterprise” system” — that is, one in which economic activity is entirely free of any government control, management, or regulation, how then would they respond? Would they continue to favor what they have been taught is a “free-enterprise” system — that is, one that is based on government control, management, and regulation of economic activity? Or would they instead favor a genuine free-enterprise system — that is, one in which there is a complete separation of economy and state?
