In a free market, the ambition & the voluntary efforts of citizens, NOT the government, drives the economy.
At a fundamental and foundational level, that is an extremely moral system.
As Prof. Walter Williams of George Mason University explains:
“In a free market you find:
- Voluntary actions between individuals
- No coercion
He also says:
“Isn’t it more moral to require that people serve their fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces rather than not serve others and still have a claim?”
That is a win-win situation for everyone.
It is government that creates a zero-sum game by taking from you and giving to me. Whether that is done through food stamps, farm subsidies, or big business corporate bailout matters not. One person is being forced to give money to another in return for receiving nothing. Actually government creates a negative sum game.
Government bailouts of businesses for not providing value to customers sustains companies that can neither compete nor serve customers. In a free market they would lose sales and eventually go out of business.
How can someone argue it is more moral for the government to prop up a company that cannot provide value to their customers? Please think through the rationalization that says that approach has any morality.
Hat tip: Public Secrets