[...] Find More Informations here: thefreemanonline.org/columns/real-jobs-create-wealth/ [...]…

[...] Read More Infos here: thefreemanonline.org/columns/real-jobs-create-wealth/ [...]…

I will avoid commenting further on comments made by Burley and Hankin who seem determined in painting a portrait of me as some kind of neo- stalinist. I follow the maxim that the only thing worse than arguing from ignorance is arguing with someone who obviously is.

Hence, the free market is quite reliable in deciding the collective worth of an Ipod (by incorporating all the individual demands for this product against the price it was offered for sale at), but I suppose you would prefer that the decision of the usefulness of Ipods be left to some central planner; someone like yourself-who not only knows what is useful for himself, but apparently knows what is useful for each and every American. The irony, here, is the production of Ipods is indeed the product of capitalism, and if you want some government bureaucrat sharing power with a business in order to decide what products warrant being produced from your societal point of view, then you Sir are the one who is advocating Corporatism.

1. Capitalism certainly acts in the community\\\’s interest because the community directs the course of business.

2. The private sector might be dependent on the public sector for rule of law, but for little else.

3. As an entrepreneur of any kind, when the market turns against you it is instinctual to wish for the fantasy of a bail out. To indulge this fantasy is not capitalism, or even mature adult behavior. It is ironic that some market participants want the best of both worlds, but that doesn\\\’t mean the system indulges them or should even consider doing so.

4. In the USA we are constitutionally bound to pay for \\"basic\\" public infrastructure, but it is unclear to me whether or not those public services could not be supplied privately in an orderly fashion. Besides, most conservative, pro-market Americans wouldn\\\’t mind simply returning to the principles of the constitution. That would be a tremendous leap in favor of liberty anyway.

Here is the definition of fallacy from Wikipedia:

A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Fallacies differ from other bad arguments in that many people find them psychologically persuasive. That is, people will mistakenly take a fallacious argument to provide good reasons to believe its conclusion. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy)

You have not persuaded me with your argument for it addresses something I was not even talking about.

It is true that pockets of capitalism exist in smaller communities, however to infer that this small notion of capitalism can be extended to big business, and that these businesses practice capitalism, is simply to deny the facts. Frankly, I accept we would be better off if we had capitalism, but to call what we have capitalism is a mistake my critique addresses. But it is also true if you had shoveled someone’s snow and they failed to pay you as agreed, you would be the first to seek redress in small claims court. Small claims court is part of public infrastructure that makes these small instances of capitalism possible. Without a public infrastructure, you would be dependent on your personal resources to enforce your claim.

Of course being from northern Michigan, you most likely would shoot the perpetrator yourself, and it sounds like you would!

Here in Northern Michigan, where I dwell, capitalism is alive and well whenever an individual knocks on someone’s door and proposes to that person the chance to have him or her shovel their snow, or mow their lawns, or perform any minor maintenance. A price is agreed upon, and the work is done. This is free market economics in its most basic and beautiful forms. No government regulation informing the homeowner or the entrepreneur the size of shovel, or lawn mower, or other tool, that must be used, or how many breaks are, or must be, allowed during the execution of the agreed upon duty for the agreed upon price.

As usual, socialists like Mr. Morgan make claims that they hope the ignorant, public-schooled masses don’t ponder, but instead simply take as gospel-truth. For whenever individuals actually examine the idiotic claims of socialistic pinheads like Mr. Morgan, they find the claims to be half-truths, if not outright lies.

Oh, and the other thing I’d like to address, please list the names of those entrepreneurs who are taking part in the stimulus. I’d like to know.

Ed Burley MA LLPC

While the community can benefit from private sector innovation (I personally do not think the development of the IPod as a useful innovation), what is always missing in discussions of this kind is the acknowledgment of the dependence of the private sector on the public. \"Commerce\" which means \"community interchange\" implies a symbiosis the recognition of which has been sorely lacking in these discussions for at least the last thirty years. To be rational, this dependence must be recognized.

It is with a sad irony that many advocating so called \"free trade\" were the first to line up recently at the public trough when the market turned against them. It is also the \"free marketers\" who will complain loudest when it is they who will have to pony up for infrastructure (roads, schools, military, fire departments, police departments, courts, judges, etc.) which they depend on for their profits.

Of course in the United States, the point has now become moot as the compulsion toward externalization of costs has effectively eaten the goose that lays the golden egg.