Economic Liberties: Fair Competition

Fair Competition is in no way, akin to equal means. America is meant to be a land of equal opportunity, but not necessarily a land of equal standing. Every man is equal under the law, but not every man is born in identical family situations. Is it then unfair, that some people are born into inherently poorer conditions? By no means, and it is certainly not the materially rich person’s wrongdoing. Once someone has earned wealth, it is their responsibility to deal with it well, but also their right to dispose of it however they please. So then, is it wrong of a father to bless their son? Why shouldn’t a good father bless their son? The wealth of the parents is their offsprings sensible heritage.  Since no one can claim a right to tangible property, outside of their persons upon birth, it becomes essential that the government does not play favorites. It is a right of the taxpayer, for the government to not give their money away to another taxpayer, or competing corporation. Economic favors destroy the right to fair competition. Below, I have pasted a section from my research paper on the causes of economic depression, It proves that fair competition has been interrupted:

No form of government intervention is more unfair than government bailouts. Monopolies are not essential to capitalism, but due to government bailouts, partial monopolies have been more likely to form (Rand, 115). Government bailouts provide unfair advantages that don’t belong in the free marketplace and can sometimes prove to be a tremendous waste of wealth. One example of these wealth wastes took place, when President Obama gave a 500-million dollar loan to one of the richest men in the world, to manufacture a product that failed because nobody wanted it (Taking a Stand, 154). As of 2014, direct corporate welfare exceeds 20 billion dollars each year, and the average handout to fortune 100 companies exceeds 200 million (Taking a Stand, 163). When successful corporations receive so much unfair aid, it is no wonder that depressions seem inevitable. Whenever the government’s investment fails, the whole nation goes down with it. Nathaniel Branden explained the weakness of a planned economy well, “In a free economy when an individual businessman makes an error of economic judgement, he (and perhaps those who immediately deal with him) suffers the consequences; in a controlled economy, when a central planner makes an error of economic judgement, the whole country suffers the consequences.”

Whenever the government denies the right to fair competition, the nation is tied together unnecessarily. The wealth of the father does not equal the wealth of the son. The person who does not use their wealth frugally puts it back into the economy. Anyone who uses their wealth frugally can support families for generations. Last, the person who uses their wealth to start successful businesses is deemed worthy of their wealth by a free market. Hopefully, citizens of the U.S. can stop government favoritism, and return this nation to a free market.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s