The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise
The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise
By Arthur C. Brooks
Basic Books, $25.99, 214 pp.
“Life isn’t fair,” we patiently explain to our children, unschooled in the ways of the world. By the same token, conservatives try to explain to liberals that they can’t make life fair with other people’s money.
“Fairness” is the new mantra of President Obama to justify his economic policies and attack those of his opponents. His critics mock that’s all he’s got because his redistributive policies have failed so miserably.
But in The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise, a timely and important new book, Dr. Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, says defenders of a free economy can — and should — win the fight for free enterprise on the basis of “fairness,” too.
Brooks forcefully contends that Americans aren’t satisfied with the materialistic argument that free enterprise is more effective at creating jobs, which obviously has failed to “stem the tide of big government.”
Privately, free enterprise’s champions talk about these things incessantly. While they generally believe in the need for a safety net, they celebrate capitalism because they believe that succeeding by merit, doing something meaningful, seeing the poor rise by their hard work and virtue, and having control over life are essential to happiness and fulfillment. But in public debate, they often fall back on capitalism’s superiority to other systems just in terms of productivity and economic efficiency. What moves them is the story of their immigrant grandparents who came to America to be free; but what they talk about is the most efficacious way to achieve a balanced budget.
However, polls show Americans still instinctively react favorably to the concept of the freedom of opportunity. In fact, this has been ingrained in the American spirit since its founding, when the “pursuit of Happiness” was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence along with “Life” and “Liberty.”
While some libertarians and economic writers have lamented that an early draft included the word “property,” rather than what they regard as the more amorphous and emotional term of “happiness,” Brooks argues that the choice was inspired:
The shift in emphasis away from material property and toward the pursuit of happiness was a shift from materialism to morality. America was intended as the greatest experiment in liberty in the history of the world. Property was the “what” of this experiment. The pursuit of happiness was the “why.”
Funny, I just started a blog “defending the fairness of free markets”:
http://www.fiscalwars.wordpress.com
This is an issue there for the taking for conservatives. There is no more fair system on the planet, which is why people throughout the world continue to risk life and limb to come here. I’m tired of seeing supposed conservatives in office without the ability to enunciate this.
Hei C.Brooks, I completely support you with “Life isn’t fair,” we patiently explain to our children, unschooled in the ways of the world.Strong writing.
The laws MUST be fair if freedom is to work,
and we must be free to choose our own laws- fairly.
Thank you! Conservatives parroting disdain for ‘fairness’ is a pet peeve of mine; it masks a lust for power while waving a false flag.
Fairness simply means equality under the law, and a blind Justice.
“Free” enterprise is fairness by definition. What could be more fair than the freedom to determine your own outcomes?
If we want job created here in the USA instead of China or Mexico, we need to look at the relative costs of production between the USA and those countries. Part of the cost of production involves taxation and regulation, both of which we have too much of when it comes to business. That is really the source of our problems. Unfortunately I’ve seen little will in Congress to do much of anything effective about either of these. However here in Michigan under our Republican Governor Rick Snyder, we have done quite a bit towards making Michigan more attractive to business. Business taxes have been reduced by a considerable amount and there are proposals to eliminate additional business taxes although this will require a “tax shift” which is unpopular at present.
“AEI President Arthur C. Brooks says capitalism’s defenders can — and should — win on the basis of ‘fairness’ ”
Capitalism’s defender have NEVER, and will NEVER, win based on evidence, common-sense, and/or erudite books about fairness. Indeed no collection(s) of words transmitted in any form whatsoever will ever grant a win to such defenders. That’s because capitalism’s enemies already know all that—they simply don’t give a rat’s ass about it. You can not fight a bunch of sociopaths with absolutely no sense of ethics, no morality, and no scruples or remorse for any of their criminal deeds. And these enemies know how to lie lie lie untill kingdom comes. Truth can win an argument against falsehood only in a science lab, or a mathematician’s blackboard. In real life, lies and unscrupulousness are much more potent weapons than truth and fairness and ethics and morals and all such nice things. Actually dedication to these last four qualities constitute a huge DRAWBACK when it comes fighting the enemies of capitalism (and of Right, in general). Just look at the history. Truth and Right have won ANY battle or war extremely rarely. That is because of this idiotic belief that words about truth and fairness alone can win. Can’t. Truth is bound by facts. Falsehood knows no such bounds. Morality is bound by ethics and conscience. Immoral behavior knows no such bounds. A police officer is bound by the law — a criminal does not abide by the law. If there is an open fight between a murderous criminal and a police officer, who do you think will win?
Stop this nonsense and stop writing books about such nonsense (not to mention reviews of such books). Think what you can DO, that has any chance of actually defeating the left. A hint: Left is like termites.
CORRECTION:
The sentence:
“You can not fight a bunch of sociopaths with absolutely no sense of ethics, no morality, and no scruples or remorse for any of their criminal deeds.”
should read:
“Words can not win a fight with a bunch of sociopaths with absolutely no sense of ethics, no morality, and no scruples or remorse for any of their criminal deeds.”
Brooks is, of course, talking about the rhetorical battle, the battle for hearts and minds, in which words are the only weapon.
The tactics you propose are pretty vague, to say the least.
The moral defense of Capitalism must include a definition of “rights” & the most fundamental right derived from the definition:the right of every individual to his own life, to his own mind & body. With hundreds of thousands
of copies of Atlas Shrugged sold since Obama took office no writer should ignore the profound effect that Ayn Rand’s books have had on millions of
people.
How ironic that it is government’s own failing at one of its primary functions (IMO) that gives progressive politicians the ammunition to attack capitalism. I am speaking of monopoly and anti-trust management. While it is always possible for competition to arise in any market, sometimes it is very very difficult due to control of scarce but required resources by the entrenched players in that market – to the exclusion of competition. And this allows a select few to get unnaturally wealthy at the expense of others in such a situation
Government should be diligent in ferreting out and preventing such situations but instead they often create them by legislating regulations in exchange for campaign contributions, votes and political power. As an example, if certain poiticians and interest groups have theri way, you will soon need a four year education and a State issued license to cut hair in Florida. Guess who will be the beneficiary of those regulations and what it will do to the price of a haircut.
Hyper regulation and high business taxes are the real culprits in the current recession. Of course there is always a “public good” involved and the ability to understand the very poor cost/benefit ratio of most regulations seems to be beyond the average citizen.