There are a plethora of ordinances, statutes and regulatory schemes from local towns and cities, to counties, states, and the federal government sot
that so ridiculously restrain free enterprise that even if a "welfare" state were necessary, it is, quite simply, unsustainable under the heavily
regulated market paradigm. These regulatory schemes have become so ridiculous that your children cannot put up a lemonade stand and sell their
product without cold hearted and cruel city officials coercing those children into licensing schemes that can be so cost prohibitive that it doesn't
make any business sense to do business selling lemonade.
The strongest alternative to "welfare", which is a euphemism used to describe state or federal sponsored plunder to fund their redistribution
programs, is a genuinely free and unregulated market.
The problem with a free and unregulated market is corporatism.
Corporations can and do do good things and have been an integral part of humanities upward surge. However, a corporation is, by legal definition, a
fictitious entity that seeks permission from the state to exist. This symbiotic relationship between government and business in the form of a
corporation, or even a "non-profit" organization, begins with regulation and demands constant regulation.
One can not be a purist in advocating free market principles. The genuine value and worth a corporation can bring to the table is a paradigm worth
understanding and allowing to continue. Allowed because without their charter of incorporation there is no allowance to exist. This is the
important thing to consider when considering free and unregulated markets.
It is not possible for a corporation to operate under free market principles. This does not mean, however, that individuals in business for
themselves in order to earn the necessary income needed to survive, flourish and prosper, need permission from any state to do so. Earning a living
is a right not a privilege. Being chartered for incorporation is a privilege not a right.
The reason for many, if not all, licensing schemes, is so that city, towns, counties, states, and nations, can lawfully and legally expand their tax
base. Once you enter into a licensing scheme with government you are surrendering any sovereignty and acquiescing to all rules and regulations that
come with the privilege of holding a license. It is far easier to tax a licensed business than it is an unlicensed business.
The state, and even the federal government can have compelling arguments as to why certain professions, or actions should be licensed. Failing any
compelling argument that points to a genuine risk for others, licensing is dubious at best, and criminal at worst. A license, by legal definition, is
permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal to do. Earning a living may have come to a point where it is "illegal" to do, and only by
obtaining permission to do so via a license may one earn a living, but such "legality" is wholly unlawful. No one can lawfully force someone to
surrender their right earn a living so they may be granted permission to do so.
So, here we have two paradigms mashed together to form what so many like to refer to as the "free market" or "capitalism". These two paradigms are
corporatism, and free and unregulated markets. Both can and should operate parallel to each other, but both can not be compatible. If by allowing
corporations to exist this means that in fairness to the "persons" called corporations who are heavily regulated that individuals - also defined by
Congress as "persons" - must also acquiesce to regulatory schemes then what we have is not a free market, or capitalism, but instead corporatism or
Individuals do not, and should not, acquiesce to bogus definitions of "person". If there is a compelling argument as to why an artist should be
licensed then sensible people the world over will recognize that and act accordingly. There is, of course, no compelling argument that I know of that
would demand the prohibition and then subsequent licensing of art. I use this absurdity only to make clear the distinctions of those who have no
reasonable, and certainly no sensible reason to acquiesce to licensing schemes and all the taxes and regulations that follow. However, that artist
who wants to incorporate, now has a very clear and compelling reason to be regulated and taxed.
There is just not enough room in one post, and yet to those who understand, it is quite obvious that a strong state or nation is built upon the amount
of people who can flourish and prosper. "Welfare" as is meant here is not flourishing and prospering. People have a much better chance of
flourishing and prospering in a free market, and when free markets exist, ironically those vaunted jobs so many want today will start re-appearing and
when the demand for employees becomes greater than the demand for employment, so rises wages
edit on 2-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no