This following statement just needs a reply to ! thx
Arthur C. Brooks says we should make a moral case for free enterprise. But his arguments do not seem convincing enough. I think Bob McEwen(this week’s course video) could be better at explaining it. I’m not sure where to start with a moral case for free enterprise but that it creates a better life for families vs. a state-controlled system. It encourages hard work to pursue happiness. Socialism does the opposite.
I believe Ken S. Ewert is right that a free market does not directly cause all the problems critics of free enterprise claim. An individual is going to spend and invest in a more careful manner than the government ever will. Bob McEwen’s video explains this concept in the most convincing manner I have ever heard. You have to watch it in the Biblical principles of economics. I believe all of this really comes down to personal responsibility.
“The materialist’s problem is the sin within his heart, not his environment.” (Ewert, 1989) This thought brings up the errors of Karl Marx from the origin of his ideas. When there is no personal responsibility, no God, then the environment is to blame.
I do believe that a completely free market can give rise to evil. Look at John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan. They built vast empires all for-profit so they could compete against each other to becoming the richest men in America. At some points in this competition, they forced their workers to work harder and gave rise to factory workers revolting for harsh conditions. This is where the free market needs some regulation from somewhere (government could be the tool to fight for citizen’s rights). But if it’s the government’s role to regulate then there should only be a little regulation in order to protect workers and their families.
The post Arthur C appeared first on My Perfect Tutors.