2 votes

A Constitutional Free-Market

Here is a suggestion to the Paul campaign & Dr. Paul himself when talking about Free-Market Capitalism.

I've found myself engaged in heated discussions with people online, that insist that Ron Paul is out to destroy people's lives, because he wants to reduce the size of the Federal Government by cutting government departments that people "think" they need & placing more power back into the hands of State government. That he wants to deregulate the markets & allow Free-Market Capitalism to reign supreme, which they see as problematic.

I think that there needs to be a distinction made on the difference between Free-Market Capitalism & Free-Market Capitalism within the confines of the Constitution. This will highlight the inbuilt regulations imposed as it relates to the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. In a pure democratic free-market the rights of the individual are superseded by the rule of the Majority & I believe that that is what has led to the current state of Capitalism today. It has been based on a "pure democratic model" which doesn't take in to account how certain market directions & decisions displace the rights of the minority, undermining the Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul often makes reference to how under the Constitution, the protection of "property rights" within a Free-Market as it relates to the preservation of other peoples property; should ensure that environmental conditions for neighboring lands are protected when corporate decisions are being made. This would be in relation to growing of food, the poisoning of the air etc., but unless governing laws for all corporations explicitly state what rights of the minority have to remain intact when conducting business, the mob rule of businesses will threaten the rights of that minority within the Free-Market. Simply put I believe that Ron Paul needs to make a distinction between Purely Democratic Free-Market Capitalism & Constitutional Free-Market Capitalism.

Constitutional Free-Market Capitalism has to take into account the role of government within the Free-Market & its mandate that it "must" protect the "inalienable rights of the minority" at all times. That way when it is mentioned there is a distinction between, democratic Free-Market Capitalism, which can be distorted by the mob rule & Constitutional Free-Market Capitalism, which is bound by the constitution & the Bill of Rights at its foundation.

Once this distinction is emphasized, one can then outline how the two differ & that one is there to ensure people's rights are always considered & intrinsically linked to every single market decision. It's not enough to indicate that under the Constitution a Free-Market will be forced to adhere to the basic rights of the people, because this has proven to be false when the distinction isn't made between a Constitutional Free-Market & a Democratic Free-Market.

Again, if left unhindered a Democratic (mob ruled) Free-Market will simply lead right back to where we are today; because as large corporations inject their influence into the Market place through the media to manipulate the masses, the rights of the minority are displaced. However under a Constitutional Free-Market, fundamental rules such as preservation & protection of the rights of the minority must be adhered to, in order for permission to be granted to corporations to conduct their business.



Trending on the Web