Capitalism, for all its faults, is the key to maintaining a free society. After all, if we are to have political freedom, then we need economic freedom.

Any society which wishes to flourish, should allow its citizens the freedom to discuss new ideas and explore controversial topics. Freedom of thought and Freedom of speech are the bedrock of any free society.

But what we sometimes forget in the West is that to keep our free society, we must commit ourselves to economic freedom of all citizens.

Only in a society where all citizens are free to pursue their own dreams and ideas in the economic sphere will we truly flourish. To increase the capacity of ideas means we will eventually better ourselves.

We may increase the amount of poor business ideas, but only through increasing the volume of ideas will we find the right ones.

Any citizen in a truly free society should be empowered with the opportunities to pursue their dreams. Whether they wish to become successful in business or a sporting champion, it should be achievable to them on merit.

Government should not stand in the way, nor deter people from trying to achieve these goals. We must never give in to the politics of Socialism, an ideology which pushes a economic doctrine that punishes high achievers.

Tax should always be as low as possible for both businesses and individuals. If businesses are free from needless regulation and heavy taxation they will expand their operations and provide investment and wealth in local communities through products and jobs.

If individuals are free from the burdens of excessive taxation they will invest and expand their own personal financial horizons.

However, there will already be those who are querying the claim to lower tax, for what of Government spending?

The answer is simple, the size of the state should be reduced. Although, this cannot be hoped to be achieved without a cultural shift in the mind-set of the people. We must dispel this notion that there is such a thing as “public money.”

There is no such thing as public money, only tax payers’ money. That notion must be carried by Government in the mind of every decision. Our Government should aim to spend as little of our money for us as possible.

It is the mark of a free and mature society that the people are entrusted to spend their own money and make their own decisions. We must do away with the nanny state which has infantilised our society.

We rely on the state to sort out of differences in the courts, to the expense of the tax payer, for issues we should solve on our own between families. Why, for instance, does a family need to fight a bitter court battle to agree on a payment for a child from two divorced parents? Where has the responsibility disappeared to?

The answer is simply, the responsibility and consequences of one’s actions have been softened by the state.

People are in the driving seats of their own lives. We should not punish those who have made the right decisions with heavy taxation to their poorly choosing counterparts.

Now, of course there must be some provision. We must take care of everyone to a standard. It is equally a mark of a mature society that men and women are kept off the streets and placed into homes, that everyone can eat and that all children get an education.

But Government needs to change the “bottomless pit” approach to public finances. Government should be a hand up, not a hand out.

For a free society, we must be free from the unnecessary burdens of government. We must be free to spend our own money, make our own decisions and to pursue our own courses in life.

Capitalism, and only capitalism in comparison with it’s calamitous alternative, Socialism, is the way to achieve this.

 

1 COMMENT

  1. I’m a bit confused about this part of the article: “Why, for instance, does a family need to fight a bitter court battle to agree on a payment for a child from two divorced parents? Where has the responsibility disappeared to?” This statement seems a bit naive to me – unfortunately a lot of divorces are acrimonious, sometimes as a result of domestic abuse, so sometimes parents might have no choice but to go through the courts for a divorce settlement or to arrange child maintenance. If the courts didn’t provide this sevice, and the family couldn’t negotiate amongst themselves, then who else would arbitrate on these sorts of decisions?

Leave a Reply