By preventing technology-enabled new markets for accommodations and ride sharing from operating, the government is violating the companies’ and their customers’ right to liberty and property.
Author Archive | Jaana Woiceshyn
What the environmentalists are advocating—ending freedom via a socialist dictatorship—is a sure path to environmental disasters and human misery.
The view that the profit motive is evil and the undefinable goals of “corporate social responsibility” and “environmental sustainability” are noble is the reverse of the truth.
It is Greenpeace that we should watch and call out on, exposing its propaganda and plans to destroy human well-being. It is companies like Shell and Lego that we should defend and thank for providing us not only necessities of life but products that make our lives more comfortable and enjoyable.
If we want to enjoy lower prices and better quality products and services, whether in air travel, cell phone service, health care, or anything else, the solution is to stop the government from trying to manage markets and to make them free instead, thus increasing competition.
Businesses should be free to hire whoever will help them to create most value for their customers and shareholders, regardless of nationality.
The idea of some kind of collective national interest is mistaken: having products manufactured in the United States or in Canada is not inherently in the interest of Americans or Canadians; having products manufactured wherever it can be done most efficiently—provided the markets are free—is.
Instead of shutting down independent thinking on university campuses and elsewhere, we should defend freedom of thought and expression wherever we can.
It is the government efforts to “moderate” capitalism and to make markets “fair” that create the unfairness they claim to alleviate.
How much money someone makes is nobody else’s business, as long as they earn the money honestly, without initiating force or fraud, and are not forced to do it.
Ayn Rand convincingly demonstrated that our survival and thriving depends on identifying and consistently applying valid principles, no matter how “extreme” they may be considered by those clinging to the majority consensus.
Fulford’s characterization of capitalism is inaccurate and non-essential and therefore worth analyzing here.