The Natural Market

I know that I will inevitably be accused by some of being too, as they would call it, "vague" on my economic positions. Yet I would respond to this in a number of ways. First, my positions are not vague, or at least not expressly so. They are overarching and encompassing, at the moment, in order to cover not only the general economic regulations which I wish for—but also the authoritative moral-natural context wherein private property can occur. The libertarians and conservatives have strayed too far from right-wing nationalism. It is not a love for private property itself that grants private ownership: but rather a love of country and of neighbor that does so. Failing to recognize this inherently corrupts all ownership of private property, in my opinion, and therefore all its regulations; because it fails to recognize why any such claims are valid and reasonable. So while I will soon get into specific economic positions and dollar figures, such things are meaningless according to my purview unless they can be reasonably articulated from a nationalistic and natural origin.

What I mean is, when we speak of big corporations and economic liberty to buy and sale what one wishes and to retain it—it must first be asked what are the real limits on such an act. When I criticize economic libertarians for believing in a totally free market, I do so because they A) fail to understand the historical origins of a free market which advocated for some restrictions and B) because they fail to understand, it would seem, the moral-natural authoritative context in which private ownership can take place. And if you can't explain both of those things, you will fail to explain the rationale behind your economic policies because they won't have any real substantial foundation.

Having explained A sufficiently, I now move to B. The most prominent question is: Why are you even justified in owning private property in the first place? When we ask how much private individuals or corporations can and should have, let us first ask why anyone can own something privately; as it may better shed light on the question of then how much they would be right to own over all other men. Private property in America and modern Western societies obviously formally stems from John Locke, the great thinker of the English enlightenment whose ideas would birth our country in great respect. The idea is that in nature, before any society has formed, every man has "ownership" over his own life. When a man mixes his labor with the environment, he therefore gains the fruit of that labor. This is why, in nature, an apple tree belongs to nobody and everybody simultaneously; and when someone picks from it, they gain the exclusive right to that apple picked.

This forms the original moral-natural conception of private property. Yet just as a man can pick from any apple tree in nature, and call that apple his own; he cannot take more apples than are necessary for his eating or planting a garden, or for some other good purpose. Nor can he take more apples than would leave the supply as good, and as plentiful, for everyone else. The idea is that in nature, all men can pick as many apples as they want for a good purpose, and as long as they leave enough for the rest of mankind. No one can pick all the apples in nature off every tree, leaving the rest of the world to starve. Private property, therefore, is inextricably tied from good behavior, and governments—especially our government—is based on this principle.

This is consequently why I am such a supporter of every man having the realistic opportunity to start his own business, and why I curse the big corporations that have taken more business opportunities than are necessary for their own noble purposes; and taken more business opportunities than should be left in common supply for the people. That is why Theodore Roosevelt is so wise here. Just as every man has the natural liberty to pick all the apples he wants; every man is also guaranteed a fair shot at picking apples as his bravery and enterprise may permit.

So when we look at Blackrock, and they buy up all the houses for nefarious purposes, this is not allowed. And big corporations take so much from the private consumers, that it is unreasonably difficult for a private individual to begin their own personal business. Regulations need to be put in place to resolve this, as I have stated. And individuals given a fair shot at picking.

It is not acceptable in nature to pick all the apples from all trees, then sell them at a higher price. Because that is not a noble purpose. And you can only pick apples in nature for a noble purpose, like to survive, or to start a good garden. But to pick every apple for the selfish purpose of selling it, and denying others the natural opportunity to do so themselves—where they must now purchase it from you—is a violation of the conception of private property. True freedom comes not from buying an apple that somebody else has picked: it comes from picking it from the leaf in nature, where your own wit and shrewdness be the sole judge of veracity.

No reasonable person today can say that the big corporations genuinely use their wealth and resources for noble purposes. They do not plant gardens to sustain themselves and grow their noble ambitions. They often use it for ignominious and deceptive purposes. That Americans feel this way, moreover, is supported by wide polling. Just as the rich man is guaranteed ownership over the private property he has rightfully secured; the poor man is guaranteed an opportunity to secure his own riches and private property without going through any broker, but himself and nature. A person starting their own business, without authoritative dominion under any other, is the modern equivalent of picking the apple from a tree; and it therefore must be secured and guaranteed as vociferously. I am therefore staunchly in favor of economic policies that not only tear down unpatriotic corporations, but that spur individual Americans to launch their own personal enterprises, and to easily grant opportunity for those willing to take it, and to exercise their own initiative.

Although it may displease me to get into too many specifics while I cleave out the overarching authoritative framework, I shall do so now once to present some picture. One policy I would be in favor of is a small business grant that is guaranteed to every American. The idea is that every single American in the country is guaranteed a single time in their life a reasonable sum of money given with the intention of starting their own business. This amount might be, for supposition, $10,000. There might be some oversight to ensure it is not wastefully spent; perhaps local commissions are set up. In order to spend the money, you will have to explain to a local agency in charge of it how that money will genuinely aid your business pursuit, or else they can withhold certain portions of the grant. This would prevent waste of the money on clearly baseless pursuits, but grant enterprising Americans an opportunity to take their own drive and begin their own mission in an environment where the free market has been betrayed by foreign or unpatriotic interests.

These claims of natural private property rights will inevitably draw heavily from Christianity and Protestantism. There are many implicit assumptions to be made in order to justify these things. The proposition that in taking ownership over the fruits of one's labor, it must be done while leaving a good supply for others, is predicated on the Christian ideal of the beauty and plenty of nature. Nature, having been created by God, is inherently plentiful: she has enough in store for you and for all other men, both publicly and privately. The concept of hoarding, therefore, is a violation of natural law and private property. A Christian respect is necessary for the safeguard thereof.