No, it's more a reflection on ineffective government and definitions of "freedom".
Yes, we get it, you'll even misrepresent yourself.
What you
said↑: "It is true that if you start a company, and it turns out to be successful, that you may become wealthy because the price of your stock will go up. That doesn't take anything away from anyone else."
What you say now: "my general statement that someone who starts a company and gets wealthy because the stock appreciated , isn't taking away from others".
And then your excuse becomes that DuCharme didn't start McDonald's.
But he did start DuCharme Organization and TBLN LLC, which comes back to something I said about employers, even using a McDonald's franchise for the example: There are lots of companies like this franchiser, and they are, in many cases, the ones committing the violations. DuCharme dba TBLN gets successful enough to have seven store on a business model that regularly violates labor laws and exploits children, and your response is that he didn't start McDonald's.
And no, Market Street, Warren, PA, is not "inner city".
Nor is child labor an urban phenomenon.
It's like one time, when I was younger, and my father defended child labor by saying the children should be thankful for the chance to help their families. I asked him why those kids weren't in school. He didn't have an answer; no capitalist ever really has an answer to that.
But the business owner, in this case, is taking from the exploited emplotees. They perform comparatively less in school, and that educational loss can affect their lifetime earnings, even relegating them to the sorts of unstable labor pools that become homeless when business owners are too successful, like we saw with the Enron and Bear Stearns collapses.
DuCharme is hurting the young employees, workers of apporopriate age who might otherwise have those jobs, and communities of today and tomorrow, around both those employees and those who didn't get those jobs.
"If you start a company," you said, "and it turns out to be successful", except now "we're down in the weeds" to consider what it takes to make that business successful.
Taken at face value, this gap in the rhetoric is one of those times when we literally must ask if something is sinsiter or just stupid, because political discourse is rife with people who had some success and a few investments, and talk like they understand business, but apparently don't. When they're actually successful businesspeople, it's easy enough to presume they're not stupid, but that implies their rhetoric is not an accident.
For instance, there is a trend, these days, one that comes up from time to time; not a decade passes without hearing from employers how it feels like "nobody wants to work"; and then we might contrast that with a fast food story that really did happen: So, a fast food franchiser found itself with a labor shortage, so the restaurant advertised for
volunteers to be
paid in chicken sandwiches. Like a
1905 iteration↱, "None want to work for wages." Close:
None want to work for such low wages. Or, as you put it, "If you start a company, and it turns out to be successful". Or, perhaps, we might
wonder about the business model↑.
The requisite speculation about how the lawbreaker is actually a hero is neither useful nor unexpected.
But the freedom you describe both lends to, and even demands, the problems you complain about in this thread, and requires ineffective government in order for certain businesses "to be successful".
And no, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, but your say-so says nothing about other capitalists.
Meanwhile, "if you start a company", and it turns out that you need wage theft or labor violations in order "to be successful", we might wonder about the business model.
Let's face it: The marketplace doesn't really
need another McDonald's or Chik-Fil-A. And like most of this Reagan-era mythopoeia about American business, it's essentially a forked tongue: You describe expanding the pie in a context when employers ought not bear the obligations that lead to the benefits their expansion of the pie is supposed to bring. It's like how pandering to the business economy is supposed to be good for communities, until it comes time for that good to actually happen; the talk about what employers,
i.e., those businesses, shouldn't be responsible for is more akin to what actually happens. If you start a company, and its success requires illegal employees working unsafe conditions, yes, we should certainly question the business model.
It's your own damn thread¹: Look, you are describing a "freedom" that both limits the efficacy of government
and creates, sustains, and demands the sort of economic instability that creates, sustains, and demands so much of the
"chaos in our cities"↑. It's one thing to suggest, "Sometimes it's best to have a little less 'freedom' for the sake of society," but the context of freedom underpinning your capitalistic pitch is a main driver of homelessness and addiction, alike. And sparing businesses certain obligations because then the business model couldn't afford to operate even with all the lawbreaking is another one of the freedoms businesses have long required, which complicates political solutions by making them harder to formulate and implement.
____________________
Notes:
¹ But this is kind of a habit of yours, isn't it? "At least try to fit"? Or↗, "Your post, as usual, makes no sense". There is also↗, "I think you'd prefer not to deal with reality". And you've been at it a while; six months ago↗, complaining that I "haven't contributed much regarding the weaknesses in liberalism" was certainly easier than actually addressing what I said on the subject. And it's a lot easier to complain about style↗ than address the point.
@snopes. "True. These are real articles from as far back as 1894 showing people expressing variations of the phrase, 'Nobody wants to work anymore.'" Twitter. 20 February 2023. Twitter.com. 24 February 2023. https://bit.ly/3IxFHVU