AEI’s Values and Capitalism program just released a new book titled “Entrepreneurship for Human Flourishing.” In it, the authors, Chris Horst and Peter Greer, argue that entrepreneurial businesses, “which sustain productive development long after charitable giving dries up,” are the real engine of true human flourishing. Here, Horst and Greer answer a few questions about the book.
In a number of posts, I have argued that we should raise our estimate of the moral standing of profit-seeking enterprises relative to that of non-profits.
I agree with the idea that entrepreneurship is the primary engine of human flourishing. But it is not the only engine. Libertarians often argue that government could and should do less because voluntary non-profit charities would be a better approach to many problems. This kind of post undermines that narrative by suggesting that nonprofits are relatively ineffective.
The suggestion that entrepreneurs and nonprofits compete for a limited amount of respect is unwarranted. Why not view them as compliments to each other?
The idea that entrepreneurs don’t get enough respect in America is a strange one. It raises the question: Compared to what? Has there ever been ANY other society in human history that has valued entrepreneurship more than we do here in America?
In an absolute sense, that may be difficult to measure, but in a relative sense (relative to other moments in history and concurrent nations), McCloskey’s work may offer a good view on a vital moment in human history when the perceived social value of entrepreneurship was particularly high: http://www.amazon.com/Bourgeois-Dignity-Economics-Explain-Modern/dp/0226556743/ref=la_B001ITVIAI_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406132009&sr=1-2
I suppose the modern corollary may be, given growth in the BRIC nations over the last decade, does America face meaningful economic challenges from other nations increasing their respect for and perceived social value placed in entrepreneurial endeavors? In other words, just as certain parts of the world radically embraced Bourgeois values and benefited from unprecedented economic growth, do we want a future where we are “left behind” by a new wave of globalized interest in for-profit activities? (Disclaimer: I generally think innovation in China/India benefits us more than it helps us, so I’m not playing xenophobic cards here, but to the extent that nations compete for talent/industry in a globalized economy, and that competition is healthy, Arnold may be making an extremely important point.)
The problem is so many nonprofits are not charities, but lobbying groups that promote various causes by seeking government “action”. Many of them are basically extensions of the government itself, promoting “changes” that bureaucracies desire. Some of them are funded by the government by grants or even by winning patsy lawsuits encouraged by the bureaucracies they’re supposedly suing.
And by preferencial tax treatment.
Wait, aren’t churches precluded from politicking to keep their tax treatment?