Florida: A Victory for Human Rights – “Yasmeen’s Law” signed by Governor Scott

May 12, 2014, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law a bill to protect the human rights of women and children in the Sunshine State from the intrusion of foreign laws and doctrines undermining fundamental Constitutional rights. There is nothing in the law that Governor Scott signed that mentions Muslims, Sharia, Islam or any other religious or ecclesiastical law. It is facially neutral.

However, the legislation, while based on the American Law for American Courts model law adopted in various forms by six other states, offers in  the Florida version relief to women and children against predatory practices often in violation of federal, state and even international law. One of those foreign laws is Sharia, Islamic law, which controls every aspect of a Muslim’s life, and in all too many cases, the lives of non-Muslim wives and the children of those unions. Under Sharia, a husband, a son and male relatives are deemed to have  absolute control over their wives and children.

Florida Governor Rick Scott

Research conducted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and its affiliate the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA) found over two dozen instances in which foreign laws had intruded in family and other matters in both lower and appellate court decisions in Florida. The law signed by Governor Scott, diverged from the American Law for American Courts model developed by incorporating applicable Florida case law to preserve those rights in family law and other matters. This enabled passage and ultimate enactment in the 2014 Tallahassee legislative session.

Yasmeen A. Davis

Video Testimonies about American Child Abductions under Foreign Law

Key to the 2014 legislative success was a graphic message about Shariah’s war on American women and children conveyed in two video interviews we conducted. One was with Margaret McLain, a retired Arkansas State University professor who lost her five-year-old daughter, Heidi, now 16, years earlier to an abduction and removal to Saudi Arabia by her Saudi ex- husband. We had chanced to meet Professor McClain at a Jonesboro ACT! For America Chapter presentation in September 2013. Through Professor McClain, we were introduced to a 28 year old South Florida woman, Yasmeen A. Davis. Ms. Davis had been abducted at age 11 by her mother’s Saudi ex-husband and removed to Saudi Arabia. Yasmeen was mistreated at her father’s residence in the Kingdom because of her refusal to convert to Islam and still bears the effects. Her Saudi father still keeps tabs on her through periodic calls to her from his American lawyers and an ex-FBI agent hired by him. She suffers from the equivalent of PTSD as a result of her experience. Ms. Davis was rescued through the resources of her family at age 13.  Both Professor McClain and Ms. Davis had testified in a series of US House of Representative hearings in 2002 along with a panel of other similarly victimized American parents and children. The hearings were held before the US House of Representatives Government Reform Committee chaired by former Indiana Republican Representative Dan Burton and was televised.

It is our contention that the ALAC legislation enacted in Florida in 2014 might be called Yasmeen’s Law. It is a testament  to the courage and resolve by Ms. Davis and her family to secure her rescue. During our interview with her, she hoped that ALAC might protect other similarly importuned American families in Florida from what she experienced 17 years ago.

Florida Senator Alan Hays

The Phone call that began the battle for enactment of Florida ALAC

Introduction of the model ALAC legislation in the 2011 session was facilitated by Christopher Holton, then VP for Outreach at the CSP and New Orleans lawyer, Stephen M. Gelé, Esq., who headed the APPA.  The sponsors of the model ALAC legislation in the 2011 legislative session in Tallahassee were  Sen. Alan Hays (R- Senate District – 11 Umatilla) in the Senate and Rep. Larry Metz (R-House District- 32 Groveland).  The fact that it took four years after the introduction of the model law in the 2011 Florida legislative session indicated that its fundamental merits survived the deliberative process.

Joseph Sabag, Esq.

A volunteer advisory team that supported this effort resulted from a phone call in January 2012 from Joseph Sabag, Esq.  a politically astute young Southern Florida lawyer who contacted this writer on an unrelated matter.

Florida Christian Coalition Citizen Lobbyists in the State Capitol Rotunda on March 13, 2014

Enter Anthony Verdugo and the Citizen-Lobbyists of the Florida Christian Coalition

The Sabag phone call led to discovery of the citizen lobbying prowess of the Florida Christian Family Coalition (CFC) led by Anthony “Tony” Verdugo. Verdugo had an amazing grasp of the nuances in the Florida legislative process. That was evident his ability to invite Florida Senate and House leaders and a Presidential candidate to the January 2012 CFC Annual Legislative Prayer Breakfast. Former US Senate Republican majority leader, Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum spoke at the 2012 CFC event before an audience of more than 120 citizen – lobbyists. Verdugo’s group represents 5,000 members in the Sunshine State. His leadership of CFC’s diverse members has successfully obtained passage on a number of social issues.

Anthony Verdugo, Florida Christian Family Coalition

Enter Florida Senator Hays and the Volunteer Advisory Team

Sabag introduced me to Sen. Hays who was the sponsor of the Stand With Israel resolution. At that initial encounter in his Senate office in 2012 we briefly discussed the ALAC bill and underlying issues. The Stand with Israel resolution was passed by the Florida Senate on February 1, 2012 by a resounding bipartisan Senate vote, 39 to 0, while the House version passed on February 29th by 108 to 0.

Out of that success emerged the voluntary advisory team that included Sabag, Christopher Holton,  now with Act! for America, Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, Verdugo of CFC and this writer. The volunteer team worked closely with Sen. Hays and other legislators to conduct research and develop FAQs, training aides, media op-eds, and video presentations.

Although the bill stalled in the 2013 legislative session in Tallahassee, Sen. Alan Hays held a conference call with the advisory team. He noted there was no longer a super majority of Republicans in both chambers, but nevertheless asked, why not make another try in 2014? In 2013, the ALAC bill had once again passed all the House committee referrals and a full chamber vote. On the Senate side under the leadership of Senate President Don Gaetz (R. Senate Dist. 1 – Destin) the bill was referred to four committees, but was prevented from going forward to a final hearing by the Senate Rules Committee, the penultimate stop before a floor vote. The advisory team suggested that to start the process in the 2014 session earlier than normal with legislative planning sessions in the summer of 2013. This was to be followed by bill enrollment and securing a reduced number of committee referrals from the leadership preceding the start of the 60 day legislative session in March 2014.

Christopher Holton, Esq., Act! for America

Overcoming the Opposition to Florida ALAC.

It is said that the legislative process is equivalent to making sausage. Perhaps that analogy may be the pragmatic reality. In 2014 the core message of protection of women and children coupled with research in foreign family laws matters contributed to overcoming vocal opposition from the strange alliance of Muslim advocacy groups and Jewish Defense groups. The  Muslim Advocacy groups  included the Florida and national Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Emerge USAUnited Voices for America, while Jewish defense groups included the Anti-Defamation League and the National Council of Jewish Women. They were bolstered by representatives from  both Family and International Law sections of the Florida bar association. The opponents frequently voiced the opinion that the legislation was “unnecessary,” “duplicative,” “ didn’t recognize the competency of the state’s judiciary,” and “prevented foreign investment” in Florida.  At its worst the Muslim opponents resorted to ad hominem attacks accusing bill sponsors of being “Islamophobes,” “racists,” and “bullies.”

Jewish defense groups contended that the legislation would bar recognition of Israeli Rabbinic family law decrees recognized under Florida practice. It was research by a Family Law expert at Tel Aviv University Prof. Daphna Hackner published in a peer reviewed international legal journal that put that to rest. Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, educated in bothJewish Halacha and Sharia Islamic law, with US law degrees and education at the American University in Cairo, enabled him to interpret both religious laws. An Israeli  lawyer and family relation of Rabbi Hausman’s facilitated the connections with Professor Hackner. Rabbi Hausman drafted op-eds and letters to legislators explaining why the change in laws was necessary.

Rabbi  Hausman’s video interview on the legislation and those of Professor McClain and Ms. Davis were loaded into Sen. Hays’  iPad so that he could take them around to show Committee chairs and members during hearings on the measure. The advisory team prepared training presentations, revised FAQs to be used in sessions organized for the 2014 CFC citizen lobbyist day on March 13, 2014. The approximately 100 CFC citizen lobbyists who were bused in to the Tallahassee Doubletree Hotel listened attentively to presentations by Sen. Hays, House sponsor of ALAC, Neil Combee (R. House District 39, Auburndale), and guest speaker Professor McClain. By the end of the day, they secured commitments from 39 Florida legislators.

The Victory for Florida ALAC

After four years of effort in the face of misinformed opposition, an amended version of ALAC passed the Florida Legislature. The Senate sponsor, Senator Alan Hays, said on April 28th when the Senate passed  the measure by a partisan vote of 24 Republicans to 14 Democrats:

I am delighted that my colleagues in the Florida Senate passed SB 386 – The Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases.

It is my fervent desire to make sure everyone in a Florida courtroom is protected from the imposition of any foreign law that may diminish the rights of that person which are afforded by our US and Florida Constitutions. This bill codifies case law to offer those protections and is a welcome addition to the statutes of our state.

I sincerely appreciate the efforts of many others who assisted in the passage of this landmark legislation.

Florida Representative Mike Hill

House Rep. Mike Hill, (R. House District -2 Pensacola), a member of the Subcommittee on Civil Justice, following House passage on April 30th of HB 903 by a vote of 78 Republicans to 40 Democrats, said:

I am honored to join my colleagues and vote ‘yes’ on the bill that passed the Florida House codifying that American law only will be used in Florida courts. It is our duty to do so as I took an oath to protect the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida.

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman and I were in the Florida House Public Gallery on Tuesday, April 29th and witnessed the floor debate with questions from opposition Democrats to House bill sponsor Rep. Neil Combee. Misinformed, they persisted in asking why the measure was necessary. Rep. Combee cited both lower court and appellate level cases in which foreign law had been recognized that did not comply with the comity principles under Florida practice as justification for passing the measure.

Stephen M. Gelé, Esq. of the New Orleans law firm of Smith Fawer LLC

Prior to the Senate and House deliberations on  ALAC we suggested to the bill sponsors that the amended version be reviewed by Stephen M. Gelé, Esq. of the New Orleans law firm of Smith Fawer LLC, former Chair of the APPA. Despite his being on vacation, Gelé sent his assessment of the legislation that we received via Christopher Holton of ACT! Gelé wrote:

The Florida Legislature recently passed and Gov. Scott signed into law SB 386, a bill that will help protect Floridians from foreign law that is inconsistent with American values, such as Islamic Sharia law. The law will help protect Florida parents who face loss of their children to a foreign custody judgment; help protect spouses who face unfair foreign judgments of divorce, spousal support, or marital property distributions; help protect parents and spouses from marital contracts (including Islamic marital contracts often named mahrs) that would force decisions regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions to be decided in foreign courts or under foreign law in American courts; and, help protect parents and spouses from having disputes regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions from being dismissed by Florida courts in favor of being decided in foreign courts.

Although American and Florida courts have held in the past that foreign law should not be applied when the foreign law offends public policy, this concept has not previously been strengthened by statute. Further, under current Florida child custody statutes a judge can refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment only “if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.” Unfortunately, statements by the U.S. State Department suggest that “fundamental principles of human rights” should be interpreted more narrowly than most Americans would interpret the phrase. However, ALAC  allows a Florida judge to refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment under the much broader standard of whether the judgment offends the public policy of Florida.

Therefore, the most important effect of  the law will be to protect parents from losing their children to foreign custody decrees, which has happened before.

Gele’s comments are reflective of a new theme based on the recommendation of Kansas House Speaker Pro TemporeRep. Peg Mast. Mast successfully secured bi-partisan support for passage of ALAC in the 2012 session in Topeka. She suggested emphasizing protection of “fundamental Constitutional rights” for Florida women and children. That meant putting a human face to the theme of the foreign law war on women and children. This was reflected in interviews women, Professor Margaret McClain and Ms. Yasmeen Davis.

Florida Representative Matt Gaetz (R. House District 4 – Shalimar)

Without the dogged determination of the legislation’s sponsors like Sen. Hays and Rep. Combee with the support of advocates in the House Reps. Mike Hill, Larry Metz and Matt Gaetz, what occurred in the final week of the 2014 Florida legislative session might not have happened.

Other important legislation was passed in Tallahassee in the final week of the 2014 session

.

Sen. Hays had also deftly maneuvered another measure directed at text book review, SB 864, which passed the Senate with a tally of 21 Republicans to 19 Democrats. The measure reversed State Department of Education control over selection of textbooks returning that role to Florida’s 67 school districts, requiring open public hearing on texts used in courses. SB 864 was largely prompted by objections of parental groups in several Florida counties about the treatment of Islam and Muslim culture in world history textbooks that are on the Florida State Department of Education list of approved texts.

The House passed the amended SB864/HB 921 by a resounding bi-partisan vote.

Florida Representative Larry Metz

Like the experience with ALAC SB 864/HB 921: “on K to 12 instruction materials,” was amended following a conference with both Senate and House sponsors in consultation with the Governor’s office. While it requires clarification that standards of fact-based accurate in world history texts should be adhered to, it also creates a process giving parents an opportunity at school district level to trigger a public hearing. The laws also adds requirements that instructional materials “accurately portray the religious and physical diversity of our society.” Further, it makes the school district boards responsible for the content of all instructional materials used in the classroom. One important requirement is that the amended law would add a new topic in the curriculum specified in 1003.42, F.S. –“the events surrounding the terrorist attacks occurring on 9/11/01 and the impacts of those events on the nation.”

Those of us who have been involved with the support of both measures consider them landmarks for possible consideration in other US states. This might not satisfy all of the concerns in certain quarters; however, they reflect two well turned precepts. Voltaire wrote: “a wise Italian says that the best is the enemy of the good.” German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck said: “politics is the art of the possible.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

The true meaning of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Judge Andrew Napolitano gives a speech from the heart about freedom and from where our rights come. The Judge explains the hard core truth about the Constitution and why we must fight to regain and retain our freedoms.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/7n2m-X7OIuY[/youtube]

Video courtesy of CampaignForLiberty.com. Edited by FreeTheNation.com.

Illegal Aliens Get Better Health Care than Vets

Fox News host Sean Hannity sat down with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans where she was asked about the unfolding scandal surrounding the Department of Veterans Affairs. Palin blasted the VA for failing veterans and said that “illegal aliens” in the United States often have access to better care than American servicemen and women.

“Is the VA a death panel for many?” Hannity asked Palin.

“That is what government-run health care will result in,” Palin replied.

Palin then states, “Isn’t it ironic that those who are willing to sacrifice all, to put their life on the line, to allow the freedom of choices in healthcare and economic decisions and everything else, our soldiers, airmen, marines — they are the ones getting screwed by the VA! And our commander-in-chief is in charge of this, ultimately.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/uy5xYaRfPUY[/youtube]

Marijuana Legalization: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Kevin Sabet, author of “Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana,” sat down with The Foundry to discuss the dangers of marijuana use, why the drug is more potent than ever, and that it is considered by medical professionals to be as addicting as alcohol.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/060pHP7v3i0[/youtube]

In “Why You Should Be Alarmed About Marijuana Legalization, According to a Former Obama Drug Adviser” Rob Bluey writes:

Marijuana legalization poses a significant health risk to America’s youth—and many parents have no clue about the consequences, says a former Obama administration drug policy adviser.

“Today’s marijuana is not the marijuana of the ‘60s, ‘70s or ‘80s. It’s five to 15 times stronger,” Kevin Sabet said in an exclusive interview with The Foundry. “I think a lot of Baby Boomers’ experience with pot—a couple of times in the dorm room—they don’t correspond to what kids are experiencing today.”

Sabet, a former senior adviser at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, wrote the book “Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana” to shed light on the marijuana legalization movement.

He pointed to Colorado, which has operated with de-facto legalization for five years, as a case study. By 2011, Denver had more medical marijuana shops than Starbucks or McDonalds.

The state has more kids using marijuana, he said, resulting in more kids in treatment and higher rate of car crashes. There have even been two deaths tied to marijuana use, including one involving domestic violence.

“Legalization in practice is a lot scarier than legalization in theory,” Sabet said. “It means a pot shop in your backyard, mass advertising and commercialization and greater health harms.”

In the book, Sabet takes on the myth that marijuana isn’t addictive. He said one in six kids who try marijuana will become addicted—the same as alcohol. That’s because young people are vulnerable than adults.

“There are more kids in treatment for marijuana today than all other drugs, including alcohol, combined,” Sabet said.

He worries that as other states and the District of Columbia consider legalization, more people will be hurt by the drug.

Do Terminally Ill Americans have the Unalienable “Right to Try”?

“States should enact ‘Right to Try‘ measures to protect the fundamental right of people to try to save their own lives. Designed by the Goldwater Institute, this initiative would allow terminal patients access to investigational drugs that have completed basic safety testing, thereby dramatically reducing paperwork, wait times and bureaucracy, and, most importantly, potentially saving lives,” according to the Goldwater Institute .

Christina Corieri in “Everyone Deserves the Right to Try: Empowering the Terminally Ill to Take Control of their Treatment” writes:

In 2002, Kianna Karnes, a 41-year-old mother of four children, was diagnosed with kidney cancer. She was treated with Interleukin-2, the only medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the time to treat her disease. When that treatment failed, her father began researching investigational medications, learning in 2004 that both Pfizer and Bayer were conducting clinical trials for new investigational medications to treat kidney cancer. Karnes was ineligible for the clinical trial because her cancer had previously spread to her brain.

Although her brain tumors had been removed, she was still disqualified from joining the clinical trial, so her father sought expanded access for his daughter. Months passed before he was able to secure access for his daughter. He contacted Congressman Dan Burton’s (R-IN) office for assistance, and drew media coverage of Karnes’ struggle in the Wall Street Journal. On March 24, 2005, the FDA notified the family that it had approved a single-patient IND for Karnes.

Tragically, it was too late—Kianna Karnes died the same day access was approved. Less than a year later, both drugs were given final FDA approval to treat advanced kidney cancer.

Speaking after his daughter’s death, her father said, “I don’t know that either of these drugs would have saved Kianna’s life, but wouldn’t it be nice to give her a chance?”

Read the proposed legislation by clicking here.

The Goldwater Institute notes, “It takes a decade and a billion dollars to bring a new medicine to market—that’s time our sickest loved ones don’t have to wait.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/zGGdXvJN1T4[/youtube]

 

Lorraine’s Story

Lorraine Heidke-McCartin loves to run. She is currently training to run a 5K with her daughters this spring. A 5K isn’t much for most runners, but for her it’s the finishing stretch on a marathon that began in 2006. That was the year she was first diagnosed as a Stage IV (the most lethal and final stage) of an aggressive strain of breast cancer, HER 2. She immediately began a regimen of treatment with her doctor, undergoing rounds of chemo that sapped her energy, took her hair and gave her a great deal of pain. As her treatments progressed, so did her disease, until she had finally exhausted all of her available treatment options. She and her husband, Philip, began looking for another way to save Lorraine’s life.

In 2009, their doctor returned from a conference where she had heard about an experimental treatment that could be a life saver for Lorraine, T-DM1. They reached out to the drug company conducting the trials for T-DM1 and found the closest trial to their home in Boston was in Fairfax, Va. Lorraine and Phil jumped on the opportunity and got to Virginia as soon as possible. Lorraine would end up making over 16 trips back and forth in the course of her treatment before finally being allowed by the FDA to take the drug in Boston, thanks in large part to her incredible recovery. She has been cancer free since December 2011, thanks to an experimental drug and her ability to make the regular trips to a distant trial site.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/AkQOLGpXf98[/youtube]

The Goldwater Institute asks those who care to “call state lawmakers and tell them everyone deserves the right to try.”

Learn more here.

Libertarians As Seen from the “Other Side” by Sandy Ikeda

I think it’s good to try to see an issue from the side of one’s ideological opponent, but it’s very hard to do. Sometimes, though, I see or read something that hits me in a way that really gets through.

This time it was a clever cartoon from a left-leaning blogger.

In it the following thought bubbles float above an increasingly a beleaguered character:

“A corporation laid me off…

… a corporation took my house …

… a corporation is corrupting democracy …

… a corporation denied my [insurance] claim …

… corporations track my every move …

I hate the GOVERNMENT!”

Unlike a lot of blasts from the left aimed at libertarians, I found this one clever and thoughtful. I didn’t feel exasperation; it was more like getting jabbed in the ribs. Ah, I thought, here’s one reason the left finds libertarianism silly! I had to work through to get my bearings back, but I think the entire experience was worthwhile.

There are two possibilities

Despite the American law that gives a corporation the legal status of a person that can make and enforce contracts, the first thing to note is that it’s a flesh-and-blood person who lays someone off, repossesses a house, bribes government officials, etc. The question then is, “For whom is that person acting?”

It’s natural in such circumstances to try to find someone other than oneself to blame. If you’re laid off, it’s hard to blame that on the fact that your boss, if she’s doing her job right, is only conveying the wishes of consumers. The final consumer may be very far away from you in the production process, while your boss and the corporation are right there.

If the layoffs and the rest occur in a free market, then ultimately it’s the consumer who is doing the laying off. To use William H. Hutt’s famous phrase, “The consumer is sovereign,” or as Ludwig von Mises (quoted by Robert Murphy) put it, “The real boss is the consumer.” So General Motors hires or fires you, MetLife grants or denies your application, or Amazon.com tracks your spending habits because they are doing the bidding of those who ultimately pay their salaries and are the source of losses and profits: consumers.

A free market works because the rivalry among entrepreneurial competitors keeps them from charging prices that are too high, producing goods that are shoddy, or selling on terms that are unfair from the viewpoint of the consumer. If a seller charges a higher price for hiking boots that in the eyes of the consumer are of no better quality than what another seller offers, competition (on the part of profit-seeking rivals and bargain-seeking buyers) pressures her to lower the price, raise quality, or both. That could mean someone getting fired or getting hired at that company. So while it’s true that a specific person makes the immediate decision, she is only doing the bidding of consumers as a whole, who are the ultimate decision-makers.

But if you live in a system in which government habitually regulates people and redistributes wealth and income, then your woes may indeed be the fault of a specific and identifiable agent: namely, the government. Recessionary layoffs, housing crises, crony capitalism, the healthcare mess, and especially the surveillance state can more and more these days be traced to specific government interventions. (For examples and analyses you need look no further than the archives of The Freeman.) So if these unpleasant things happen to people in a mixed economy, we shouldn’t simply assume that they had it coming to them or that they have only themselves to blame.  (We ought not to assume that in a free market, either, because businesses and consumers and everyone else do make mistakes.)

The naive view of the free market

There are thus two false starting points in that cartoon. The first is to assume that the nasty experiences depicted are taking place in a free market. In a free market operating under the rule of law, people and businesses should receive no special privileges from the government. Of course, the United States economy is no pure free market.

To take but one example, General Motors has issued its 30th recall so far this year. So far it’s recalled something like 14 million vehicles for manufacturing defects, some of them quite serious. That’s more cars and trucks than it manufactured in all of 2013.

The irony of course is that GM had been initially touted as a bailout poster child. President Obama went so far as to declare, “In exchange for rescuing and retooling GM and Chrysler with taxpayer dollars, we demanded responsibility and results. In 2011, we marked the end of an important chapter as Chrysler repaid every dime and more of what it owed the American taxpayers from the investment we made under my Administration’s watch.” Then of course we learned taxpayers actually lost over $11 billion on the deal.

The other false premise ignores the concept of consumer sovereignty altogether. It is that a private company can use its wealth to trample on the rights of both consumers and its employees. Big government is necessary then to offset the “power” of big business, so big government is good.

Whenever I hear people compare the power of private wealth with the power of government coercion, I think of a line from the Netflix series House of Cards that I’ve used before. It’s in the scene where a rich businessman threatens to use his influence with the President of the United States to topple the vice president. The VP cooly responds, “You may have all the money, but I have all the men with all the guns.”

That’s ultimately what separates a big business in a free market from the government. In the free market you get wealthy by serving consumers well; under interventionism you get wealthy by accessing coercion. I often tell my students that if you put a greedy Bill Gates and all his billions in a room with some greedy guy with a 22-caliber pistol, who do you think is going leave richer?

Out of our comfort zones and back—sort of

My overall point here, however, is that each side of an issue begins with certain premises that need to be checked, both our own and those of our opponents. There are things seen and unseen by all and it’s important to try to see as much as we can. That can sometimes be uncomfortable. But find something you’re not comfortable with, then see if you can work you way logically, step by step, back to your comfort zone. If you do it right and you do make it back, it probably won’t be the same comfort zone that you left. At least, I hope it isn’t.

ABOUT SANDY IKEDA

Sandy Ikeda is an associate professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism. He will be speaking at the FEE summer seminars “People Aren’t Pawns” and “Are Markets Just?

CLICHES OF PROGRESSIVISM #7 – The Free Market Ignores the Poor

Editor’s Note: This week’s cliché was authored decades ago by FEE’s founder, Leonard E. Read, and originally appeared in the first edition of Clichés of Socialism. Barely a word has been changed and though a few numbers are dated, the essay’s wisdom is as timely and relevant today as it ever was.)

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government.

Our society is inundated with half-truths and misconceptions about the economy in general and free enterprise in particular. The “Clichés of Progressivism” series is meant to equip students with the arguments necessary to inform debate and correct the record where bias and errors abound.

The antecedents to this collection are two classic FEE publications that YAF helped distribute in the past: Clichés of Politics, published in 1994, and the more influential Clichés of Socialism, which made its first appearance in 1962. Indeed, this new collection will contain a number of essays from those two earlier works, updated for the present day where necessary. Other entries first appeared in some version in FEE’s journal, The Freeman. Still others are brand new, never having appeared in print anywhere. They will be published weekly on the websites of both YAF and FEE: www.yaf.org and www.FEE.org until the series runs its course. A book will then be released in 2015 featuring the best of the essays, and will be widely distributed in schools and on college campuses.

See the index of the published chapters here.

#7 – The Free Market Ignores the Poor

Once an activity has been socialized for a spell, nearly everyone will concede that that’s the way it should be.

Without socialized education, how would the poor get their schooling? Without the socialized post office, how would farmers receive their mail except at great expense? Without Social Security, the aged would end their years in poverty! If power and light were not socialized, consider the plight of the poor families in the Tennessee Valley!

Agreement with the idea of state absolutism follows socialization, appallingly. Why? One does not have to dig very deep for the answer.

Once an activity has been socialized, it is impossible to point out, by concrete example, how men in a free market could better conduct it. How, for instance, can one compare a socialized post office with private postal delivery when the latter has been outlawed? It’s something like trying to explain to a people accustomed only to darkness how things would appear were there light. One can only resort to imaginative construction.

To illustrate the dilemma: During recent years, men and women in free and willing exchange (the free market) have discovered how to deliver the human voice around the earth in one twenty-seventh of a second; how to deliver an event, like a ball game, into everyone’s living room, in color and in motion, at the time it is going on; how to deliver 115 people from Los Angeles to Baltimore in three hours and 19 minutes; how to deliver gas from a hole in Texas to a range in New York at low cost and without subsidy; how to deliver 64 ounces of oil from the Persian Gulf to our Eastern Seaboard—more than half-way around the earth—for less money than government will deliver a one-ounce letter across the street in one’s home town. Yet, such commonplace free market phenomena as these, in the field of delivery, fail to convince most people that “the post” could be left to free market delivery without causing people to suffer.

Now, then, resort to imagination: Imagine that our federal government, at its very inception, had issued an edict to the effect that all boys and girls, from birth to adulthood, were to receive shoes and socks from the federal government “for free.” Next, imagine that this practice of “free shoes and socks” had been going on for lo, these 173 years! Lastly, imagine one of our contemporaries—one with a faith in the wonders of what can be wrought when people are free—saying, “I do not believe that shoes and socks for kids should be a government responsibility. Properly, that is a responsibility of the family. This activity should never have been socialized. It is appropriately a free market activity.”

What, under these circumstances, would be the response to such a stated belief? Based on what we hear on every hand, once an activity has been socialized for even a short time, the common chant would go like this, “Ah, but you would let the poor children go unshod!”

However, in this instance, where the activity has not yet been socialized, we are able to point out that the poor children are better shod in countries where shoes and socks are a family responsibility than in countries where they are a government responsibility. We’re able to demonstrate that the poor children are better shod in countries that are more  free than in countries that are less free.

True, the free market ignores the poor precisely as it does not recognize the wealthy—it is “no respecter of persons.” It is an organizational way of doing things featuring openness, which enables millions of people to cooperate and compete without demanding a preliminary clearance of pedigree, nationality, color, race, religion, or wealth. It demands only that each person abide by voluntary principles, that is, by fair play. The free market means willing exchange; it is impersonal justice in the economic sphere and excludes coercion, plunder, theft, protectionism, subsidies, special favors from those wielding power, and other anti-free market methods by which goods and services change hands. It opens the way for mortals to act morally because they are free to act morally.

Admittedly, human nature is defective, and its imperfections will be reflected in the market (though arguably, no more so than in government). But the free market opens the way for men to operate at their moral best, and all observation confirms that the poor fare better under these circumstances than when the way is closed, as it is under socialism.

Leonard E. Read
Founder and President
Foundation for Economic Education, 1946–1983

 

Summary

  • Explaining how a socialized activity could actually be done better by private, voluntary means in a free market is a little like telling a blind man what it would be like to see. But that doesn’t mean we just give up and remain blind.
  • Examples of the wonders of free and willing exchange are all around us. We take them for granted. Just imagine what it would be like if shoes and socks had been a government monopoly for a couple hundred years, versus the variety and low cost of shoes as now provided in free countries by entrepreneurs.
  • Free markets open the way for people to act morally, but that doesn’t mean they always will; nor should we assume that when armed with power, our behavior will suddenly become more moral.
  • For more information, see http://tinyurl.com/mkkrcpuhttp://tinyurl.com/m8vjqvp,http://tinyurl.com/pfrmbux, and http://tinyurl.com/ocva6hu.

ABOUT LEONARD E. READ

Leonard E. Read (1898-1983) was the founder of FEE, and the author of 29 works, including the classic parable “I, Pencil.”

Obamacare Will Kill Far More Than the Veterans Administration

The news that some forty veterans died while waiting to receive care from a Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital—care that was denied because of bureaucratic chicanery—will seem small in comparison to the numbers of Americans who will die from the implications of Obamacare.

At this point, some nineteen VA hospitals are under suspicion of engaging in similar practices, but as large as the VA bureaucracy is, it will be small in comparison to what Obamacare requires. The original legislation that combined the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act represented nearly 2,700 pages.

The regulations that are being created to implement it will run to several volumes. By late 2013, the Obama administration had published 11,588,500 words of final Obamacare regulations. If looks can kill, that many words will surely kill. Too many people will be unble to get the care they need because there will be a regulation to prevent it.

What is making headlines now has long been known in other nations with national healthcare systems. It is about rationing, not dispensing care; if for no other reason that is why healthcare should remain in the private sector.

Unless a future Congress repeals Obamacare, the death toll will mount. There have been some forty or more pieces of legislation to repeal it passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. No Republican voted for Obamacare when it was introduced.

What we know is that, while serving on the oversight committee, then-Senator Obama was aware of the VA problems before he ran for President. In 2009, as President, he promised veterans to fix the problems. How concerned is he in 2014? There has been a noticeable lack of public comment from a President famed for having something to say about everything that makes headlines.

Add the VA scandal to the long list of Obama administration scandals from the IRS to Benghazi, but it is Obamacare that has already been a monumental failure and, as we begin to receive news of those who will die as because a local hospital closed or because they lost the care of a personal physician familiar with their problem, it will emerge as the greatest scandal of his presidency.

On March 23, 2010 Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. By October, the Obama administration abandoned the long-term-care insurance program that was in the law. It was later formally repealed by Congress, but the changes that President has initiated since then ignore the fact that only Congress, as the legislative branch, has the power to make such changes.

December 2012 was the deadline for states to decide on running their own insurance exchanges; 36 states left all or part of the job to the federal government. In the lead up to the October 2013 launch of HealthCare.gov more delays were announced by the White House and the website turned out to be a complete disaster. That same month insurers notified thousands of policy holders that their health plans were not compliant with Obamacare and would be cancelled.

In effect, Obamacare caused hundreds of thousands of people with healthcare plans they liked to lose them, thus artificially increasing the number of “uninsured”. In April the White House announced that seven million had signed up for Obamacare. Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, gave notice she was resigning. The figure cited by the White House is likely dubious.

In May, an article in The Fiscal Times reported that “A handful of state-run exchange websites—which cost nearly a half a billion dollars to build—still don’t work, nearly seven months after they first went live.” The Fiscal Times estimated that Obamacare websites had cost $5 billion and so many were not functional that the original plan to transition signups to them from HealthCare.gov was likely to be abandoned.

To mark the anniversary of Obamacare’s enactment, in March 2014 the American Action Forum released a report that the law’s regulatory burdens are twice as great as its alleged benefits. “From a regulatory perspective, the law has imposed more than $27.2 billion in total private sector costs, $8 billion in unfunded state burdens, and more than 159 million paperwork hours on local governments and affected entities.”

Obamacare Agent BadgeIt’s rarely mentioned or reported, but the implementation of Obamacare will also require an increase in the number of people either full-time or under contract with the federal government. The highest estimate for new Internal Revenue Service hires is around 16,000 as the IRS has been put in charge of enforcing Obamacare. It already employs about 100,000 people nationwide which means there is one IRS employee for every 3,000 Americans.

In an April 4 Forbes magazine article, “Obamacare Shows America Suffers from a President Dangerously Disconnected From Reality”, Peter Ferrera, a Heartland Institute Senior Fellow specializing in entitlement and budget policy, concluded that the numbers of those insured by Obamacare were largely a fabrication or invalidated in some cases by data that the Health and Human Services Department released.

“Obamacare,” wrote Ferrera, “has been a major drag on the economy, preventing full recovery from the recession. Employers trying to avoid the costs of the employer mandate have reduced many full time jobs to part time jobs. Or that have frozen hiring, and the associated costs due to Obamacare. This is contributing to income stagnation and decline for the middle class, the working class, and the poor.”

L. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center asked “How do we know Obamacare is failing? They’re burying the story. They aren’t in denial. They know the truth. They’re just choosing to ignore it.”

A Center analysis of the three network evening news broadcasts from January through March found only twelve full stories about Obamacare. “None of the networks dared to report the ongoing opposition of the American people to Obamacare” over that period of time, even when they were the ones doing the polling!

The real story of Obamacare, however, isn’t about who signed up or not. The real story of Obamacare that is not being reported is about those who have died and will die as the result of this horrendous experiment in socialized medicine.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLES:

America’s Veterans Deserve Better: 5 Priorities to Fix VA
Obamanomics Has Cost Your Family a Ridiculous Amount of Money

5 steps for fixing the VA problems — if I were in charge

As I watch the events unfold regarding the Veterans Administration scandal — certainly not a phony one – I’m waiting to hear a concrete plan of action and solutions.

We do not need any more studies, assessments and reports. We certainly don’t need another agency within the Obama administration investigating itself.

I’m also concerned about the number of retired military officers circling the wagons around, it seems, one of their own — retired former Chief of Staff, now Secretary of Veterans Administration, General Eric Shinseki.

What amazes me is that, in uniform, this type of abject and systematic failure over the past six years would have resulted in relief of command. However, it now seems there are different standards and measures of effectiveness in the quagmire we call government bureaucracy — I would have hoped the code of honor and integrity transcends the day one takes off the uniform.

In any event, here are five steps the administration should be taking (not holding my breath):

1. Change of management – I didn’t say leadership because it seems no one is leading and they are certainly mismanaging. But it begins at the top with the Secretary and must go to the senior levels where these issues are being raised.

Some will say leave Secretary Shinseki in place to fix the VA problems, it’s been almost six years and the problem has been exacerbated. Some believe (or hope) once there are resignations, the media will move on and this won’t be a hot topic anymore – that may apply to the fawning Obama liberal media but not the rest of us.

In that vein, we should be listening to our Veterans Service Organizations such as the VFW, American Legion, ROA, NAUS, AMVETS and MOAA as they are the true “voices of our veterans.”

General Shinseki and senior levels of the VA have lost the confidence of the veteran community. As a matter of fact, it seems he’s completely turned his back on it and become just another “Beltway Bandit” — forgetting his oath of office as a commissioned officer in exchange for political loyalties. We thank him for his countless years of service to our nation in uniform, but this is inexcusable.

2. Provide immediate relief with vouchers to civilian hospitals for proper care – of course this process will need scrutiny and tracking to ensure good stewardship of the taxpayer dollar — which we all would humbly want to see go to caring for those who have borne such a burden for this Republic. But the voucher program is not the panacea to solve the greater problem.

3. Develop regional “Centers of Excellence” – five to be exact: North, South, East, Midwest, and West, based upon veteran population concentration, focus resources for staffing and look at relationships with local private hospitals. As well, outpatient clinics should be part of these COEs and we should develop best practices for better automation as part of this initiative. I would say these would be our Tier IA Veteran care facilities and there should be a determination as to their coverage areas.

4. Provide local alternatives for remote areas – we need to assess the remote areas where our veterans need care and coverage and look at developing a process and a system whereby their first line of healthcare can come from a local private hospital. Again, there would need to be a system in place to track these individuals. Along with this comes a very well-trained and responsive system of “Help Centers” that can address issues and resolve them for our vets, and I don’t mean “we will get back to you.”

5. Improve record-keeping – if the Obama administration was so adept at contacting voters they should be able to develop a better automation system for records and caring of our veterans. It is imperative that we are able to quickly and seamlessly transition health records of those who have served in uniform, regardless of Active Duty or Reserve Component, into the VA system. No more drop-offs into the abyss.

You might have thought this would have been what President Obama would have articulated last week, instead of more faux outrage and lecturing about others taking responsibility.

And yes, something criminal has occurred within the Veterans Administration and the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, should conduct an independent investigation — or is it just not that important?

I always taught my young officers that any issues you bring to me must have at least once recommendation for a solution — above are just a few off the top of my head. And I don’t have an entire policy staff.

But I must ask, if the Obama administration, indeed government itself, is having a problem handling veterans healthcare, which is less than two percent of our American population, how do you think they’ll handle trying to manage the entire country’s healthcare?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: America’s Veterans Deserve Better: 5 Priorities to Fix VA

FL Governor Rick Scott Suing Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Shinseki

Governor Rick Scott, a veteran himself with a son in the U.S. Army, announced plans to file a lawsuit establishing the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration’s (AHCA) authority to inspect federal VA hospitals in Florida, and to stop the federal veterans affairs agency from obstructing state actions.

Governor Scott said, “As the chief health policy and planning entity for the state that licenses, inspects, and investigates consumer complaints, AHCA should be allowed access to federal VA hospitals to inspect their processes and their facilities. On seven separate occasions at six federal VA hospitals, however, state inspectors have been blocked by federal officials from carrying out their mission of ensuring facilities in Florida meet the healthcare needs of our veterans. I have asked AHCA to sue the federal veterans affairs agency to shine a light on their activities and protect the lives of our heroes who have earned nothing short of access to the best care possible.”

The complaint will be filed in federal court against U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki to establish AHCA’s right to inspect and regulate health facilities in Florida. The suit will stop the federal government from obstructing AHCA’s inspections of these facilities.

Governor Scott said, “With 1.5 million veterans that call Florida home, we’re committed to being the most veteran-friendly state in the nation – and reports of deaths, neglect, poor conditions and a secret waiting list in federal VA hospitals in Florida are unacceptable. To date, Sec. Shinseki has refused to step down, our inspectors continue to be turned away, and none of the information we’ve asked for has been provided. Transparency and accountability are critical to supporting our veterans, and this suit will fight the federal VA’s continued practice of stonewalling our inspectors.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

VA workers rip crucifix off dying vet’s neck, deal crack, rape and more, according to audit report
America’s Veterans Deserve Better: 5 Priorities to Fix VA

Compulsion Is Not Cooperation by Gary M. Galles

Market competition expands cooperative arrangements among people.

If you ask people whether competition or cooperation is better, almost everybody picks cooperation. It just “feels” better. However, when it comes to economic relationships, the question is not “either/or,” despite long-standing confusion.

FDR’s often-echoed statement was that “cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.” Market competition is actually the process that leads to better cooperative results than are otherwise achievable. Market competition actually expands cooperation.

A competitive market economy is characterized by more extensive and effective cooperation than a “cooperative” economy controlled by the State. That is because market competition embodies a discovery process that reveals who will best cooperate with us, and how. So far this system has no equal. That is why commerce has reduced conflict throughout history, with greater beneficial effects, the less it has been hamstrung by governments. Even in an age of open source and peer-to-peer, market arrangements—exchanges of value between parties—still give rise to the greatest level of prosperity.

A market economy, based on a legal framework of people’s rights to life, liberty, and property, outclasses a command economy because it is permeated by voluntary cooperation across the almost uncountable margins where individual choices interact. Consider the “cooperation” imposed on some by others against their will: Such a system of technocracy discards massive potential gains realized through exchange.

Competition exists within firms. But success in the marketplace requires extensive cooperative skills among many individuals in widely varied activities. Just as sports teams and orchestras illustrate how fierce competition can produce outstanding cooperation, the employees of firms must cooperate to produce high-quality, low-cost results, or risk being of being outperformed by rival cooperative teams.

Market competition is the process of rivalry in which the best cooperators—those who cooperate more effectively with more people—earn greater rewards. Further, the stronger the competition for consumer patronage and employees, the more such cooperation develops.

Each interaction in the vast web of market relationships (which Friedrich Hayek called the “extended order” of the marketplace) involves voluntary cooperation, which is the origin of the market’s mutual benefits. No arrangement is imposed by someone else’s decree. Rather, each develops as participants advance their mutual self-interests, among participants who often live in vastly disparate places, speak and write in a multitude of languages, and often believe many different things—even mutually inconsistent ones. And competition improves outcomes because the requirement to get the consent of all whose rights are impacted (absent in other systems) forces competition into positive channels, generating beneficial results.

People compete for jobs to cooperate with others to produce goods and services. That “competitive” cooperation also extends to owners and creditors, suppliers and customers. A worker that cooperates more effectively earns more income. A firm that better cooperates with customers and suppliers raises its market value.

Market competition leads to improved cooperation because everyone is free to offer to cooperate at whatever terms they find acceptable. The process rewards those most able to meet consumer desires, whoever they may be. Competition replaces restrictions imposed to benefit the politically powerful by denying others opportunities to cooperate on better terms. The result is improved results for them as well as those who would prefer to deal with them, if given the chance. Based in secure property rights, it does not allow the strong to abuse the weak; rather, it favors those better able to serve others, however weak they may be in politics or other aspects of society, with a special premium for benefiting the masses (where really large rewards can be reaped). In that way, competition is the primary uplifting force for the poor, not the means of making them victims.

Nothing prevents individuals who are sovereign over themselves from voluntarily cooperating whenever all involved expect to benefit. We do it countless times, without even noticing it. But when those with political power can impose limits on how we are allowed to cooperate with others, competition is transformed into a political war to control what we must cooperate in pursuit of, as well as how and for whom. There is nothing harmonious, benevolent, caring, or community-minded about such conflict. It focuses on reducing the options of others.

Scarcity means competition cannot be avoided, no matter how society is organized. In capitalism—voluntary cooperation based on private property (in turn based on the principle of self-ownership)—it creates wealth out of otherwise-latent abilities in others. The key to its success is its limitation to voluntary activities, barricaded against political compulsion, because under “cooperative” decision-making, competition for political power destroys wealth and hamstrings society from vast areas of true cooperation.

Contrary to those who assert cooperation’s superiority to competition, capitalism is the only system that strips force away from all relationships, allowing true voluntary cooperation. The issue is not competition versus cooperation, but channeling people’s scarcity-induced competition exclusively into mutually agreed forms. Markets do that. As Ludwig von Mises put it, competitive markets comprise “a system of mutual cooperation,” where “the function of competition is to assign to every member of the social system that position in which he can best serve the whole of society and all of its members.” In contrast, government enforced “cooperation” actually crowds out or destroys real cooperation.

ABOUT GARY M. GALLES

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.

Why Black Men Need More White Women

Black women constantly complain about the dearth of “eligible” Black men to date and marry. Noted sociologist William Julius Wilson has argued that “the increasing levels of non-marriage and female-headed households is a manifestation of the high levels of economic dislocation experienced by lower-class Black men in recent decades.”

He further argued that, “When joblessness is combined with high rates of incarceration and premature mortality among Black men; it becomes clearer that there are fewer marriageable black men relative to black women who are able to provide the economic support needed to sustain a family.”

Then you add in the unfortunate increase in homosexuality within the Black community and you have a recipe for disaster.

This is why Black men need more White women like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. Even though they are conservative media personalities, they have done more to promote the well-being of Black males than many of the very women who stridently complain about the lack of “eligible” Black men.

Coulter is a friend and I find her comments regarding the Black community very insightful. Look at what she said two years ago on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” She said, “Groups on the left, from feminists to gay rights groups to those defending immigrants, have commandeered the Black civil rights experience.”

She continued, “I think what – the way liberals have treated Blacks like children and many of their policies have been harmful to Blacks, at least they got the beneficiary group right. There is the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We don’t owe the homeless. We don’t owe feminists. We don’t owe women who are desirous of having abortions, but that’s — or — or gays who want to get married to one another. That’s what civil rights has become for much of the left.”

Stephanopoulos asked, “Immigrant rights are not civil rights?” Coulter responded, “Civil rights are for Blacks…what have we done to immigrants? We owe Black people something…We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven’t even been in this country.”

Earlier this year, she said, “I mean my whole life I’ve heard Republicans hate Black people, I’ve never seen any evidence of it until I read Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. We are the party that has always stood up for African-Americans. Who gets hurt the most by amnesty, by continuing these immigration policies it is low-wage workers, it is Hispanics, it is Blacks.”

I don’t know Ingraham personally, but I like what she had to say last month about Democrats and Blacks. “

[Congressman] Steve Israel is reprehensible in what he said [on alleged racism in the Republican Party]…Nancy Pelosi, throw her into the ring [for similar comments]…I say this is a race to the bottom…The Democrats have failed the Black youth in this country with their terrible economic approach. Do we call that racist?

“…They turn their heads away from the millions upon millions of Black babies slaughtered in the womb over 10 years… Is that racist?…Is it racist that they allow inner cities to continue to crumble as families decay across the board in America – especially hard hit is African-American families…It is reprehensible and it’s all about November…This is not about ‘They care about Black people.’ They care about their majority eroding away.”

So, let me make sure I understand. Black women complain about the state of “eligible” Black males to date and marry, yet they support the policies of a president who is going to make the problem much worse.

Under Obama, Blacks have regressed on every economic, social and moral indicator that is tracked. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the current Black unemployment rate is 11.6 percent; for Blacks aged 16-19 it is at 36.8 percent.

However, the average Black unemployment rate during the terms of the last three presidents, as well as the average over the past 30 years, are noteworthy. Under Clinton, it was 10 percent; under George W. Bush, 9.3 percent but under Obama, 14 percent for the total time he has been in office. The 30-year average for Blacks is 12.4 percent.

Campaign slogans notwithstanding, this isn’t the kind of change we have been waiting for.

Obama has done more for same-sex marriage couples than he has for his same-race brothers and sisters. In fact, Newsweek dubbed him our first gay president – not for his sexual orientation, but for his relentless pandering to homosexuals.

He has also advocated amnesty for those in this country illegally, which will only continue to increase the unemployment rate in the Black community, especially among low and under-skilled Black workers. This will further decrease the pool of potential Black men for women to date and marry. Let’s face it, our women are not going to marry someone who is unemployed or underemployed.

Historically, Black women have been notoriously protective of their men and children. It is ironic that Coulter and Ingraham, two conservative White women, are now assuming that role. We Black men need more White women like Coulter and Ingraham, not Black women who will give a pass to a failing Black president.

CLICHES OF PROGRESSIVISM #6 – Capitalism Fosters Greed and Government Policy Must Temper It

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government.

Our society is inundated with half-truths and misconceptions about the economy in general and free enterprise in particular. The “Clichés of Progressivism” series is meant to equip students with the arguments necessary to inform debate and correct the record where bias and errors abound.

The antecedents to this collection are two classic FEE publications that YAF helped distribute in the past: Clichés of Politics, published in 1994, and the more influential Clichés of Socialism, which made its first appearance in 1962. Indeed, this new collection will contain a number of essays from those two earlier works, updated for the present day where necessary. Other entries first appeared in some version in FEE’s journal, The Freeman. Still others are brand new, never having appeared in print anywhere. They will be published weekly on the websites of both YAF and FEE: www.yaf.org and www.FEE.org until the series runs its course. A book will then be released in 2015 featuring the best of the essays, and will be widely distributed in schools and on college campuses.

See the index of the published chapters here.

20140414_Clichesofprogressivism (1)

#6 – Capitalism Fosters Greed and Government Policy Must Temper It

On April 19, 2014, the Colonial Bread store in my town of Newnan, Georgia, closed its doors after a decade in business. The parent company explained, “In order to focus more sharply on our core competencies, the decision was made to close some of our retail stores.” A longtime patron responded in the local newspaper this way: “It’s just sad. It’s simply greed and we’re on the receiving end. It’s frustrating to know there isn’t anything you can do about it either.”

Now there’s a rather expansive view of “greed” if there ever was one! Trying to make more efficient the business in which you’ve invested your time and money is somehow a greedy thing to do? And what is it that the disgruntled patron wishes should be done about it? Perhaps pass a law to effectively enslave the business owner and compel him to keep the store open? Who is really the greedy one here?

“Greed” is a word that flows off Progressive tongues with the ease of lard on a hot griddle. It’s a loaded, pejorative term that consigns whoever gets hit with it to the moral gutter. Whoever hurls it can posture self-righteously as somehow above it all, concerned only about others while the greedy wallow in evil selfishness. Thinking people should realize this is a sleazy tactic, not a thoughtful moral commentary.

Economist Thomas Sowell famously pointed out in Barbarians Inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays that the “greed” accusation doesn’t meet the dictionary definition of the term any more. He wrote, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

Once upon a time, and for a very long time, “greed” meant more than just the desire for something. It meant the inordinate, obsessive worship of it that often crossed the line into actions that harmed other people. Really, really wanting a million bucks was not in and of itself a bad thing if you honestly worked for it, freely traded with others for it, or took risks and actually created jobs and wealth to secure it. If you worshiped the million bucks to the point of a willingness to steal for it or hire a public official to raid the Treasury on your behalf, then you were definitely a greedy person. Shame on you. If you’re one of those many people today who are willing to stoop to stealing or politicking your way to wealth, you’ve got a lot to answer for.

“Greed” also means, to some people, an unwillingness to share what’s yours with others. I suppose a father who buys a personal yacht instead of feeding his family would qualify. But that’s because he is evading a personal responsibility. He owes it to the family he brought into being to properly care for them. Does the bakery owner who closes his store thereby violate some responsibility to forever serve a certain clientele? Was that ever part of some contract all parties agreed to?

Let’s not forget the fundamental and critical importance of healthy self-interest in human nature. We’re born with it, and thank goodness for that! I don’t lament it for a second. Taking care of yourself and those you love and have responsibility for is what makes the world work. When your self-interest motivates you to do that, it means on net balance you’re good for the world. You’re relieving its burdens, not adding to them.

A common but misleading claim is that the Great Recession of 2008 resulted from the “greed” of the financial community. But did the desire to make money suddenly appear or intensify in the years before 2008? George Mason University economist Lawrence White pointedly explained that blaming greed for recessions doesn’t get us very far. He says, “It’s like blaming gravity for an epidemic of plane crashes.” The gravity was always there. Other factors must have interceded to create a serious anomaly. In the case of the Great Recession, those factors prominently included years of cheap money and artificially low interest rates from the Federal Reserve, acts of Congress and the bureaucracy to jawbone banks into making dubious loans for home purchases, and government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac skewing the housing market—all policies that enjoyed broad support from Progressives but never from genuinely “free market” people.

The Progressive perspective on “greed” is that it’s a constant problem in the private sector but somehow recedes when government takes over. I wonder exactly when a politician’s self-interest evaporates and his altruistic compassion kicks in? Does that happen on election night, on the day he takes office, or after he’s had a chance to really get to know the folks who grease the wheels of government? When he realizes the power he has, does that make him more or less likely to want to serve himself?

The charlatan cries, “That guy over there is greedy! I will be happy to take your money to protect you from him!” Before you rush into his arms, ask some pointed questions about how the greedy suspect is doing his work and how the would-be protector proposes to do his.

The fact is, there’s nothing about government that makes it less “greedy” than the average guy or the average institution. Indeed, there’s every reason to believe that adding political power to natural self-interest is a surefire recipe for magnifying the harm that greed can do. Have you ever heard of corruption in government? Buying votes with promises of other people’s money? Feathering one’s nest by claiming “it’s for the children”? Burdening generations yet unborn with the debt to pay for today’s National Cowboy Poetry Gathering in Nevada (a favorite pork project of Senator Harry Reid)?

If you are an honest, self-interested person in a free market, you quickly realize that to satisfy the self-interest that some critics are quick to dismiss as “greed,” you can’t put a crown on your head, wrap a robe around yourself and demand that the peasants cough up their shekels. You have to produce, create, trade, invest, and employ. You have to provide goods or services that willing customers (not taxpaying captives) will choose to buy and hopefully more than just once. Your “greed” gets translated into life-enhancing things for other people. In the top-down, socialized utopia the Progressives dream of, greed doesn’t disappear at all; it just gets channeled in destructive directions. To satisfy it, you’ve got to use the political process to grab something from other people.

The “greed” charge turns out to be little more than a rhetorical device, a superficial smear intended to serve political ends. Whether or not you worship a material thing like money is largely a matter between you and your Maker, not something that can be scientifically measured and proscribed by lawmakers who are just as prone to it as you are. Don’t be a sucker for it.

Lawrence W. Reed
President
Foundation for Economic Education

Summary

  • Greed has become a slippery term that cries out for some objective meaning; it’s used these days to describe lots of behaviors that somebody doesn’t like for other, sometimes hidden reasons.
  • Self-interest is healthy and natural. How you put it into action in your relationships with others is what keeps it healthy or gets it off track.
  • Lawmakers and government are not immune to greed and, if anything, they magnify it into harmful outcomes.
  • For more information, see http://tinyurl.com/lxdrfachttp://tinyurl.com/pyvvx73, and http://tinyurl.com/lj7s2ab.

20130918_larryreedauthorABOUT LAWRENCE W. REED

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. Prior to becoming FEE’s president, he served for 20 years as president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.

Frak! Has Your Mother Sold Her Mangle? by Sarah Skwire

Language—even profanity—evolves faster than it can be regulated.

I was all ready to write a column about Anthony Trollope, Francis Hodgson Burnett, and women’s property rights, when Brighton, Michigan, decided to start enforcing $200 fines against people who swear in public.

This was such a perfect demonstration of the extension of Skwire’s First Law from politicians to those who enforce the laws enacted by politicians that I had to shelve my original plans and devote this week’s column to the question of cussing. (Skwire’s First Law, by the way, cannot be stated in Brighton, Michigan, without incurring a fine. Suffice it to say that it addresses my opinion of politicians.)

What the fine law enforcement agents of Brighton are failing to consider, however, is that language is a Hayekian spontaneous order. That means language changes and evolves faster than it can be regulated.

Charles Mackay discusses the rapid evolution of nonsensical slang phrases in his book Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Though Mackay may have been too much of a gentlemen to discuss actual profanity, he does record the speedy shifting of popular phrases of the day from “Quoz!” to “What a shocking bad hat!” to “Hookey Walker!” to what may be one of the earliest recorded “your mama” jokes, “Has your mother sold her mangle?” As Mackay notes, the inscrutability and the ephemerality of such slang insults drive their popularity. “Like all other earthly things, Quoz had its season, and passed away as suddenly as it arose, never again to be the pet and the idol of the populace. A new claimant drove it from its place, and held undisputed sway till, in its turn, it was hurled from its pre-eminence, and a successor appointed in its stead.”

My guess is that language—especially profanity—evolves even faster and more creatively in response to attempts to regulate it. W. C. Fields, for example, charmingly evaded rules about swearing in film with epithets like “Godfrey Daniels!” It’s still a fairly satisfying response when a small child steps painfully on one’s foot. In similar fashion and for similar reasons, smart kids have been using “shut the front door” and “see you next Tuesday” for ages.

In fact, it is my hope and expectation that the young skate rats and adolescent flaneurs of Brighton are, even now, innovating new curse words and resuscitating old ones in order to confound the cops and maintain the great teenaged prerogative of insulting geezers in language they can’t understand.

To further that noble end, I have a few suggestions for areas where Brightonians might wish to focus their research.

Science Fiction

Science fiction movies and literature have long been a productive source of alternate curse words. FromBattlestar Galactica’s “frak” and “felgercarb” to Farscape’s “frell” and Firefly’s “gorram,” there are a host of useful and satisfying epithets to explore. The extensive and apparently very well-researched Chinese language cursing in Firefly also serves as a realm that the citizens of Brighton should explore.

Foreign Languages

Anyone who grew up in a multilingual household knows the utility of cursing in a language that most people around you can’t understand. I grew up learning the emphatic pleasures and subtle distinctions of Yiddish cursing, but friends give me to understand that—satisfying as shmendrick and shmeggege andpaskudnyak are—other languages offer equally profane pleasures.

Antiquity

The past is a foreign country as well. They curse so differently there. My high school French teacher taught us curses from the pre-war era. So, to this day, I cause Gallic hilarity with my tendency to exclaim “Ma foi!” and “Zut alors!” when I am in France and incensed. But resuscitating earlier curses from English will work as well. Recall the episode of The Simpsons where Bart notes:

Bart: That ain’t been popular since aught-six, dag-nab it!

Homer: What did I tell you?

Bart: No talking like a grizzled 1890s prospector. Consarn it.

How quaint!

Literature

This may be my favorite option, because I cannot keep myself from envisioning the perplexity among Brighton’s law enforcement agents when confronted by a populace who take their cusswords from theScarlet Pimpernel. “Sink me! You can’t really intend to ticket me for that, can you? Zounds, you rogue!” Those wanting to explore this fertile source of filth will want to pay particular attention to the works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Rabelais.

The difficulty with all the foregoing options, of course, is that if one is sufficiently unlucky, one may encounter an officer who is familiar with the obscure curses one has chosen. To evade this problem, I suggest a solution that has been popular with parents of young children since time began.

Curse Words That Arent

Titmouse. Ballcock. Christological. Zeugma. Fractional reserve. Bassinet.

And I will cheerfully pay the $200 fine for the first Brighton-area citizen who can show me a citation for having called a cop a “bilabial fricative.”

20121127_sarahskwireABOUT SARAH SKWIRE

Sarah Skwire is a fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.

CLICHES OF PROGRESSIVISM #4 – The More Complex the Society, the More Government Control We Need

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government.

Our society is inundated with half-truths and misconceptions about the economy in general and free enterprise in particular. The “Clichés of Progressivism” series is meant to equip students with the arguments necessary to inform debate and correct the record where bias and errors abound.

The antecedents to this collection are two classic FEE publications that YAF helped distribute in the past: Clichés of Politics, published in 1994, and the more influential Clichés of Socialism, which made its first appearance in 1962. Indeed, this new collection will contain a number of essays from those two earlier works, updated for the present day where necessary. Other entries first appeared in some version in FEE’s journal, The Freeman. Still others are brand new, never having appeared in print anywhere. They will be published weekly on the websites of both YAF and FEE: www.yaf.org and www.FEE.org until the series runs its course. A book will then be released in 2015 featuring the best of the essays, and will be widely distributed in schools and on college campuses.

See the index of the published chapters here.

20140414_Clichesofprogressivism (1)

#4 – The More Complex the Society, the More Government Control We Need

Argued a college president at a recent seminar: “Your free market, private property, limited government theories were all right under the simple conditions of a century or more ago, but surely they are unworkable in today’s complex economy. The more complex the society, the greater is the need for governmental control; that seems axiomatic.”

It is important to expose this oft-heard, plausible, and influential fallacy because it leads directly and logically to socialistic planning. This is how a member of the seminar team answered the college president:

“Let us take the simplest possible situation—just you and I. Next, let us assume that I am as wise as any President of the United States who has held office during your lifetime. With these qualifications in mind, do you honestly think I would be competent to coercively control what you shall invent, discover, or create, what the hours of your labor shall be, what wage you shall receive, what and with whom you shall associate and exchange? Is not my incompetence demonstrably apparent in this simplest of all societies?

“Now, let us shift from the simple situation to a more complex society—to all the people in this room. What would you think of my competence to coercively control their creative actions? Or, let us contemplate a really complex situation—the 188,000,000 people of this nation [Editor’s note: now, in 2014, about 318 million]. If I were to suggest that I should take over the management of their lives and their billions of exchanges, you would think me the victim of hallucinations. Is it not obvious that the more complex an economy, the more certainly will governmental control of productive effort exert a retarding influence? Obviously, the more complex our economy, the more we should rely on the miraculous, self-adapting processes of men acting freely. No mind of man nor any combination of minds can even envision, let alone intelligently control, the countless human energy exchanges in a simple society, to say nothing of a complex one.”

It is unlikely that the college president will raise that question again.

While exposing fallacies can be likened to beating out brush fires endlessly, the exercise is nonetheless self-improving as well as useful, in the sense that rearguard actions are useful. Further, one’s ability to expose fallacies—a negative tactic—appears to be a necessary preface to influentially accenting the positive. Unless a person can demonstrate competence at exploding socialistic error, he is not likely to gain wide audiences for his views about the wonders wrought by men who are free.

Of all the errors heard in classrooms or elsewhere, there is not one that cannot be simply explained away. We only need to put our minds to it. The Foundation for Economic Education seeks to help those who would expose fallacies and accent the merits of freedom. The more who outdo us in rendering this kind of help, the better.

Leonard E. Read
Founder and President of FEE, 1946–1983

Summary

Editor’s Note

This was the first chapter in the first edition of FEE’s Clichés of Socialism when it appeared in 1962. Though the “complexity requires control” fallacy is not publicly expressed so boldly today, it is still implicit in the core assumptions of modern Progressivism. Almost every new innovation gives rise to some call from some Progressive somewhere to regulate it, monitor it, sometimes even ban it. Rarely will a Progressive reject new assignments for government, even though it has already assumed so many that it manages so poorly (and at a financial loss). It behooves us to point out that the more government attempts to control, the less well it will perform all of its duties, including the essential ones. Leonard Read passed away in 1983, but his wisdom as expressed here still resonates.

20130918_larryreedauthorABOUT LEONARD E. READ

Leonard E. Read (1898-1983) was the founder of FEE, and the author of 29 works, including the classic parable “I, Pencil.”

PUBLISHERS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.