Being as it is, in the heat of a presidential election, I got to watching videos of Ronald Reagan in action in years past. I came across a speech he gave at the 1964 GOP convention. It's amazing how over time everything changes yet so much stays the same. The problems which troubled Reagan's heart in 1964 are the same issues which continue to trouble likeminded individuals like myself today. It is amazing how so much of what he says applies to the modern day. What I believe to be perhaps more amazing, is how succinctly he is able to identify the problems and offer commentary regarding causes and remedies to those problems.
I was only about 7 years old when Reagan left office in 1989. I do have memories of him still being President, but I was much too young to be able to follow politics and truly appreciate the man for who he was and the greatness he offerred. I am a registered Republican and with the Democrats as they are, it would be very challenging for me to cast a vote for one of them. With that being said, I am certainly not always happy with Republicans. In consideration of various domestic and fiscal policies becoming mirror images of that offerred by Democrats, I have at times become downright angry with Republicans. If there was one man most needed to lead today's GOP, it would be Reagan. Follow the link to the video of his 1964 address and see why. It's a little long, a bit over 27 min, but if you have the time to spare, it is well worth it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs&feature=related
-Karl-
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Capitalism vs Greed: Believe it or not, They're not One in the Same
I am certain that as readers become more familiar with my writing, my interest in economics will become ever apparent. Not too long ago I bought a copy of Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom which I bought alongside Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Around the same time, I also purchased Thomas DiLorenzo's How Capitalism Saved America. Regrettably, I have yet to read any of the above mentioned books. I have quite a few books I have bought which are waiting to be read and I look forward to getting to them one at a time. I have a feeling that the DiLorenzo book will be of greatest importance in the coming years, considering that capitalism, which has a made our country the great nation it is, will be under an increasing amount of attacks as a result of the fallout from the financial crisis.
Capitalism gets blamed. In my eyes that is simply a narrow-minded view which appeals to the lowest common denominator. Considering my free thinking self not a member of the lowest common denominator, such accusations are an insult to my intelligence. Capitalism did not cause this, greed did. Many will say, "That's my point, capitalism = greed." Unfortunately, there are so many people in our country and abroad who do not understand that capitalism and greed are not one in the same, neither do they always go hand in hand. We all must understand that correlation and causation are not synonymous.
Dr. Robert Murphy, P.H.D in Economics, summed it up best when he said that "capitalism" was a term coined by Karl Marx himself, and used for propaganda purposes against the merits of this very system. It is a shame that when entering discussion about these ideas, supporters of "capitalism" must be forced to agree to the terms set forth by a man so confused as Marx. The term that Dr. Murphy states as being a better descriptor for the system is "propertyism".
Individuals are allowed to own businesses, which is quite different from running a business owned by the government. Individuals are permitted to own private property (not owned by the government). Upon this private property, the business owner can run a business. He or she runs the business the way they see fit, independent of government, sells what he wants to sell without the government telling them what to sell, sells how much he wants to sell without the bureaucrats telling him how much to sell, and sells the products at the price of his choosing, free from government imposed price controls. This is capitalism. Every business, no matter how small or large, falls into this category. Yes, it is very possible that in the process of running a business in a capitalist society, businessmen can make enormous amounts of money, but total earnings are not what makes a business capitalist. The freedom with which a business owner can operate makes it capitalist. Even ma and pa, who own a tiny rinky dink fish bait shop out in the middle of nowhere, are capitalists.
Greed certainly can exist in capitalism, but it can exist anywhere. I don't think it has to do with the freedom in which a business can operate, rather with a separate mentality of he who runs said business. I'm not sure greed can be regulated. I find it quite amusing that the government thinks they are able to do such a thing. They want to regulate the market place to try to rid ourselves of greed. Folks wholeheartedly jump behind such proposals because on the surface it sounds like a good idea. The entire endeavour is given a big title: "This is the Magical Government Regulatory Plan that will Save the Universe!" So, people, without thinking, say, "Oh, I guess it's the magical regulatory plan that will save the universe. It must be good. They said so and I can't think for myself."
Does anybody ever ask themselves if greed in governemt is possible? We focus on trying to rid ourselves of greed in the market place, by giving more and more power to the government, and we loose sight of the fact that as the government gains power (because we let it), government becomes increasingly greedy. Wanting more and more control. Desiring more and more decision making ability. We the people sit on the side of the road with less and less say, less and less power. I thought it was supposed to be a government of the people, for the people, by the people. We are quickly turning into a system with a government of the politicians, for the bureaucrats, in spite of the people. How can we regulate greed by replacing the existing greed with other sources of greed? The body from which the greed comes may change, but greed remains. I ask all to consider this in light of the recently proposed bailouts.
Capitalism gets blamed. In my eyes that is simply a narrow-minded view which appeals to the lowest common denominator. Considering my free thinking self not a member of the lowest common denominator, such accusations are an insult to my intelligence. Capitalism did not cause this, greed did. Many will say, "That's my point, capitalism = greed." Unfortunately, there are so many people in our country and abroad who do not understand that capitalism and greed are not one in the same, neither do they always go hand in hand. We all must understand that correlation and causation are not synonymous.
Dr. Robert Murphy, P.H.D in Economics, summed it up best when he said that "capitalism" was a term coined by Karl Marx himself, and used for propaganda purposes against the merits of this very system. It is a shame that when entering discussion about these ideas, supporters of "capitalism" must be forced to agree to the terms set forth by a man so confused as Marx. The term that Dr. Murphy states as being a better descriptor for the system is "propertyism".
Individuals are allowed to own businesses, which is quite different from running a business owned by the government. Individuals are permitted to own private property (not owned by the government). Upon this private property, the business owner can run a business. He or she runs the business the way they see fit, independent of government, sells what he wants to sell without the government telling them what to sell, sells how much he wants to sell without the bureaucrats telling him how much to sell, and sells the products at the price of his choosing, free from government imposed price controls. This is capitalism. Every business, no matter how small or large, falls into this category. Yes, it is very possible that in the process of running a business in a capitalist society, businessmen can make enormous amounts of money, but total earnings are not what makes a business capitalist. The freedom with which a business owner can operate makes it capitalist. Even ma and pa, who own a tiny rinky dink fish bait shop out in the middle of nowhere, are capitalists.
Greed certainly can exist in capitalism, but it can exist anywhere. I don't think it has to do with the freedom in which a business can operate, rather with a separate mentality of he who runs said business. I'm not sure greed can be regulated. I find it quite amusing that the government thinks they are able to do such a thing. They want to regulate the market place to try to rid ourselves of greed. Folks wholeheartedly jump behind such proposals because on the surface it sounds like a good idea. The entire endeavour is given a big title: "This is the Magical Government Regulatory Plan that will Save the Universe!" So, people, without thinking, say, "Oh, I guess it's the magical regulatory plan that will save the universe. It must be good. They said so and I can't think for myself."
Does anybody ever ask themselves if greed in governemt is possible? We focus on trying to rid ourselves of greed in the market place, by giving more and more power to the government, and we loose sight of the fact that as the government gains power (because we let it), government becomes increasingly greedy. Wanting more and more control. Desiring more and more decision making ability. We the people sit on the side of the road with less and less say, less and less power. I thought it was supposed to be a government of the people, for the people, by the people. We are quickly turning into a system with a government of the politicians, for the bureaucrats, in spite of the people. How can we regulate greed by replacing the existing greed with other sources of greed? The body from which the greed comes may change, but greed remains. I ask all to consider this in light of the recently proposed bailouts.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Smoking Bans: Disagreement from a Non-Smoker
Upon turning 21, like many American youth, I revelled in the happiness brought by being able to legally and publicly over-indulge myself in substances previously prohibited during adolescence. At last I was able to experience what was at the time the novelty of bar life. As my friends and I hopped from bar to bar, setting up our first ever tabs, it was never done with the intention of caring for our health. We were awake at indecent hours, shouting to each other through the blaring music layed upon our deaf ears, wreaking havoc upon our livers through over indulgence, and inhaling the mist of second hand smoke floating like a cloud, heavy in the air. Certainly, this is not the ideal lifestyle for one who is health conscious.
As I have been faced with the reality of adulthood, the overindulging aspect of my life has tapered, increasingly drowned out by the responsibilities of the present and future. My time at bars is usually spent having a beer or two with friends. Even if absent of the level of consumption commonly seen in my early 20s, the purpose still being that of a social one, with the focus on physical health saved for another time and place.
Bars do not offer yoga or meditation classes nor do they include wheatgrass smoothies as a popular item on the drink menu. Though it would be extremely amusing, I am quite definite we will not walk into a bar to find health nuts slamming mojitos and vodka cranberries in one hand, while sweating to the oldies with Richard Simmons. Getting a good work out and balancing one's chi is usually saved for a more appropriate time and place. Conversely, as we drive by a newly constructed 24 Hour Fitness, I doubt we will see a member running on a treadmill with cigarette in mouth and irish car bomb in hand. There are a multitude of activities which play their own respective roles in our lives, and in my view, should not necessarily be mixed.
As our society moves further into the 21st century, health is being made of increasing importance. As America has become famous for being home to the fattest people on earth, health consciousness has certainly risen. In this alone I find no disagreement. Health is an aspect of our lives we should embrace. Whether through excercise, eating right, or the fading of my wilder and crazier days, I enjoy finding ways to value my health. What scares me is the government's heavy hand in such endeavours, and the resulting liberty that is stricken in the process. This leaves me with the following question: Are regulations such as smoking bans done for the good of the public's health, or are they simply just excercises in using the political system to forcibly impose one's preferences on others?
I vividly remember a conversation I witnessed two years ago, between two former teachers. As we ate dinner together, one boasted of his happiness regarding a recently imposed state-wide smoking ban in restaurants and bars instituted by his current state of residence. He claimed, "There are just some restaurants I would not have patronized again, had it not been for this smoking ban." My other teacher stated that Bill White, mayor of Houston, TX, would soon be instituting a similar city-wide ban in my hometown of Houston. I have never been a smoker, and though I have many a time stumbled home in the wee hours of morning with clothes drenched in the stale scent of second hand smoke, I never particularly enjoyed smelling in such a way. Yet, at the same time, smoking bans such as the ones mentioned above have bothered me to know end.
Please ask yourself the following questions: Is there any private property you own, which you would like to be left to yourself, untamped by government or the public (car, house, land, musical instrument)? Do you take your right to private property for granted, perhaps on a daily basis? Who owns the property upon which a restaurant or bar presides? Does the public at large or you as a member of the public own those restaurants and bars? Does the government own those properties? Does a small business owner of a restaurant or bar have the same private property rights as you, and should those rights be protected, in the way that you would like yours protected? Should the public even be granted the right to vote on laws such as smoking bans when those bans do not apply to public property? Would you like the public passing votes regarding your private property?
These are the questions we all must ask ourselves, but seldom do. These are the ideas government officials should consider not with a grain of salt, but with the utmost seriousness. Of course, I'm probably just talking to a wall when I make such points. Nobody in our society seems to consider such things, because we are all so selfishly focused on what is convenient for ourselves as individuals, ignorant of the liberties of others. We convince ourselves that government imposition on the rights of a society is ok, as long as that imposition does not threaten our self-centeredness, leaving us to our devices while strickening others of theirs.
One may ask, "But isn't the health of the public important? Why should members of the public like myself be subjected to such unhealthy practices as the inhalation of second hand smoke? Why shouldn't I be able to take my family to a restaurant without somebody's cancer sticks intruding upon our personal space?" Hmm. Those are all good questions until I actually take the effort to think about it. My response is as follows: "Do you not have freedom of choice as a consumer? Must you be forced to patronize a restaurant or bar that you feel is unfit for your health? Does the world center around you and people like you, granting you the ability to have your conveniences forced upon others by way of government?"
When I was a bit younger and spent considerably more time in bars, I would incessantly stammer back to my apartment smelling like a tobacco laced chimney. I did not necessarilly take delight in such rank redolence, but at the same time, I never had to step foot in one of those bars if I found it so offensive. It was a choice I made, because at that point in time, my weekend social life was of greater importance than my weekend health, or stench. Afterall, bars are not designed, nor should they be, to appeal to one's health. And to those families who would never bring themselves to a bar, but are looking to patronize a more family friendly establishment: You have a choice too.
It certainly goes without saying that our society has become more vigilant toward healthfulness, but it is this fact that leads me to believe that if smoking is to be limited in restaurants and bars, is government the only and best option toward achieving this result? I believe that personal responsibility is first and foremost in caring for one's health. Why must we ask the government to be the solution to our problems every time, all the time? If many in society are so offended by the presence of smoke in a restaurant or bar, and vocalize those feelings to the owner of any such establishment, the owner will be left with a business decision - Keep the smoke and lose the business, or lose the smoke and keep the business.
If one business owner is resilient to demands of the public, another will be receptive. With so many in society wanting less smoke in restaurants, naturally a new demand is created in the market place. A demand to which other businesses will cater, because it will be good for business. Must the government be perpetually used as an instrument to enforce our preferences upon all? Is there no other way?
You see, we as a society can pull together and accomplish tasks if we are willing to get off our hides and try. If we all want smoke gone, we can achieve that through the pull we have as consumers. Businessmen and women will begin instituting their own smoking bans. In this I find no problem, because it is a business decision being made at the discretion of the business owner, with respect to that business owner's private property rights, with regard to the business owner's relationship with his patrons, devoid of government intervention which can stricken all of us of the private property rights which serve as the cornerstone to our freedom.
Mike Ditka, famous football coach, owns a restaurant in Chicago, IL. He also loves cigars. Neither the government, nor the public owns his restaurant. What right do any of us have as members of the public to vote in such a way that bans Mike Ditka from lighting up a cigar in his resataurant, when we the public do not own his restaurant? I'll ask it again: Who is any of us to protest Mike Ditka being able to smoke a cigar in his restaurant? I'm sorry, would that be too inconvenient for our selfish preferences? If you can't stand Mike Ditka's cigar smoke because of health concerns, don't enter his restaurant.
It's very easy for any one of us to agree with the government imposing preferences upon all of society, when it's the preferences we want; however, if we allow the government and the general public to infringe upon the private property rights of business owners, what's next? Who's next? Where does the line get drawn, or does it get drawn? Will the government infringe upon our private property rights too? Will the government violate other rights of businesses? Telling them what they have to sell, how much to produce, how much to sell, and at what price the products must be sold? If we allow ourselves to get to that point, we might as well forget about The United States of America, as we usher in The People's Republic of America. The stars and stripes will fade away and become distant memories to the superficially stronger false promises of the hammer and sickle.
As I have been faced with the reality of adulthood, the overindulging aspect of my life has tapered, increasingly drowned out by the responsibilities of the present and future. My time at bars is usually spent having a beer or two with friends. Even if absent of the level of consumption commonly seen in my early 20s, the purpose still being that of a social one, with the focus on physical health saved for another time and place.
Bars do not offer yoga or meditation classes nor do they include wheatgrass smoothies as a popular item on the drink menu. Though it would be extremely amusing, I am quite definite we will not walk into a bar to find health nuts slamming mojitos and vodka cranberries in one hand, while sweating to the oldies with Richard Simmons. Getting a good work out and balancing one's chi is usually saved for a more appropriate time and place. Conversely, as we drive by a newly constructed 24 Hour Fitness, I doubt we will see a member running on a treadmill with cigarette in mouth and irish car bomb in hand. There are a multitude of activities which play their own respective roles in our lives, and in my view, should not necessarily be mixed.
As our society moves further into the 21st century, health is being made of increasing importance. As America has become famous for being home to the fattest people on earth, health consciousness has certainly risen. In this alone I find no disagreement. Health is an aspect of our lives we should embrace. Whether through excercise, eating right, or the fading of my wilder and crazier days, I enjoy finding ways to value my health. What scares me is the government's heavy hand in such endeavours, and the resulting liberty that is stricken in the process. This leaves me with the following question: Are regulations such as smoking bans done for the good of the public's health, or are they simply just excercises in using the political system to forcibly impose one's preferences on others?
I vividly remember a conversation I witnessed two years ago, between two former teachers. As we ate dinner together, one boasted of his happiness regarding a recently imposed state-wide smoking ban in restaurants and bars instituted by his current state of residence. He claimed, "There are just some restaurants I would not have patronized again, had it not been for this smoking ban." My other teacher stated that Bill White, mayor of Houston, TX, would soon be instituting a similar city-wide ban in my hometown of Houston. I have never been a smoker, and though I have many a time stumbled home in the wee hours of morning with clothes drenched in the stale scent of second hand smoke, I never particularly enjoyed smelling in such a way. Yet, at the same time, smoking bans such as the ones mentioned above have bothered me to know end.
Please ask yourself the following questions: Is there any private property you own, which you would like to be left to yourself, untamped by government or the public (car, house, land, musical instrument)? Do you take your right to private property for granted, perhaps on a daily basis? Who owns the property upon which a restaurant or bar presides? Does the public at large or you as a member of the public own those restaurants and bars? Does the government own those properties? Does a small business owner of a restaurant or bar have the same private property rights as you, and should those rights be protected, in the way that you would like yours protected? Should the public even be granted the right to vote on laws such as smoking bans when those bans do not apply to public property? Would you like the public passing votes regarding your private property?
These are the questions we all must ask ourselves, but seldom do. These are the ideas government officials should consider not with a grain of salt, but with the utmost seriousness. Of course, I'm probably just talking to a wall when I make such points. Nobody in our society seems to consider such things, because we are all so selfishly focused on what is convenient for ourselves as individuals, ignorant of the liberties of others. We convince ourselves that government imposition on the rights of a society is ok, as long as that imposition does not threaten our self-centeredness, leaving us to our devices while strickening others of theirs.
One may ask, "But isn't the health of the public important? Why should members of the public like myself be subjected to such unhealthy practices as the inhalation of second hand smoke? Why shouldn't I be able to take my family to a restaurant without somebody's cancer sticks intruding upon our personal space?" Hmm. Those are all good questions until I actually take the effort to think about it. My response is as follows: "Do you not have freedom of choice as a consumer? Must you be forced to patronize a restaurant or bar that you feel is unfit for your health? Does the world center around you and people like you, granting you the ability to have your conveniences forced upon others by way of government?"
When I was a bit younger and spent considerably more time in bars, I would incessantly stammer back to my apartment smelling like a tobacco laced chimney. I did not necessarilly take delight in such rank redolence, but at the same time, I never had to step foot in one of those bars if I found it so offensive. It was a choice I made, because at that point in time, my weekend social life was of greater importance than my weekend health, or stench. Afterall, bars are not designed, nor should they be, to appeal to one's health. And to those families who would never bring themselves to a bar, but are looking to patronize a more family friendly establishment: You have a choice too.
It certainly goes without saying that our society has become more vigilant toward healthfulness, but it is this fact that leads me to believe that if smoking is to be limited in restaurants and bars, is government the only and best option toward achieving this result? I believe that personal responsibility is first and foremost in caring for one's health. Why must we ask the government to be the solution to our problems every time, all the time? If many in society are so offended by the presence of smoke in a restaurant or bar, and vocalize those feelings to the owner of any such establishment, the owner will be left with a business decision - Keep the smoke and lose the business, or lose the smoke and keep the business.
If one business owner is resilient to demands of the public, another will be receptive. With so many in society wanting less smoke in restaurants, naturally a new demand is created in the market place. A demand to which other businesses will cater, because it will be good for business. Must the government be perpetually used as an instrument to enforce our preferences upon all? Is there no other way?
You see, we as a society can pull together and accomplish tasks if we are willing to get off our hides and try. If we all want smoke gone, we can achieve that through the pull we have as consumers. Businessmen and women will begin instituting their own smoking bans. In this I find no problem, because it is a business decision being made at the discretion of the business owner, with respect to that business owner's private property rights, with regard to the business owner's relationship with his patrons, devoid of government intervention which can stricken all of us of the private property rights which serve as the cornerstone to our freedom.
Mike Ditka, famous football coach, owns a restaurant in Chicago, IL. He also loves cigars. Neither the government, nor the public owns his restaurant. What right do any of us have as members of the public to vote in such a way that bans Mike Ditka from lighting up a cigar in his resataurant, when we the public do not own his restaurant? I'll ask it again: Who is any of us to protest Mike Ditka being able to smoke a cigar in his restaurant? I'm sorry, would that be too inconvenient for our selfish preferences? If you can't stand Mike Ditka's cigar smoke because of health concerns, don't enter his restaurant.
It's very easy for any one of us to agree with the government imposing preferences upon all of society, when it's the preferences we want; however, if we allow the government and the general public to infringe upon the private property rights of business owners, what's next? Who's next? Where does the line get drawn, or does it get drawn? Will the government infringe upon our private property rights too? Will the government violate other rights of businesses? Telling them what they have to sell, how much to produce, how much to sell, and at what price the products must be sold? If we allow ourselves to get to that point, we might as well forget about The United States of America, as we usher in The People's Republic of America. The stars and stripes will fade away and become distant memories to the superficially stronger false promises of the hammer and sickle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)