Wednesday, November 30, 2022

QUORA: ‘Why do fascism and communism often go hand in hand when they are philosophically polar opposites?’

QUORA: ‘Why do fascism and communism often go hand in hand when they are philosophically polar opposites?


I posted this answer:

Fascism and Communism are not philosophically polar opposites. Philosophically, these two ideologies are “cut from the same cloth”. Both are collectivist. Both are statist. Both are uncompromisingly anti-individualist and anti-Capitalist. Both reject private property rights, free trade, and freedom of speech. 


Where they differ is in practical implementation, but only superficially. For example, economically, Communism features state ownership of “the means of production”—meaning, no private ownership of property and business. Fascism features state control of the “means of production”—meaning, state permission of superficially private ownership of property and business, but without private rights to use and control. In this economic regard, a Fascist can be summed up as a practical Communist.


Fascism and communism go hand in hand—that is, both Fascism and Communism feature totalitarian control over all aspects of society, including education, religion, and information—because they are not philosophically polar opposites. The implementation of that control varies, and it makes no difference whether they are democratic or not. Both always involve the subordination of individuals to the collective, via state power. Politically, they are deadly enemies. But their conflict is not fundamentally philosophical. Their conflict is akin to rival underworld Mafia mobs fighting a turf battle—e.g., Nazi Germany vs. Soviet Russia. Philosophically, Fascism and Communism are fraternal twins, not polar opposites. The only polar opposite of both is Capitalism.


I have dealt with these issues extensively. Here are two answers that should be particularly helpful:


QUORA: Is fascism a form of capitalism?


QUORA: Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?

Saturday, November 26, 2022

QUORA: 'We live in a totally different world now. Shouldn't the Constitution be reinterpreted to match our reality?’

 QUORA: Constitutional literalists treat the opinions of the Founding Fathers as though they were God-inspired. We live in a totally different world now. Shouldn't the Constitution be reinterpreted to match our reality?


I posted this answer:


No, because nothing fundamental about “our reality” has changed. 


The Founding of America grew out of certain Enlightenment discoveries. To wit:


  • All individuals are beings of reason and free will, the attributes that distinguish humans from all other life forms. 


  • Individual human beings are autonomous beings, each possessing their own minds and capable of using the judgment of their own minds to guide the course of their own lives. 



  • To secure this freedom, every person needs the guarantee of certain inalienable rights, including rights to life, liberty, and the personal pursuit of happiness.


  • As per Nature’s mandate, individual human beings must work to support their lives, so the ability to produce, keep, use, and dispose of the product of one’s labor must be legally protected both from private criminals and despotic governments. Hence, the rights to his own earned property.


  • Freedom needs the rule of objective law to exist, so governments must be instituted to secure these individual rights, equally, at all times, for all.


  • Powerlust is still endemic to the human condition, so governments can still be breeding grounds of tyranny. Therefore, they must be structurally designed with enough checks and balances to prevent any branch of government from accumulating too much political power.


Yes, today’s world is materially far different from the world of 1787. But the worlds of ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and the Dark and Middle Ages were “totally different” from 1787. Yet the Founders studied history, as well as their contemporary world, to draw lessons useful in framing the Constitution of the new nation. But they were not mere pragmatists. They also consulted the guidance of major philosophers of the Ages, in order to meld theory and practice into a workable, liberty-protecting government. Above all, they understood that human nature, the laws of nature, and man’s relationship to broader nature are immutable and unchanging. So they designed a Constitution to support the basic principles of a free human society, not just for their own contemporary world, but with an eye firmly cognizant of posterity. Drawing from history, philosophy, and contemporary experience, they designed a Constitution consistent with what they called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and capable of being sustained through all of the changes of future ages. Just read the Federalist Papers, and you’ll see the broad scope of their thinking, and how they adapted the principles they discovered to the practical challenge of creating an effective government while protecting individual liberty. Essentially, the philosophy that guided their work is consolidated in these words: 


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .


This is not to say that the Constitution should never be amended or clarified through law or court interpretation. Yes, today’s world is materially much different, and so are many issues that concern us today. The Constitution can certainly be refined, and the Founders understood that. For example, the Electoral College was amended in 1804. It was further clarified by Congress in 1887. That Act is currently being reconsidered by Congress once again, and has a good chance of enactment. Yet, through these changes, the Electoral College continues to function well to facilitate transfers of presidential power while maintaining its function as a check on federal and majoritarian power. Note that these changes do not harm the basic Electoral College system, which is part of the cheeks-and-balances the Founders saw as vital to protecting balanced government and thus liberty. While the Electoral College outlived its means of implementation, it did not outlive its usefulness. 


The Founders weren’t “God-inspired,” despite what Religious Right revisionists claim. And I don’t know any Constitutional scholars who believe that. In the Federalist Papers, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton explain the workings of the Constitution, and the reasons for them. I read the Federalist Papers cover to cover, and I do not recall any mention of religion or God except in relation to religious freedom or the Laws of Nature. There were no phrases such as “God said” or “God mandates” or “God inspires us to ...,” or the like. The Founders explicitly rejected the union of religion and state in any form. The Founders were men of The Enlightenment, meaning men of reason and reality orientation. 


As the Founders understood, we should always seek “a more perfect union.” But the U.S. Constitution should not be reinterpreted in its fundamental philosophical orientation, because the Constitution already conforms to reality in its fundamentals. In their practical genius, the Founders created a changeable constitution oriented around unchanging natural principles. Today’s world is not “totally different.” Nothing fundamental has changed from 1787—not human nature; not the laws of nature; and not man’s relationship to broader nature. Yes, new lessons of experience and history can be drawn. But the laws of nature cannot be “reinterpreted.” They are immutable facts of reality. Thus, the principles of the Founding have not changed. These principles, from which come individual rights and limited government, are fundamental to America because they are fundamental to the free civilized society proper to human beings. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


* [Individual rights define the scope and boundaries of human freedom; in effect, you have the right to freedom of action, so long as your actions don’t infringe on the same rights of others. See Tara Smith, Moral Rights and Political Freedom (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy.)]


Related Reading:


Will the World's Statist Past, or the Founders' Values, be America's Destiny?


America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It by C. Bradley Thompson


In Gay Marriage Decision, the Court Upheld the Founders' Vision


The Conscience of the Constitution—Timothy Sandefur


The Founders Were Flawed. The Nation Is Imperfect. The Constitution Is Still a 'Glorious Liberty Document.' -- Timothy Sandefur


In SCOTUS’ Draft Opinion Overturning Roe Abortion Ruling: Double Standards of Left and Right Exposed


Tuesday, November 22, 2022

A Thanksgiving Message

For the second year in a row, I’m tremendously thankful to the people who have been sounding the alarm on the dangerous gross exaggerations about climate change and the war on reliable energy, mainly fossil fuels but also nuclear power. A year can make a big difference. The rise of the worldwide energy crisis has accelerated the transition to a more realistic, pro-human way of thinking about energy and climate. 


Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Shellenberger, Patrick Moore, Roger Pielke Jr, Steven E.Koonin, Alex Epstein, Robert Bryce, and Ronald Bailey are a few of the more prominent environmental/energy realists who have been fighting to get the truth out. There are many more. Battling against the demonizers who label them “deniers” of climate or science, these important thinkers have begun to turn the tide against the anti-human catastrophists. More and more we’re hearing voices highlighting the monumental benefits and vital necessity of reliable energy. 


You can read my more extensive tribute to these heroes from last Thanksgiving. Once again, a deep thank you to these courageous activists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

That said, reprinted below are two thanksgiving messages that I think captures the true essence of Thanksgiving, a holiday practiced only in America. Regardless of how one believes he came into existence (God or nature), the reality is that man is a being of self-generated wealth based on reason who requires certain social conditions for his survival. America was the first country founded explicitly on those conditions; i.e., a country where every individual owns his own life and possesses inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and to the pursuit of his own happiness, coupled inextricably with the obligation to accept the reality that all people are equally endowed with these rights and to treat them accordingly.



It is thus that America, born of the Enlightenment ideas of reason, individualism, reason, free markets, and republican government, achieved in the span of a mere two hundred-plus years (following centuries of stagnation) its spectacular standard of living. The ensuing excerpts are from two essays that I believe correctly recognize where the credit for America's material plenty belongs: to any man or woman, on whatever level of ability or accomplishment, who contributed in a great or small way to American greatness by doing an honest and productive day's work in pursuit of his or her own well-being.




Ah, Thanksgiving. To most of us, the word conjures up images of turkey dinner, pumpkin pie and watching football with family and friends. It kicks off the holiday season and is the biggest shopping weekend of the year. We're taught that Thanksgiving came about when pilgrims gave thanks to God for a bountiful harvest. We vaguely mumble thanks for the food on our table, the roof over our head and the loved ones around us. We casually think about how lucky we are and how much better our lives are than, say, those in Bangladesh. But surely there is something more to celebrate, something more sacred about this holiday.


What should we really be celebrating on Thanksgiving?


Ayn Rand described Thanksgiving as "a typically American holiday . . . its essential, secular meaning is a celebration of successful production. It is a producers' holiday. The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant consumption is the result and reward of production." She was right.


What is today's version of the "bountiful harvest"? It's the affluence and success we've gained. It's the cars, houses and vacations we enjoy. It's the life-saving medicines we rely on, the stock portfolios we build, the beautiful clothes we buy and the safe, clean streets we live on. It's the good life.


How did we get this "bountiful harvest"? Ask any hard-working American; it sure wasn't by the "grace of God." It didn't grow on a fabled "money tree." We created it by working hard, by desiring the best money can buy and by wanting excellence for ourselves and our loved ones. What we don't create ourselves, we trade value for value with those who have the goods and services we need, such as our stockbrokers, hairdressers and doctors. We alone are responsible for our wealth. We are the producers and Thanksgiving is our holiday.


So, on Thanksgiving, why don't we thank ourselves and those producers who make the good life possible?


Thanksgiving is the perfect time to recognize what we are truly grateful for, to appreciate and celebrate the fruits of our labor: our wealth, health, relationships and material things--all the values we most selfishly cherish. We should thank researchers who have made certain cancers beatable, gourmet chefs at our favorite restaurants, authors whose books made us rethink our lives, financiers who developed revolutionary investment strategies and entrepreneurs who created fabulous online stores. We should thank ourselves and those individuals who make our lives more comfortable and enjoyable--those who help us live the much-coveted American dream.


As you sit down to your decadent Thanksgiving dinner served on your best china, think of all the talented individuals whose innovation and inventiveness made possible the products you are enjoying. As you look around at who you've chosen to spend your day with--those you've chosen to love--thank yourself for everything you have done to make this moment possible. It's a time to selfishly and proudly say: "I earned this."


Debi Ghate is associated with the Ayn Rand Institute.




The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition.


Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?


Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?


Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally--according to what they say, do, and produce--and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves.


To say grace is to give credit where none is due--and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.


Rational, productive people--whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself--are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. ... Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they're through. It's the right thing to do.




I couldn't have said it better myself. These truths are obvious. A simple rudimentary knowledge of history, coupled with basic observation and logic, are all that's required to realize it. Thank you Debi Ghate and Craig Biddle!


Have a joyous, and well earned, Thanksgiving.


Related Reading:


Related Viewing:

Thanksgiving, To The Productive People That Change The World -- Yaron Brook's gratitude to the productive.

Friday, November 18, 2022

NJ Launches Criminal Money Grab Against Vital Fossil Fuel Companies

According to reports, the state of New Jersey filed a major climate-related fraud lawsuit against five major oil companies. Let’s review excerpts from three recent articles on the lawsuit.


Steven Rodas reports this from N.J. lawsuit takes aim at 5 oil, gas companies for denying climate change exists, for NJ.com:


Inside the more than 130-year-old Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal — which was battered by Hurricane Sandy ten years ago — state officials announced a lawsuit against five major oil and gas companies on Tuesday afternoon.


The 200-page civil suit says the companies, as well as a petroleum trade association, have knowingly lied to New Jerseyans about the existence and impact of climate change and the length at which the fossil fuels they have helped to burn worsen the planet.


Note the disingenuousness of the phrase “helped to burn.” No one was ever forced to buy oil company products. The products were sold to consumers in voluntary exchange. It is the consumers that actually burn the fossil fuels—to heat their homes, drive their cars, cook their food, and by buying all of the products that depend on fossil fuels to produce—in other words, to live. If they didn’t buy and use the product as intended, there would be no oil and gas companies, and thus no alleged “existence and impact of climate change.” The companies are attacked. But the consumers that actually are responsible for burning fossil fuels—in other words, the actual villains by the anti-fossilists own logic—are let off the hook. Of course, it is the consumers who will ultimately pay, in higher prices and shortages, for this “fossil-free” movement. Neither crafters of this lawsuit travesty or the lapdog media will own up to this economic fact. But that’s just one indication of who the real fraudsters are.  


And on what standard do fossil fuels “worsen the planet?” Not on the standard of human life, which is better than ever for more people than ever. What we’re getting is anti-man Environmentalist trope being channeled by the lawsuit hucksters to attack an industry that actually improves the planet. To the climate catastrophist, “worsen the planet” means a more livable planet for humans. This is a classic bait-and-switch, a favorite tool of fraudsters.


Note also the bait-and-switch in the first paragraph, naming Hurricane Sandy (which was actually not a hurricane at landfall). The implication is that Sandy was caused in whole or in part by the oil companies. There is no evidence of this absurdity, nor can there ever be. Weather is not climate. Sandy was caused by a confluence of naturally occurring atmospheric conditions that have long been known and ultimately expected. In other words, Sandy was no surprise to weather experts, including me. Nor was it a surprise to the authors of Great Storms of the Jersey Shore, who in their first edition included a chapter called The Storm that Ate the Jersey Shore, a fictional story about a storm that Sandy replicated almost to a “T”. * Yet Sandy appears in an article featuring climate change, as if it was some entirely new and unexpected phenomenon. This is just one way the architects of this lawsuit and their media lapdogs are themselves committing fraud.  

 

In Lawsuit filed against oil companies, claiming systemic fraud, published in NJ Spotlight News, David Cruz reports:

 

New Jersey is taking on the fossil-fuel industry, suing five oil and gas companies along with their trade group alleging they knowingly deceived the public about the role of fossil fuels in climate change. The announcement Tuesday from the state attorney general and Department of Environmental Protection accuses the companies of being aware for decades that the use of fossil fuels is a major cause of climate change. It is now causing New Jersey to experience rising sea levels, hotter temperatures and increasingly intense storms. 


But according to the lawsuit, the industry instead launched a public relations campaign to sow doubt and confuse the public about the causes and existence of climate change —in order to increase profits. New Jersey is now part of nearly two dozen similar climate lawsuits by other cities, states and counties. And it comes as New Jersey is still rebuilding vulnerable communities from major storms.

 

In any debate, someone will be wrong some of the time. If being wrong is grounds to be legally assaulted by politicians at taxpayer expense, you do not have free speech. You do not have public dissent and debate. You have a dictatorship. 

 

In this case, the targeted companies have for decades been meeting the demands of consumers, including governments, with the energy they need to operate, live, and prosper. It has powered the Great Enrichment that has given us longer, healthier, safer lives than at any time in history, by far. Their continued growth powers the continuing betterment for more people the world over, right up to this day

 

In NJ Spotlight News article NJ suit wants fossil-fuel industry to pay for damages done by climate change, Jon Hurdle reports:

 

The suit, filed in Superior Court Tuesday, is seeking civil monetary penalties for the impacts of climate change. These include flooding of coastal wetlands that are being lost to the rising seas caused by global warming.


Of course, sea levels have been rising since the end of the last glacial advance. Further, part of the “rise” is really due to a sinking coastline. How much of sea level rise is natural, how much is geological, and how much is manmade vs. natural climatic variability? Of course, the lawsuit hucksters, hungry for the big bucks, don’t care about sorting out the facts. 




Attorney General Matthew Platkin announced the suit against five major oil companies and their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, saying the industry failed to warn the public that its products were dangerous. Instead, it sought to sow public doubts that fossil-fuel emissions were linked to climate change.


Well, if the public ever didn’t know in some distant past “that its products were dangerous,” it certainly knows now. Sundry Environmentalist alarmists and anti-fossil fuel zealots have been telling us for decades of the alleged coming disasters. Certainly, given the steady growth of the hydrocarbon industry over the past half century of alarmism and zealotry, the public “knew” yet continued to shower these companies with purchases, profits, and steady growth. Where, exactly, is the alleged harm of the companies’ “failure to warn the public'' or efforts to allegedly “sow public doubts that fossil-fuel emissions were linked to climate change” long known by the public? 


“They went to great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey and the world,” Platkin said, in launching the suit against Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and the API. “These companies put their profits ahead of our safety.”


These profits, of course, were earned by providing their customers with vital safety-enhancing energy products. That the energy nihilists could wholesale condemn the fossil fuel companies for the comparatively minor and manageable negative side effects of the use of their products while ignoring the incomparably monumental benefits their products have and continue to provide to human well-being is truly one of the great injustices.


Even if the state is 100% right on every charge on “rising sea levels, hotter temperatures and increasingly intense storms”—which, of course, it is not—this lawsuit is a fraud and injustice of almost unimaginable proportions because it totally and one-sidedly ignores the positives of fossil fuels. Given the most vital value of hydrocarbon energy to every other industry and every aspect of their customers lives—which is basically everyone—this continuing War on Fossil Fuels is monumentally destructive and ultimately massively genocidal. The NJ government officials who are party to this travesty are criminals, should be impeached, and ultimately prosecuted for libelous demonizing of honorable private companies, abuse of their political authority, and misuse of taxpayer monies.

 

Finally, this discussion can’t end without pointing out the monumental HYPOCRISY—all upper case—of this and similar lawsuits. In an op-ed for NJ Spotlight News, Michael Busler points out the straight forward absurdity of this and similar lawsuits. Busler opines:

 

On the other hand, the state of New Jersey, along with some individual coastal communities across the U.S., including Hoboken, has taken the antagonistic and ineffective approach of filing climate lawsuits. In 2020, Hoboken followed cities such as San Francisco by filing a lawsuit against a handful of energy companies, in this case alleging that energy companies violated the state’s Consumer Fraud Act and should pay for climate-related damages. This claim falls apart when one considers that Hoboken officials have relied on energy products for decades, using them for their transportation, electricity, and heating and cooling needs.


On Oct. 18 of this year, New Jersey again threw itself into the fray when Attorney General Matthew Platkin filed a case in Superior Court arguing that energy companies like Exxon Mobil, Shell and others violated New Jersey’s consumer fraud laws.


It makes little sense for Hoboken and others to allege “deception” by energy providers for selling products we need to keep our economy moving. Chevron recently pointed this reality out in an answer to Honolulu’s lawsuit, a copycat of the cases brought by the New Jersey attorney general and Hoboken. The brief reminded the court that federal officials have recognized that petroleum and natural gas are vital to modern life and, dating back to the 1950s, have weighed this against any potential climate-change risks by using ample data to make informed policy decisions.

 

My emphasis. 

 

This lawsuit and these articles are loaded with misinformation, lies, disingenuousness, obfuscation, omission, hypocrisy, and fraudulent claims. Let’s hope justice prevails in the courts. Our future well-being depends on it.

 

* [A link to the article can be found toward the back of the second edition.]

 

Related Reading:

 

5 trends shaping the future of energy by Alex Epstein

 

The Convoluted Logic of the “Climate Lobby”


If We’re Going to Place Blame, then Fossil Fuel Consumers are the Real Climate Culprits


The “Divest-Invest Philanthropy” Movement and its Statist Roots

 

“Was industrialisation worth it?” – California Climate Lawsuit by Eric Worrall for Watts Up With That?

Monday, November 14, 2022

New Jersey Legislature's Monstrous Interference into the State’s Giant Pension Fund

NJ public employees and retirees be aware: You are about to be thrown under the bus by your elected representatives, on the absurd rationalization of "the fight against climate change." 


As Steven Rodas and Derek Hall report for NJ.com in N.J. could divest its $92B pension fund from fossil fuels. What it means financially and for climate change:


New Jersey would join a growing list of states to divest its pension fund from fossil fuel companies if a long-stalled bill crosses the finish line in Trenton this fall.


The legislation (A1733), now in its fourth iteration after it was first introduced in 2017, has gained new momentum in recent weeks as the fight against climate change intensifies nationwide. It will be considered Thursday by the state Senate’s environment committee.


This is a purely political move. There is no economic, scientific, or financial justification for this order. 


Morally, this is monstrous. Energy is the industry that powers every other industry. Therefore, the availability of reliable, cost-effective energy is vital to every aspect of our lives. Fossil fuels provide 80% of that energy, and will continue to be needed for decades to come, as it continues to grow both in the U.S and worldwide in the current absence of any viable alternative or competition. By joining in the suicidal movement to starve the fossil fuel industry of investment capital, the legislature is courting with a monumental human catastrophe that would dwarf any problematic climate side effects of burning fossil fuels.


But it is also illegal. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the people managing pension funds in America are fiduciaries. This is what the department explains under the heading Fiduciary Responsibilities


The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) protects your plan's assets by requiring that those persons or entities who exercise discretionary control or authority over plan management or plan assets, anyone with discretionary authority or responsibility for the administration of a plan, or anyone who provides investment advice to a plan for compensation or has any authority or responsibility to do so are subject to fiduciary responsibilities. Plan fiduciaries include, for example, plan trustees, plan administrators, and members of a plan's investment committee.


The primary responsibility of fiduciaries is to run the plan solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and paying plan expenses. Fiduciaries must act prudently and must diversify the plan's investments in order to minimize the risk of large losses. In addition, they must follow the terms of plan documents to the extent that the plan terms are consistent with ERISA.  They also must avoid conflicts of interest. In other words, they may not engage in transactions on behalf of the plan that benefit parties related to the plan, such as other fiduciaries, services providers or the plan sponsor.


Fiduciaries who do not follow these principles of conduct may be personally liable to restore any losses to the plan, or to restore any profits made through improper use of plan assets. Courts may take whatever action is appropriate against fiduciaries who breach their duties under ERISA including their removal.


[emphasis added]


I don’t see how this conclusion can be avoided: Fossil fuel divestment is a major violation of the NJ pension managers' fiduciary responsibility. The fossil fuel industry is a major component of the common stock investment universe, which provides a vital product crucial to everyone’s well-being. This obviously includes NJ public employees and retirees.  It follows that fossil fuels are crucial to a diversified portfolio, and thus a major component of investors' long term financial health. By cutting fossil fuels from its investment portfolio, the NJ pension fund is being forced to act against its sacred fiduciary trust to act only on the best interests of its public employee and retiree clients. 


The NJ legislature's coercive political interference in NJ's public employee pension fund injects a major conflict of interest into the management of the plans, another ERISA violation. It is explicitly forcing the pension fund investment managers to ignore an entire industry. This is outrageous. How can this order possibly be reconciled with the fund’s ERISA and fiduciary responsibilities? 


The entire NJ legislature should recuse itself from any power to micro-manage or affect in any way the investment decisions of the pension plan managers, who are legally duty-bound to comply with ERISA requirements specifically and to honor their moral responsibility to present and future retirees more generally.


Related Reading:


When Climate Dogmatism Meets Energy Reality


The “Divest-Invest Philanthropy” Movement and its Statist Roots


 RELATED: Protecting Oil Companies’ Rights is Not a Government Subsidy