Sunday, November 11, 2018

On This Veterans Day, Remember the Productive Americans Who Support the Greatest Military in History

This is the time of year that America rightly salutes, and gives thanks to, our military veterans who have protected this nation from foreign enemies for more than two centuries. I join in that celebration. My thoughts about them are conveyed in my Memorial Day tribute, and need no restatement here, except to reiterate the essence of that post:

The highest tribute I can pay to those who perished in that cause is to say that they were cut from the mold of the Founding Fathers; that they did not set out to die for their country but rather that they set out to fight, often at great personal risk, for the only values under which they desired to live—that radical set of ideals that is the United States of America. [See Related Viewing link]

But America’s veterans are not the whole story. So, I’d like to use this Veterans Day post to acknowledge the unsung hero of America’s military prowess, the productive American citizen. No military as strong and as competent as America’s can exist in a vacuum. It requires something else - something indispensable – a great economy.

America's economy, historically the most productive the world has ever seen, is the foundation that supports our military personnel. American taxpayers pay trillions of dollars in defense taxes. American defense contractors invest in and produce the most advanced weaponry in the world, weaponry that American soldiers rely upon to do their jobs, stay alive, and defeat the enemy. American technology produces the high tech means for our intelligence community to gather the information our soldiers need to keep track of the enemy.

What enabled the creation of the economic powerhouse that enabled the creation of our military powerhouse? What is the foundation of that foundation?

In 1776, the Founders of this nation signed the Declaration of Independence, which sanctioned the individual to egoistically pursue his happiness in support of his life, by guaranteeing him a government that protected his unalienable individual rights – his liberty – to act upon his own reasoning mind. That short document unleashed the power of the human mind, possessed individually by every person. The result was an unprecedented explosion of productiveness leading to exploding general prosperity and a standard of living unimaginable by the wealthiest noblemen of centuries past. The cause of that progress is simple: the unleashing of every individual to self-interestedly strive to make his own life the best it can be, by his own effort, in voluntary trade with others, free from the coercive interference of his fellow man, including the government. Another name for this social statement—free market capitalism. America was built not by sacrifice, as it is fashionable to assume, but by personal achievement unleashed by individual liberty.

America’s response to the threat of the Axis powers at the onset of World War II demonstrates this incredible power behind America’s military power—American free, private enterprise. If you’ve ever visited the National World War II Museum in New Orleans, you’d be struck—I know I was—by the section that displays the array of private, profit-seeking companies that rose to meet the threat posed by Germany, Italy, and Japan. Companies from Boeing and Caterpillar to Harley Davidson and the Mars Candy Company converted their consumer-oriented production facilities to produce for the war to defend America. Dozens of household names are profiled in the display, and undoubtedly far more smaller companies labored anonymously in support of the war effort.

Germany’s Hitler was said to have ridiculed America as soft, because America was good at making consumer goods like razor blades and washing machines, but not military hardware like aircraft. This was mentioned in a fantastic film narrated by Tom Hanks titled Beyond All Boundaries, presented by the museum. Indeed, charts on display at the museum showed that, in 1939, America’s military was utterly dwarfed not only by the commulative size of the Axis powers Germany, Italy, and Japan, but in comparison to those countries individually as well. But just a few short years later, America’s military dwarfed all three combined, as America’s industrial might turned its focus from producing consumer goods to producing for the American military. Hitler obviously underestimated what can happen when a free enterprise nation, which only wants to live in peace, freedom and prosperity, is threatened by tyrannical aggression.

Tyranny, as the history of WW II demonstrates—and as Germany, Italy, and Japan learned the hard way— is no match for a free market capitalist nation when that nation is aroused to turn its industrial might to self-defense. America won not only because of the bravery and skill of its soldiers, but in no small measure because America simply out-produced—in quantity and technological might—the enemy. Not only did America rearm amazingly fast, it did so even while rearming Britain and supplying arms to Russia, China, and other nations battling against the Axis powers. As the museum’s website explains:

Total war meant that all levels of the economy and all segments of society dedicated themselves to victory. FDR urged Americans to join the war effort by “out-producing and overwhelming the enemy.” While scarcity, rationing, and shortages became regular topics of conversation, so too did talk of duty, patriotism, unity, and victory. The United States, which had the world’s 18th largest military in 1939, mobilized itself for total war production almost overnight once the nation entered the war. The immediate conversion of peacetime industries into war production facilities involved companies of all sizes and types. Toy companies began to manufacture compasses. Typewriter companies made rifles and piano factories produced airplane motors. The Ford Motor Company ceased producing cars and began turning out tanks and bombers. And behind each soldier stood hundreds of civilian workers making everything an army needs to fight around the globe. The Depression was over. Full employment was a reality and confidence in victory was strong.

From 1940 until the Japanese surrender, the United States produced more than 300,000 aircraft, 86,000 tanks, and 12.5 million rifles. Its shipyards were just as productive, building 107 aircraft carriers, 352 destroyers, and 35 million tons of merchant shipping. The US also supplied a majority of war materials for its Allied partners. By 1945, the U.S. had produced more than twice the war supplies of Germany, Italy, and Japan combined.

If Hitler underestimated America, some in Japan, it seems, were more prescient. As Japan’s political leadership confidently prepared for war with America, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto soberly warned:

Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it would not be enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians (who speak so lightly of a Japanese-American war) have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.

After his nation's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto was said to have uttered, “I fear all we have done today is to awaken a great, sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

Indeed, from a starting point of 18th largest military, America had, as FDR envisioned and as Yamamoto feared, out-produced and overwhelmed the enemy. So, let’s celebrate, along with the brave contributions of our vets, the productive American of all income levels—the CEOs, entrepreneurs, innovators, scientists and inventors, workers, investors—and the resultant industrial powerhouse upon whose shoulders our military might stands. Let’s celebrate the individual pursuit of happiness that is the fuel for that American strength. Let’s celebrate his willingness to pay for, build, and support the military whose job it is to protect his pursuit of the good life.

Today, the foundation of America’s economic and military might is under intense attack by those who would “fundamentally change America”—a change that, in actuality, has been going on for decades. Let’s stand up and reject that slow-motion “change” from liberty to tyranny, and instead renew our allegiance to the Founding Fathers, who engineered a change from tyranny to liberty. The best tribute one can give to our military veterans is to vow to fight for the rediscovery and reinstatement of the ideals that this country stands for: the supreme value of the individual human being, his freedom, and a government whose sole duty is to protect his right to live and prosper for his own sake.

Margaret Thatcher correctly observed: "Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy." That philosophy--the inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--is what the American veteran fought to defend, for herself and for us all. That is the fight that we all--we, as private citizens who value freedom, with freedom's most potent weapon, our individual voices--should continue at home.

Happy Veterans Day!!

-Mike LaFerrara

Related Reading:

Related Viewing:

Why a Free Man Fights—Lt. Col. Scott McDonald, USMC

Thursday, November 8, 2018

QUORA: ‘How can I make communism more feasible in our society?’

I posted this answer:

You can. In fact, it already is so long as you renounce the use of political power--government force--and seek only voluntary consent from others. See my answer to “Can you start a purely communist society in the US?” The answer is yes, any time you want. Think of the hippie communes in America, or the Israeli Kibbutz. They are examples of voluntary communism. Americans have never had a problem with such arrangements. It is the imposition of communism by force and violence on people who don’t want it--Marxism--that will never be feasible (acceptable) in our society. So, go ahead. Start your communism. Just leave government out of it. Any other method is the method of a gangster.

* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:

Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]

You can also reply to other users’ answers.]

Related Reading:

Related Videos:

The saga of The Twentieth Century Motor Company in Atlas Shrugged, in which the company founder’s heirs implemented the Marxist principle, “From Each According to His Ability, to Each According to his Need.” Parts one, two, and three.

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

A Socialist Confirms that the Basics of ‘True’ Socialism is Totalitarianism

In response to my answer regarding QUORA* : ‘Why do you think capitalism today is less popular among Democrats than socialism?’, a correspondent commented as follows, ending in a link to “The Basics” of socialism. Comment from Christopher Henry Kavookjian

You clearly don’t know what socialism is.

Socialism is a system where the workers democratically control businesses and industries, rather than being commanded by a private property owner.

There are many types of socialism, spanning from extreme libertarianism to extreme authoritarianism. However, the only true form of socialism is one that is 100% democratic and free of money and class distinctions.

In capitalism, most people are actually less free because they have to sell their labor in order to live. Under socialism (keep in mind I’m not talking about Stalinism or Maoism or any of that crap) things like healthcare, housing, education, childcare, and family leave are already paid for, and the primary point of work is to serve society and do what you love.

It is not true that in socialism everyone would make equal paycheck. People would be paid according to their labor. Doctors and Lawers would still make much more than janitors. The truth is, undesirable jobs like janitors and street-cleaners would probably not even exist under socialism as everyone would collectively work together to make their communities more livable.

Not so scary, right? I am a socialist and this is what I advocate for. I have no interest in government control of anything beyond healthcare and education. Here is the link to a site that further explains what I stand for: The Basics

I give Christopher credit. At least he didn’t try to hide the reality of socialism by claiming that countries like Sweden are socialist, rather than semi-capitalist mixed economies. Nor did he try to separate socialism from Marxism. His link to “The Basics” relies heavily on Karl Marx, the ideological architect of modern socialism.

I posted this reply:

“People are actually less free under capitalism because they have to sell their labor in order to live” is the same argument used against the free labor of the capitalist North to defend slavery in the Confederate South. Unlike Northern workers, the slave workers of the South were supplied with “free” cradle-to-grave satisfaction of their needs, never having to worry about selling their labor for a paycheck or of ever being unemployed. The enslavement of a minority was justified, the pro-slavery ideology argued, because state voters democratically authorized it. The Confederacy was essentially America’s first encounter with democratic socialism.*

Under modern socialism, people get to vote away not only other people’s freedom, but their own, as well. Modern socialism’s solution to the “problem” of workers having “to sell their labor in order to live”  is to trade their precious freedom to earn money for a sham vote to elect the political Al Capones who will swoop in and seize control of private businesses and industries created by the private entrepreneurs who built them through voluntary trade with employees, investors, suppliers, and consumers. Instead of being “commanded” by private employers who can’t force them, workers are forced by government to serve “society” rather than themselves.**

Economics is the vast field of cooperative activity by which people work and trade voluntarily to support their own lives, as human nature requires. Business is the main means by which people voluntarily organize and cooperate toward a common productive mission geared toward consumers choices, each in pursuit of one’s personal flourishing. A government with total control of business and industry has total control of the economy. A government with total control of the economy has total control over people’s means of supporting their lives. A government with total control over people's means of self-support is a government that has every individual by the throat in every aspect of their lives. What freedom, including freedom of expression or conscience or political dissent, is possible to a citizen faced with government officials who have controlling power hanging over their lives? Does it matter whether you have a single ruler or a party apparatus or a special interest such as “the workers”? Whether it is elected or not? A government, of whatever kind, that has every individual by the throat is a totalitarian state. Logic confirms this truth. History has proven this time and again.

Socialism in any form--fascism, communism, democratic--is totalitarian by design. There is a reason why socialists seek political power, rather than voluntary consent in the private sector— Socialism requires imposition from the top down regardless of any disagreement. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Only through the state can socialism be instituted. And so socialists seek control of government--the only institution that can legally compel obedience to its laws and edicts. Socialism grows out of the barrel of a gun. True, socialism has many forms. It can be total, as with national socialism (fascism) or communism. It can be partial, as with the mixed economy we call the welfare state. Layering “100% democratic” on top changes nothing. Freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to act regardless of anyone else’s vote. An enlightened society protects its minorities from democratic control by protecting the rights of the individual, the smallest minority. (Of course, once socialists are elected, and have consolidated their power, they have no more use for democracy. Democracy is a means to power, not a means to democratic control by “the workers” or anyone else.)

Rights are guarantees to freedom of action in pursuit of personal goals, not an automatic claim on goods and services that others must be forced to provide. A person who is forced to provide for others' material desires--to “serve society”--is a slave. And that’s what socialism is, at its core--just another form of slavery. Marxian socialism is Confederate slavery extended across all of society. Whatever its manifestation, the basics of socialism remain the same. Every socialist initiative begins with armed aggression by the state against productive private individuals, based on the premise that the individual’s life is not his own to live. Just let anyone try to peaceably act on his own judgement, in defiance of government commands. He’d be declared an outlaw, seized by armed government agents, and locked in a cage. No private enterprise--no matter how wealthy its owners or how large the enterprise--has that power of command. The businessman’s only form of “command” is a job or product offering, from which one is free to walk away.

This is straight out of the socialist horse's mouth. Socialism is thoroughly totalitarian. It is thoroughly utopian, running contrary to the individualist requirements of human nature. Just check out “the basics.” Government force jumps out of every page. Disdain for voluntary individual consent is evident at every turn. The basics can be simplified as follows: Socialism is organized crime rising out of the underworld to control a nation. It begins with theft. Carried to its logical conclusion, socialism ends the only way it can or ever has when individual freedom is squelched and voluntary cooperation (markets) is obliterated--in economic paralysis and collapse, political prisons, tyranny, and ultimately murder.

The basics of Marxism in actual practice: Why Marxism—Evil Laid Bare--C. Bradley Thompson for The Objective Standard (Video version: "Why Marxism?" An Evening at FEE with C. Bradley Thompson [51:13])


Kavookjian is careful to disavow any connection to Marxian socialism in practice. “I’m not talking about Stalinism or Maoism or any of that crap,” he says. This is a classic evasive tactic of socialists; wherever socialism is tried and failed, it is never “true socialism.” But don’t worry. My socialism will work because mine is the real thing. Richard Mason hits on why this argument seems semi-plausible:

Why exactly do we treat two equally bloody ideologies [Nazism and communism] in such starkly different ways?

The answer may lie the in [sic] misperceptions of virtue. Nazis, rightfully, are seen as hateful and vicious because their ideology is built around the idea that one group is superior to the other. It is an inherently anti-egalitarian ideology, a violent belief that was put into practice only once by those who devised it.

As such, there is no justifiable way in which a fascist could argue ‘but that wasn’t real Nazism’. The same is not true for communism.

On the contrary; we see this line of argument all the time. Those on the far-left have a whole umbrella of communist styles, from Stalinism to Anarchism, Maoism to Trotskyism, or even just classic Marxism. Since Karl Marx never implemented communism himself, the leaders of communist states always have that get-out-of-jail-free card. Any shortcomings, tragedies, or crises a communist regime faces can always be blamed on a misapplication of Marx’s infallible roadmap to utopia.

Conveniently, communists can always detach themselves from the horrors of the past. They can paint themselves as pioneers of an ideology that simply hasn’t had the opportunity to flourish (‘real communism has never been tried!’).

My emphasis. Nonetheless, Kavookjian is honest enough to lay out, in brutally explicit detail, what real socialism actually is--Marxism. When someone on the Left tries to sneak in the mythical idea that socialism is some kind of Scandinavian model or tries to whitewash the true nature of socialism by peddling “good intentions,” refer to Kavookjian’s Comment on my answer regarding QUORA* : ‘Why do you think capitalism today is less popular among Democrats than socialism?

Related Reading:

What is Capitalism—Ayn Rand

Related Viewing:

Monday, November 5, 2018

Freedom Is Not About the Right to Vote, So I’m Voting Anti-Democrat Across the Board

Leonard Pitts, a Leftist columnist for The Miami Herald, ran a column claiming that America is in danger of being “lost” because of President Trump. The only way to “save America,” he says, is to vote. In We could lose our country, or save it, Pitts writes:

"What are these politicians going to do for us?"

A guy in Texas asked that question a few weeks back on "Full Frontal with Samantha Bee," by way of explaining why he won't be voting in the most important midterm election in modern American history. His words have been playing on an endless loop in my head ever since. You'll seldom hear electoral apathy, ignorance and cynicism more concisely illustrated.

Moreover, he reflects an understanding of politics as solely a transactional process: Vote for this, get that. But for however much casting a ballot is a way to get, it is also, and perhaps even more so, a way to say. One thinks of Norman Rockwell's famous "Four Freedoms" painting of an ordinary guy standing up in a public meeting to speak his piece. That's what voting is.

He goes on to recite some of Trump’s more egregious antics, and concludes with:

If you are disgusted and appalled, make yourself heard.

Because we could absolutely lose America. Or, we could save it.

What do you say?

By which he means, vote. Pitts doesn’t say who to vote for. But since Trump is not on the ballot, it’s obvious who he thinks you should vote for--any Democrat. I left these comments:

And exactly what is America? America is the primacy of individual rights. Yet, the only real alternative to the Republicans is an increasingly totalitarian Democratic Party, now running under the banner of democratic socialism, which holds that government officials can do whatever they want with people's lives and property, so long as they are elected.

We’ve already lost America. The fault is not Trump’s, who inherited this lost America. The problem is the obsession with voting, an indication that too many people--primarily among Democrats--are more interested in running other people’s lives than in preserving their right to run their own lives. But freedom is not your right to vote. Freedom is the right to live your own life regardless of other people’s votes. Only when we realize this truth, and reign the power of government back to within the rights-protecting bounds of the Constitution, will we have won back America. That won’t happen with the Democrats. With them, it’ll only get worse. From a free America perspective, any vote for any Democrat is monumentally worse than Trump or the Republican Party, however repugnant some of Trump’s policies.

Related Reading:

Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People--Randy E.

Democracy Fundamentalism vs. Americanism

Democratic Socialism: The Rise of the Pigs

Democratic Socialism: If the Pigs Take Over

Sunday, November 4, 2018

Democrat[s] Against Socialism?

The New Jersey Star-Ledger posted a guest column by Mark Dunec, the 2014 Democratic candidate in New Jersey's 11th Congressional District. In I'm a Democrat who ran for this N.J. Congressional seat. I'm supporting the Republican on 10/31/18, Dunec explains his several reasons for his decision to endorse Republican Jay Webber over Democrat Mikie Sherrill. This sentence caught my attention:

Over the last several years I have had increasing concerns that the mainstream Democratic elected officials and candidates have embraced a socialist ideology.

I don’t know much about Dunec other than what he wrote here. I left these comments, slightly edited for clarity:

The increasing embrace of socialism by the Democratic Party is a sea change away from the “liberal” welfare state Democrats, so it’s important to get this understanding right. Welfare statism is different in crucial respects from socialism, democratic or otherwise. The limited socialism of the welfare state, while rights-violating, is supposedly intended only as a “safety net” for capitalism, not a replacement. Under the modern welfare state, individual rights and free enterprise are still fundamental.

Unlike welfare statism, socialism leaves no room for freedom. The distinction is important. Honest socialists like Robert L. Heilbroner acknowledged long ago that socialism is utterly incompatible with personal freedom, requiring the brutal repression not just of economic freedom (markets, property rights), but also of political and intellectual freedom. Dissent cannot be tolerated. “Moral commitments ... to the rights of individuals [and the] celebration of individualism [are] directly opposed to the basic socialist commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal.” Socialism is not a bigger welfare state. It is the complete regimentation of society administered by the unrestrained brute force of the state. Once a government acquires the power that socialism requires, it will not tolerate any threat to that power.

Socialism is totalitarian by ideological design, and in practice. The Democratic Party’s new democratic socialists will scream their denials. But socialism’s intellectual leadership knows better. As Heilbroner bluntly admonishes, it is a “delusion” to think “we can have a socialist cake with bourgeois [capitalist] icing.”

In terms of protection of inalienable individual rights, the Republican Party is a mixed bag. But the emerging metamorphosis of the Democratic Party toward socialism is pure evil. So I hope Dunec represents a new movement--Democrats Against Socialism. We need it.

Related Reading:

Friday, November 2, 2018

The Bait: Political Equality. The Switch: Economic Equality

Last August, a guest column appeared in the New Jersey Star-Ledger by Demelza Baer of the Economic Mobility Initiative at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. The article focussed on equality, and most of it I agree with. In N.J. social justice group: After Charlottesville, you must speak out!, Baer observes:

People of color, religious and ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities have not yet achieved full equality in the United States.  And, every time that people of color achieve significant progress towards equality, it's met with an inevitable backlash and period of retrenchment.

She goes on to give a brief history of America since the Civil War. She focuses on blacks’ drive for political equality, and the frequent reactionary backlashes that rolled back progress. But the article ended badly, undercutting Baer’s case for equality.

I left these comments:

Whenever I read an article about equality, I suspect a bait-and-switch. The bait is to advocate for political equality, a worthy goal. That’s where Baer starts out. But, sure enough, the switch rears its ugly head, in point three—the push for economic equality.

But political and economic equality cannot coexist in any society. They are antipodes. Political equality means legal protection of inalienable individual rights of everyone, equally and at all times. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action based on personal judgement in pursuit of self-chosen goals, not an automatic guarantee that one’s actions will result in achieving the same economic results as others or any automatic claim on material goods that others must be forced to provide. Rights include the result of one’s actions, including the earning, keeping, and use of property. Properly understood, political equality means equal protection of earned property—for everyone, regardless of differences in the quantity of property. Given the rich individual diversity of human life, economic inequality is a healthy and natural result of a just society in which each is free to rise, by work and trade, as far as her personal attributes, virtues, values, and personal circumstances will carry her.

You can’t have both political and economic equality, because any attempt to use government coercion to equalize economic outcomes destroys political equality. To the extent that a government tries to impose economic equality, it must cut people down by violating their rights—each to the extent that they achieve success. How else do you equalize economic outcomes except by trampling rights—taking wealth by force or regulating private choices, which violates equal protection of rights before the law?

In a sense, economic equality is worse than welfare statism. The welfare statist seeks to redistribute wealth in order to fulfill some alleged need of people classified as poor or disadvantaged. Economic egalitarianism doesn’t even care about need. It seeks to stifle upward mobility and human flourishing for the sake of equality—equality as an end in itself. It seeks economic destruction. Welfare statism, bad as it is, at least has superficial appeal to some semblance of compassion, if not greed. Economic egalitarianism appeals only to envy and hatred of personal achievement.

I suspect that the communistic principle of economic equality is the real goal of the “social justice” warriors, with political equality being window dressing to bait people into swallowing the injustice of forced economic equality. But keep in mind that communism is largely based on economic equality, and that the crimes of communism exceed even those of Nazism, theocracy, and the Confederacy. If one cares about advancing social justice, one should embrace political equality and reject the misguided and hateful war on economic inequality.

In response to another respondent's reply “rebutting” (ridiculing) my comment, I posted:

We must distinguish between fortunes by work and trade, and fortunes by government favor and theft. To earn money is to create a value that others are willing to pay you for. To make a lot of money is to create a lot of value for lots of people. Keep in mind that the very rich in America get so by creating wealth and spreading the value throughout society, bettering the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Capitalist fortunes are not like the aristocratic fortunes of old, which were gained by looting the peasant “masses”. The fortunes from John D. Rockefeller to Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, et al were earned by trade, and the benefits to consumers far exceed their fortunes. Capitalist fortune-building is healthy and progressive. My Dell computer contributed in some miniscule way to the fortune of Michael Dell. Yet his fortune doesn’t concern me, or harm me. My Dell, upon which I am typing this comment, has enriched my life immensely more that whatever fraction of a cent Michael Dell gained from the sale. There are hundreds of millions more like me. Trade is win-win. If you look around, you’ll see that our ordinary lives are full of the benefits of companies built and run by rich entrepreneurs and CEOs. Good for them, I say. They earned it. Capitalist fortunes don’t concentrate wealth. They spread it.

We should not be concerned with “the widening gap between the very rich and the rest of Americans. . .” We should only be concerned with justice; that is, did the person, rich or poor, earn it by work and voluntary trade, or did he take it through force, deception, or fraud? If you really want to “help the middle class,” you’d want to eliminate barriers to upward mobility, like occupational licensing laws, minimum wage laws, progressive taxation, and government economic regulations (which favor large established companies and the rich over new companies and people struggling to start out).

Related Reading:

Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality--Don Watkins and Yaron Brook  

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Climate Catastrophe Update

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000  
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
--AP, U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked, June 29, 1989.

Twelve years. That's the time we have to make drastic reductions in our fossil fuel consumption or we will reach a tipping point in the fight against climate change, and if humanity blows this deadline, the results will be biblical, A UN report released Monday said.

[My Emphasis]

Related Reading: