In NJ: ‘No’ on Ballot Question #2

As New Jersey’s election approaches, the New Jersey Star-Ledger editorialized, Vote yes on ballot question #2: The lockbox for enviro funds:

The concept is simple: When polluters destroy your neighborhood, the fines they pay in settlements should go toward restoring your neighborhood.

But not in the twisted logic of Trenton. All too often - especially under this governor - this money has gone to plug holes in the state budget. The Legislature tried to minimize the diversions, but Chris Christie vetoed its attempt.

Now, a ballot question on Nov. 7th will allow voters to put a stop to this, once and for all. It would amend the state constitution to say that every dollar in polluter fines would have to go to "repair, restore, replace, or preserve the state's natural resources."

This money is not for cleanup, which polluters are already mandated to pay for; it's to restore the neighborhoods, waterways and marshes that were damaged, and compensate the public for the loss of their use.

It can rehabilitate unhealthy river banks, build parks on land that had been contaminated, or even construct baseball fields to make amends to communities that lost the use of them for years.

I left these comments:

If the fund is not for cleanup, then what is it for? It’s a giant piggy bank for ideological environmentalists to “"repair, restore, replace, or preserve the state's natural resources." What exactly are “natural resources?” What does “compensate the public” mean? What is the public, if not the clique that controls the fund? To an environmentalist, anything man builds is not “natural”—including your home or business or even church. Environmentalists are, by definition, concerned with unaltered nature as opposed to nature improved for human flourishing. Will the money be used to fund eminent domain to seize private property in order to “restore” it to “natural resource” status? Will the money be used to “preserve” even more property from human improvement, further exacerbating the “affordable housing crisis?”

Here’s a better option. If the purpose of the fines—which, for the sake of argument, I’ll assume to be just—is what this editorial says it’s for, how about using the money to directly compensate the actual individual victims of the pollution with monetary awards?—something on the order of the asbestos settlement, where in theory an objective process determines actual harm. True, this could create a “gold rush” of people trying to cash in. But at least real victims of “destroyed neighborhoods” have a chance at actual compensation—and a choice to do what they want with their share of the settlement. If they want to use it for their own personal benefit—say, to move to a cleaner neighborhood—fine. If they want to pool their payout with other victims to build a baseball field or rehabilitate a river bank they actually use, they’re free to do it. If there is real harm, the money rightfully belongs to the victims who were objectively harmed, not something labeled a “natural resource.” (Why should non-victim members of neighborhoods, communities, or “the public” get free parks or ball fields?) At least everyone, not just environmentalists, would have a crack at it. Award any excess money not awarded to individuals directly to “the public,” in the form of equal payments to all individual residents who together comprise NJ’s public—If we’re going to “compensate the public,” let’s actually do it.

In the meantime, based on this editorial, I’m voting “No” on ballot question #2. The collectivist premise behind it gives too much power to the environmentalists as opposed to actual victims. True, the money will probably continue to be diverted to the state budget. But at least the general fund is controlled by our elected representatives, accountable to voters. True, Trenton’s loot is a special interest feeding frenzy. But at least all special interests—through our elected representatives, not just the environmentalist lobby—will have a say in how the dough is dished out. Vote “NO” on Ballot Question #2.

Related Reading:

Misrepresenting NJ GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Guadagno’s Positions.

Environmentalist Witch Doctors Not Concerned With Human Benefaction

Environmentalists, Luddites, and Collectivism

We Owe Our Children a More Technologically Advanced Society, Not 'Preserved' Nature

The First Amendment Restricts Government, Not Private Citizens

“I’m struggling these days with the First Amendment. I’ve always been a strong supporter, but lately, not so much.”

That’s how Lawrence N. Meyerson starts his New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column of 11/6/17. (Free speech: Where do we draw the line?).

As the title and opening lines suggest, Meyerson seems to be calling for rolling back First Amendment protections. But in the following paragraphs, Meyerson approvingly documents cases in which private establishments open to the public have restricted or banned “offensive” symbols and language.

For example, in 1970, a security guard in Disneyland ordered Meyerson, then a young college student, “to turn my shirt inside out so that the name ‘Oar House’ would be hidden. Apparently, the name was too suggestive for Disney.” More recently, Meyerson’s wife observed a passenger at LaGuardia Airport “wearing a pair of jeans with a swastika knee patch. . . . Neither of us could fathom why an airline would allow this person on the plane.”

He goes on to ask;

The big question is where do we draw the line? When should an employee be fired for the use of offensive language? When should a football player be ostracized for kneeling during the national anthem? When should a passenger be refused passage on a train or plane because of his or her use of offensive symbols?

In conclusion, Meyerson writes:

First Amendment or not, we need to continue to be vigilant on moral grounds. It’s a simple rule, the use of words and symbols that denigrate entire groups of people, or remind them of the horrors visited upon them, may be legal, but they are immoral and should be publicly shunned.

Meyerson seems to be confused about the First Amendment, I believe. It’s a widespread and dangerous confusion shared by many people.

The First Amendment is a restriction on government from interfering in the private expression of ideas, whatever those ideas are. It is not a restriction on private citizens or private organizations restricting or banning what they consider offensive speech on their own private property.

The First Amendment does not forbid private citizens from being “vigilant on moral grounds”—drawing their own lines. Disney’s action does not violate the First Amendment. The airline had a right to ban that passenger on its plane, if it chose, without violating the First Amendment. If the government banned the “Oar House” shirt or the swastika jeans, that would be a violation. I agree with Meyerson’s entire last paragraph, with the strong exception of the first four words , “First amendment or not.” We needn’t question or weaken the First Amendment in order to be able to use our own free speech and private property rights to oppose, shun, or ostracize individuals for what we consider immoral expressions. The First Amendment protects our right to disagree.

It is crucially important to distinguish between government action, which is force by law, and private voluntary action, which excludes force. There should be no line drawn against free speech based on offensiveness by government. Who can even define “offensive?” “Hate speech” laws and the like would put government in charge of determining what is acceptable to say, print, or display outside the home. Who gets to set the standards defining “offensive” for the purpose of law? Meyerson doesn’t explicitly call for such laws. But his confusion about the First Amendment strongly implies it. So, it must be said: Any line drawn by government on the premise of “offensiveness” would be the end of free speech, a most important bulwark against tyranny of all kinds, including the kind of tyranny symbolized by the swastika.

Indeed, bad ideas can never be defeated unless the people holding them are free to express them, and exposing themselves to public scrutiny. It would just drive them underground, where they can not be denounced, shunned, and defeated. The First Amendment protects all expression, offensive or not, moral or not, where they can be fully aired and debated. That’s as it should be. We should all welcome the freedom to express ideas we consider offensive or even evil, for the opportunity to fight back against them through our own free speech rights. But agree or not, we should all be united in defending every individual’s right to say what she wants to say, by keeping government restrictions out of it.

Related Reading:

The First Amendment

Cohen: Hate-Crime Laws are "Totalitarian Nonsense"

Free Speech, not Self-Censorship, is the Answer to 'Offensive' Free Speech [UPDATED]

J.K. Rowling Laudably Defends Free Speech On Principle

Protecting Rights vs. Sanctioning Action

“Hate Crime” Laws are Gateways for Censorship and Statism

Budding Grassroots Campaign Against ‘Hate Speech’ is shallow, childish . . . and Dangerous

Letter to NJ.com: Opinion column wrong about free speech—John K. Tauscher, Hillsborough, NJ

Misrepresenting NJ GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Guadagno’s Positions.

New Jersey has a governor's race coming up. Kim Guadagno is the Republican candidate. A major Left-leaning NJ newspaper, the Star-Ledger, had some choice editorial comments to make about Guadagno back in December when she was the lieutenant governor and before she was nominated.

I left these comments under Guadagno's rules for working class: Suck it up, highlighting certain excerpts from the editorial:

"Should the government dictate to you what you provide to your employees?" she asked her audience of 100. "I personally do not believe so."

To follow that logic, we should rescind child labor laws, overtime laws, and minimum wage itself.

The moral and economically enlightened answer to Guadagno’s question is a resounding NO. But I would also add that the government should not prohibit any job-seeker from accepting a job that doesn’t fit some political elitist’s vision of what that job should pay. Yes, businesses should be left free precisely to pay employees whatever they want, and employees should be free to accept any job at whatever pay they willingly agree to. No job should be outlawed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a tyrant or thug, and hiding behind law doesn’t change that. A job is morally a contractual matter between employer and employee. The government shouldn't step in unless there is evidence of fraud, breach-of-contract, and the like, or unless the “job” involves criminal behavior such as murder-for-hire or driving a bank robber’s getaway car.

As for “child labor laws, overtime laws, and minimum wage,” child labor laws do not belong in that category. Children have the same rights as adults but they need extra oversight from adults, mainly from the parents but also the state, to prevent child exploitation. But labor laws like overtime rules and minimum wage violate the rights of consenting adults to contract voluntarily to mutual advantage. I hope Guadagno is consistent enough to apply her principle against government dictates to all rights-violating labor laws. We have very few, if any, such principled free market Republicans in New Jersey.

Guadagno's second pander was her claim that private business should not provide paid sick leave.

This is undoubtedly a flat out lie—an example of Fake News.

What possible reason would Guadagno, or anyone, advocate such an idea? I don’t believe she ever advocated such a thing. Her point was that government shouldn’t be dictating it.

Being against government's legally dictating paid sick leave is not the same as being against private business voluntarily providing these benefits, any more than being against subsidies for solar companies equates to being against solar energy or being against food stamps equates to being against voluntary food banks. The statement above is fundamentally dishonest. Statists always use such package-deal tactics because they can’t rationally and morally justify their unconstitutional economic crony laws.

There's nothing wrong with being pro-business, even if supply-side drones have [been] spouting this government ethic since Hoover.

More fake news. Herbert Hoover was a major state interventionist, whose economic policies became a model for FDR. Hoover was a major progressive-era hero. As President Harding’s Commerce Secretary, Hoover advocated economic interventionist policies in response to the 1920-21 depression. Fortunately, Harding ignored him, the depression didn’t become “Great,” and a roaring job-filled recovery and expansion ensued. A decade later, President Hoover had his chance, responding to the much milder 1929-30 recession with major “progressive” interventions that turned the recession into a Great Depression. Hoover was no more a “supply sider” than Barack Obama.

I don’t yet know enough about Guadagno to endorse her for governor. But if this dishonest Marxist-inspired editorial is any indication, she may warrant a good look.

Related Reading:

The Forgotten Depression: 1921: The Crash That Cured Itself—James Grant (See my review for The Objective Standard).

Paid Sick Leave, No Matter How ‘Beneficial,’ Should Never Be Legally Mandated in Any Way

Is Andrew Puzder ‘Anti-Worker’ for Opposing Labor Laws?

If We’re to Have Labor Laws, Should They Work Both Ways?

We are All Muslims? Not so Fast.

Late last year the New Jersey Star-Ledger alerted me to the proposal, attributed to the Trump team, to register all Muslims. In Register Muslims? Then we must all be Muslim, the Star-Ledger’s Tom Moran editorialized:

This idea, to register as Muslims en masse, came to me from Julie Roginsky, a liberal commentator on Fox News and a senior strategist with Phil Murphy's campaign for [New jersey] governor.

Would President Trump really try to establish a national registry of American Muslims? It is obscene that he and his supporters have raised the possibility, and beyond disheartening that Trump has failed to put the idea to rest by clearly denouncing it.

If this is trial balloon, here's an answer: Every American of good faith should register as a Muslim.

If 300 million Americans lock arms legally with the roughly 3 million Muslims among us, then what mischief can he cause? They will be protected.

And, as a bonus, they will be reminded that most Americans do not share Team Trump's hostility towards them or their faith. During the Republican primaries, we saw an ugly frenzy of competition among the candidates, each striving to be the most aggressive towards Muslims.

But the truth is that most Americans can distinguish between a terrorist and the many good citizens among us who happen to be Muslim. Solid majorities of Americans have favorable views of Muslims and believe that their religion and social traditions are compatible with those of the West.

I’m not convinced that Trump and/or his supporters have actually raised the possibility. I’ve not heard anything about it elsewhere, either before or since reading Moran’s column.

That said, on the face of it, the very idea of singling out an entire group for special scrutiny is outrageous. The very suggestion by serious people of such a program should make every American stand up and take notice. So I understand the sentiment expressed here (although I don’t think Moran fully grasps that such a protest protects more than just Muslims. Protecting the rights of any minority protects the rights of all minorities, including the smallest minority, the individual).

So while I sympathize with Moran, I left these comments, edited and expanded for clarity:

Just as I strongly opposed Trump's “ban all Muslims” scheme for a religious test for entry into the U.S., I oppose a Muslim registry as un-American. But this editorial is the height of disingenuousness. Tom Moran and his editorial board routinely smear any rational critic of Islam as “Islamophobic.” Note Moran’s comment about “an ugly frenzy of competition among the Republican candidates, each striving to be the most aggressive towards Muslims” in the GOP primaries. That smear is itself a form of bigotry, because it paints with a broad brush all scrutiny of Islamic beliefs, without regard for rationality or context.

Islam is a political religion that advocates theocracy under Sharia Law. This is what motivates Islamic terrorists. While practicing terrorists are a small percentage of Muslims, a much larger percentage support the ideological goals of the terrorists. Many Muslims don’t support the separation of Mosque and state and oppose freedom of speech through laws that criminalize criticism of Islam. These are not “religion and social traditions [that] are compatible with those of the West.” These allegedly “peaceful” Muslims give moral sanction to the terrorists.

Many Muslims, especially in the United States, undoubtedly do support a reformed, enlightened Islam that rejects the statist elements of Islam and is thus compatible with Western, live-and-let-live secular values. We must honestly and properly identify Western Culture’s Islamic enemies—fundamentalist/radical, unenlightened Islam—as well as our enlightened Muslim allies, and act accordingly.

I cannot say “We are all Muslims,” because too many Muslims would legally strip me of my inalienable individual rights if they had the political opportunity. Perhaps, “We are all Muslim-Americans.” Or, better yet, “We are all Americans.”

Related Reading:

The War Between Western Enlightenment and Fundamentalist Political Islam—and the Choice All Muslims Must Make

Heretic—Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Trump’s Ban-All-Muslims Policy Undermines the Fight Against Islamic Jihad

To Avoid ‘Amazon Wars’, End Corporate Taxes

Amazon has been soliciting bids from states for the purpose of locating its proposed second headquarters. The bids include things like a description of available talent and educational facilities, transportation infrastructure, and so on. But it also includes favorable tax treatment.

This is a big deal. Amazon’s new headquarters is expected to directly bring 50,000 new jobs, and many more in secondary economic effects. New Jersey’s bid includes $5 billion in state tax concessions, and another $2 billion in local property tax concessions. The New Jersey Star-Ledger pushed back against the “bipartisan strategy” of tax incentives that states use to attract business investment. In N.J. escalates destructive Amazon war, the Star-Ledger editorialized:

Desperate to lure jobs, towns and states compete with tax incentives. The loser is the public, the winner is rich corporations, and New Jersey is now a chief enabler.

We're the bad boy of this "Bachelor"-like competition, offering some of the biggest subsidies, and forcing other states to do the same. Never has that been more apparent than in the escalating interstate fight over Amazon's second headquarters.

Gov. Chris Christie just offered the online retail giant $7 billion in city and state tax incentives to locate in Newark - nearly the biggest tax break ever, second only to Boeing's $8.7-billion handout from Washington state.

These are billions we could use to shore up transportation and housing, to improve our business climate and attract even more companies. Which is what we should be doing, instead of escalating this mutually-destructive bidding war. States should enter into a non-aggression pact, agreeing not to engage in these subsidy battles. If companies were forced to settle without them, the winners would be the taxpayers.

Yes. And states with the most favorable tax climate. Where does NJ rank?

I left these comments:

I agree that the tax incentive game is unfair, because it favors some companies over and/or at the expense of others.

But I think this kind of political bidding war is a legitimate and healthy form of competition. Why should politicians be able to go on taxing unfettered? Why should states be shielded from the destructive consequences of their own policies?

And if you really want to tamp the competitive pressure on New Jersey’s, get rid of the corporate income tax.  A business corporation—what Steve Jobs called “one of the most amazing inventions of humans”—is a legal and abstract framework for people to work together toward the a common productive mission. The money the company earns in revenues and profits stays with the company to further that mission, until and unless it is paid out in employee compensation, dividends, interest, and capital gains for investors, and mass market products to consumers—at which point it is taxed through sales taxes.

When you tax corporate profits, you are in essence double-taxing employees, investors, and consumers. In addition to their direct taxes, corporate taxes force employees to pay through lower wages, investors through lower income and capital gains, and consumers through higher prices and less innovation. Despite appeals to envy by politicians (and editorial writers) demagoguing about “rich corporations,” it is actually anyone associated with the corporation who pays the price of the corporate income tax, one way or another. That’s what makes the corporate income tax so dishonest and regressive. We can see the property taxes we pay. We can see the personal income taxes. We can see the sales taxes. But it’s not so clear that we are actually the ones paying the corporate income tax. The corporate income tax is a way for politicians to suck more money out of all of us without us seeing it.

The “rich corporations”? Do not ask for whom the corporate tax tolls. It tolls for us. In the end, only individuals pay taxes, because a business corporation is really just an association of individuals. NJ has the third highest corporate tax rate among the states; a flat 9%. No wonder NJ politicians have to “offer” big tax breaks.

New Jersey has a lot going for it. But NJ has the worst business tax climate in the nation. Instead of the $billions in annual tax breaks, we should become the 7th state to go corporate tax free. Abolishing the corporate income tax could substantially reduce the need for the state to bid for business and make NJ much more attractive to business. If lower taxes are good at attracting job-creation—and that’s the whole point of “tax incentives” competition—why not make the incentive permanent? And it would get rid of the most dishonest tax we have—the corporate income tax.

Related Reading:

The Left’s Insatiable Lust to Soak American Business

Fairness, not Envy, Should Be the Purpose of 'Tax Reform'

Corporate Tax Inversion is an Act of Economic Justice.

Toward Less-Unfair Corporate Taxes

Sierra Club's Jeff Tittel Smears Star-Ledger Article and its Contributors for Excluding Climate Religion from Hurricane Analysis

On September 22, 2017, the New Jersey Star-Ledger published an interesting article, Hurricane experts reveal why this season has been so destructive by Len Melisurgo. The article cited the combination of factors, including unusually warm ocean temperatures, lack of wind shear, and the positions of high pressure systems to explain the severity and number of this year’s tropical storms.

Not everyone was happy. New Jersey Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel, for example, wrote a Star-Ledger guest column blasting Melisurgo and the Star-Ledger:

In response to the NJ.com article “Hurricane experts reveal why this season has been so destructive”: This article discusses factors that have made this hurricane season one of the worst in history, but fails to mention the importance of climate change.

Climate change is playing a very serious role in this year’s devastating hurricane season. Forecasters predicted a more active hurricane season to begin with because of climate- change projections. Specifically, it is linked to warmer ocean temperatures. By denying climate change, we’re denying our future and allowing ourselves to become more vulnerable to larger and more frequent hurricanes

In a highly misleading paragraph, Tittel cites “more named storms per year in the last decade than the last 100 years” (without mentioning that more storms are detectable due to modern technology, like satellites, and more people able to observe them); “massive amounts of damage to communities and the environment from these storms” (without mentioning increased development and federal flood insurance); “four of the most devastating storms in history coming all within a few weeks of each other (which is explained convincing in Melisurgo’s article). “Hurricane Harvey had the most rain ever (actually, on record for Texas, not ever—and because the storm stalled out over Texas and Louisiana, not because it’s rainfall was unusual from a hurricane), Irma was the biggest storm in the Atlantic (but not the most intense, which was the 1935 Florida Keys hurricane), and Maria devastated Puerto Rico (the same Puerto Rico that has been hit with 28 hurricanes since 1950, 13 of them major).” He then says: “We can’t deny the impact that climate change is having on storm events.”

In conclusion, Tittel writes: “The Christie administration’s continuing denial of climate change is a denial of our future. Our state climatologist [David Robinson] works for the Christie administration and won’t even acknowledge the dangers of climate change.”

Tittel’s article has not yet been published online. But I left the following comments on Hurricane experts reveal why this season has been so destructive, edited and expanded for clarity:

In light of a guest column by Jeff Tittel criticizing this article for “fail[ing] to mention the importance of climate change,” I want to thank Len Melisurgo for an objective, informative article on the combination of atmospheric and oceanic conditions that cause active hurricane seasons like the current one.

And I want to thank Michael Priante and David Robinson for their expert contributions to the article.

I especially want to thank Robinson, who was specifically criticized by Jeff Tittel for not blaming climate change for the hurricane activity. Tittel asserted that “Climate change is playing a very serious role in this year’s devastating hurricane season.” But that is a faith-based assertion, not a scientific fact. Much research refutes that claim, including an August 2017 report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) saying that “It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.” NOAA notes that various modeling indicates future hurricane numbers and intensity is likely to increase in the 21st Century due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, with potential increases ranging from moderate to extreme, depending on the models used. But that is speculation, not scientifically demonstrated fact. Furthermore, the IPCC reports,

• "There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
• “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

It would be an insult to the readers to include climate change as a cause, without evidence, in an article about this year’s hurricanes. I would have immediately stopped reading and moved on if climate change was mentioned, having judged the article as unserious. Tittel has an irrational bias against fossil fuels, and his motives are political and dogmatic—bordering on religious zealotry. Robinson works for the government. In America, we have the separation of religion and state. Robinson would have not only distorted the issue if he followed Tittel’s advice. He would have come close to violating a key American principle.

Thanks again for the article. As a long-time weather buff, I hope you keep up the good work.

Related Reading:

The Atlantic: Exploiting Hurricane Disasters to Talk Climate is OK—Eric Worrall for WUWT

A Carbon Tax Won't Stop Hurricanes—James Agresti for FEE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

NOAA states that North Atlantic tropical storms show a “pronounced upward trend” since 1878, but this is because these records are “relatively sparse” in their early decades. After NOAA adjusts for the “estimated number of missing storms,” the trend in storm activity is “not significantly distinguishable from zero.” Furthermore, NOAA notes that the upward trend in the unadjusted data

is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic.

With regard to the most intense storms, NOAA reports that “the reported numbers of hurricanes were sufficiently high during the 1860s-1880s that again there is no significant positive trend in numbers beginning from that era…. This is without any adjustment for ‘missing hurricanes.’”

Falsely Smearing the Right as Anti-Immigrant

Last Fall, a call went out to boycott yogurt company Chobani because its immigrant founder, Hamdi Ulukaya, hires immigrant refugees.

The New York Times blames the boycott on “the extreme right.” Likewise, the New Jersey Star-Ledger blames “far-right bigots” and “nativist crazies” for the boycott. The Times also blames xenophobia, because only Chibani is being targeted even though many companies have pledged to hire refugees.

The Star-Ledger is right on the issue, but as usual waters down its message—in this case by sarcastically pointing out that Ulukaya “didn't start out with a $14 million loan from his father”—a stab at Trump—and criticisms of Trump’s business practices. It’s true that Trump stoked anti-immigrant fever in America. But what do Trump’s prior personal business practices have to do with the boycott?

The Star-Ledger also writes, near the end:

Why pick on Chobani? Likely because its CEO is an immigrant, and instead of "stealing jobs," a favorite right-wing talking point, he's created thousands of them. Human Rights Watch just called him "a xenophobe's nightmare."

By then I had had enough of the Star-Ledger’s mischaracterization of the boycott movement. So I left these comments:

I take issue with equating xenophobia with “the right wing.” The central hallmark of the Right is support for free market capitalism, which encompasses free trade and free migration. Pro-capitalists understand the enormous contributions that the “fresh blood” of immigration has and does make to America. That cannot happen without a robust capitalist nation that protects individual rights. Free trade and free migration among nations at peace with one another are two sides of the same capitalist coin: they are not only economically good, they are moral imperatives that are central to the concept of human rights. Also, Rightists don’t talk in ridiculous terms like “stealing jobs.” Job creators and their employees are not stealing jobs from anyone, no matter where they came from.

Anti-immigrant populism is in fact a hallmark of the social conservatives, not the political Right (even though social conservatives are usually lumped in with “the far Right”). Furthermore, xenophobia is alive and well on the Left. Bernie Sanders routinely rails against free trade, and he represents a wide swath of the Left as evidenced by his nearly upending Hillary Clinton’s presidential nomination. Free trade is nothing more that Americans trading with foreigners. Sanders is as much a “nativist crazie” for his anti-free trade stance as the Chobani boycotters are for their anti-immigrant stance.

I also want to point out that Hamdi Ulukaya is not the only “billionaire who actually looks out for the little guy” (the elitist Left’s derogatory term for hard-working, self-supporting middle class Americans). With few exceptions, virtually every modern billionaire made his fortune creating mass market products that benefit millions of average folks, building great businesses that create millions of jobs in the process. Most billionaires, and businessmen/entrepreneurs generally, make the world a much better place. It makes no difference whether he got his start with a large loan from his father or a small business loan. It’s what he makes of it that counts. If Ulukaya had started with a $14 million loan, his fortune would undoubtedly be even larger.

My wife and I have and will continue to enjoy Chobani yogurt. As a radical Right-winger, I say thank you Hamdi Ulukaya. Unlike the Star-Ledger, I mean it. Unlike the Star-Ledger, I’m not aligned with the envy crowd that crusades for the government to forcibly redistribute your wealth in the name of fighting income inequality. I support your right to keep, use, and pass on your fortune as you see fit. You earned it.

Related Reading:

Steve Forbes: Immigration Made Us Strong

Now, as Then, Immigrants are Individuals With Inalienable Rights

A Note to the Right regarding the “Alt-Right”—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

The Vital Function of the Left-Right Political Spectrum—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard