Taking vs. Earning a "Livable Wage"

This letter appeared in the 5/21/13 New Jersey Star-Ledger:

Support decent wages
I’m tired of hearing so-called free-market advocates pan a living wage for the working poor.

As long as corporations such as Wal-Mart can shunt the cost of keeping their workers fed, healthy, clothed and housed on to taxpayers, they will. It’s foolish to let such employers control their markets with low prices while making enormous profits by taking advantage of the idea that a decent society won’t let their workers starve, live in a cardboard box or succumb to illnesses our medical system can readily treat.

Adopting the minimum-wage increase, which will be on the ballot throughout New Jersey on Nov. 5, is the least we can do to even the playing field for right-minded businesses, small and large.

Michael G. Busche, Sparta

Busche is writing in support of a proposed minimum wage amendment to the NJ constitution, which will be on the November ballot and which I have argued is a very bad idea. I left these comments:

Mr. Busche, I too am tired: I'm tired of phony do-gooders forcing others to pay for their alleged concern for some needy group.

Do you know what the "free" in free market means? It means freedom from physical force; in this case, the right of an employer and employee to voluntarily agree to terms of employment, including wages. Since rights are moral principles sanctioning a person's freedom to act on his own judgement in a social context, any violation of individual rights is immoral and contrary to a basic principle of a civil society.

Since you favor legally forcing employers to pay wages above what they would voluntarily agree to, you favor armed force as a valid means of social engagement. No decent society would permit it, because a society is an association of individuals considered equal before the law. When "society" seeks to guarantee that some individuals be "fed, healthy, clothed, and housed"--whether through labor laws like minimum wages or redistributionist programs--that means the government must turn other people into slaves to provide it.

Aggressive force is wrong, and force under cover of "law" and "do-good" delusions are the worst because it is dishonest and leaves the victims legally defenseless. Your first sentence is a moral statement, and it has nothing to do with anyone's arbitrary idea of "a living wage." Either you are for a free market, and thus peaceful coexistence among individuals, or you are not. There is no other choice. You've made yours. I've made mine.

Nobody is "panning a living wage for the working poor." Free market advocates oppose immoral rights-violating state coercion to force some people to provide what those workers could not earn through civil interaction with others.

As to Wal-Mart, another letter writer set the record straight. Christopher Jones demanded an apology from the Star-Ledger editorial board for an editorial he said was  "insulting to the 17,000 people such as I who work for Wal-Mart in New Jersey":

While The Star-Ledger may think our employment choice is “dismal,” we know better. Wal-Mart promoted 165,000 people last year to positions with more responsibility and higher pay; about three-quarters of our store management teams started as hourly associates. They earn between $50,000 and $250,000 a year.I should know. I started as a cashier in Oklahoma and, 14 years and nine promotions later, I’m a market manager in northern New Jersey, overseeing store operations in Woodbridge, Linden, Union, Kearny, Bayonne and Watchung.

This, Mr. Busche, is how the working poor earn a living wage--by working their way up and out of "working poor" status. Any other way of "providing" for the working poor is immoral and un-American. 

The freer the market is, the better chance that intelligent, motivated entry-level workers can flourish economically. Minimum wage laws destroy the kind of entry-level jobs from which young workers like Christopher Jones get their chance, effectively kicking the lower rungs of the economic ladder of success out from under the feet of the ambitious poor. 

No decent society would kill jobs, which only kills self-esteem and thus hope, happiness and self-respect by turning the resulting unemployed into parasitical wards of the state. If you actually cared about improving the lot of the working poor, you would become an unabashed "so-called free market advocate." 

Related Reading:

Is Wal-Mart to Blame for the Growing Use of Food Stamps?

End, Don't Raise, Minimum Wage Laws

Making Private Donations Anonymously is a Right

In my post of May 20, 2013, Freedom of Speech and Press are Linked, I argued that financial contributors to political issue advocacy groups have an inalienable right to remain anonymous. The issue has surfaced in this year's New Jersey gubernatorial race between Republican incumbent Governor Chris Christie and Democrat State Senator Barbara Buono.

One correspondent, mpcarrollr25, asked in relation to the issue of undisclosed donations to political advocacy groups: "Does the identity of the messenger impact the merits of the message?" He then proceeded to explain why it does not:

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who's behind the anti-Christie adds: people who favor Big Government or make their living from it. So what? The merits of the ideas they advance . . . should stand on their own.
Put simply, the message is true, or not, regardless of the identity of the financiers thereof. 

mpcarrollr25 gets to the heart of the matter, from a practical perspective. I replied, "No. You are spot-on, mp. Those who focus on who is speaking as opposed to what is being said are evading the responsibility of taking a stand on the issues."

Another correspondent, however, replied "yes," saying "It helps to identify bias and conflicts of interest. If a person is advocating for a law that will benefit the company they own or the industry they work in, wouldn't that affect your impression of what they say?"

Leaving aside his unfortunate negative reference to selfishness--a subject for another day--mpcarrollr25 responded nicely. His comments in full:

If someone is making minimum wage and wants a governmentally mandated increase, or is gay and advocates for gay marriage, he might be legitimately accused of advocating selfishly. But if one makes same arguments anonymously, the merits of the assertions cannot be so easily dismissed as the mere products of bias or self interest. Put differently if one doesn't know the messenger, one needs to address the merits of the message rather than dismiss it as the product of self interest or launch an ad hominem attack on the messenger. We would be better served if we dealt with the merits of a particular proposal rather than concerning ourselves overmuch with the identity of the messenger. (The NRA or the NJEA might, perchance, be right occasionally, and the substance of the argument rather than the identity of the advocate should be our focus.) [Note; I corrected several misspellings.]

I couldn't have explained the practical case for the right to make anonymous contributions better than mpcarrollr25. He exposes the emptiness of the argument for disclosure laws, which would violate free speech rights to no practical benefit whatsoever.
Related Reading:

Freedom of Speech and Press are Linked

Real vs. Our Pseudo Health Insurance

Dr. Beth Haynes has a great piece over at The Huffington Post titled Almost All Americans Lack Health Insurance. Haynes addresses an often side-stepped question relating to the healthcare debate: What, exactly, is health insurance? It's an important question, and as the title states, few of us have real health insurance.

Real insurance, she notes, "is designed as a means to pay for unexpected, unpredictable, very expensive occurrences outside of the control of the policyholder." That is not what our current, government controlled health insurance does. Instead, "insurance" covers myriad routine expenses that would never be included in properly structured insurance.

This state of affairs has destructive consequences for our healthcare. Haynes explains:

Thanks to this quirk, when we are at our most vulnerable, we are less protected. The bottom line: Our premium dollars will only cover so much. Requiring first-dollar coverage for predictable, relatively affordable expenses leaves fewer funds available to cover truly catastrophic events. And that means "insurance" companies are forced into skimping on items that could and most likely would be covered by real insurance. This trend is severely eroding our ability to protect ourselves from medical disasters.

Haynes goes on to cite a specific example of this aspect in practice; premature infant care. She provides evidence to show how insurers and doctors are increasingly pressured to skimp on expensive "preemie" care in order to have the money to cover mandated routine expenses like normal births and well-child checks. 

I left these comments:

The reference to premature infants is very personal to me.

My granddaughter Madeline was born at 25 weeks. She spent the first 2-1/2 months in a hospital NICU, followed by in-home care for a period. The insurance company paid what they were contractually obligated to pay, which ran into the six figures. My daughter and son-in-law paid only about $4000 out of pocket. That's what insurance is for.

Yet, under any government controlled, central planning schemes like ObamaCare, "premies" like Madeline, now a healthy 10-year-old, will be killed off by "cost effectiveness" death panels (except for those born to the very rich); so that others can get "free" annual checkups, birth control, flu shots, or teeth cleanings.

Great article!

In answer to StillRockin77, who  wrote:

“Until we eliminate private health insurance companies from the equation, we will NEVER have an effective health care system in this country. PERIOD.”

I replied:

StillRockin77; People have a fundamental right to organize insurance companies and sell policies to willing buyers. It's called freedom of contract, a form of voluntary association. Anyone who disapproves of private insurance is free not to purchase private insurance. No one has a moral right to forbid other consumers and the company from voluntarily contracting.

When you say that "we" should "eliminate private health insurance companies," you are advocating dictatorship.

As Paul Hsieh notes over at FIRM, "Instead of genuine insurance, we are moving towards a system of bad pre-paid care."

What does it Mean to Say that Government is the Individual's "Agent of Self-defense?"

A week after the publication of my letter Gun Debate Out of Focus, a rebuttal letter appeared in the NJ Star-Ledger, taking me too task fo this statement:

As the people’s designated agent of self-defense, holding a legal monopoly on the use of physical force, the government has a role in overseeing the use of instruments of deadly force. Therefore, the government may properly make objective rules regarding gun ownership, much the way as it has rules regarding who may obtain a driver’s license.

Under the heading I’ll defend myself, John K. Tauscher wrote, in part: 

The term “agent of self-defense” is an oxymoron, as the definition of “self-defense” would suggest. I have not delegated my personal defense or the defense of my family to anyone, nor would I want to. In public, the police or any other government agency has neither the will, the means nor the legal obligation to provide for citizens’ personal protection. I will provide for my own protection, by using judgment and whatever physical tools are at my disposal. To whom would we turn for the defense of our liberty when the aggressor is the government itself? That is, after all, the sole reason for the existence of the Second Amendment.

My statement obviously opened a can of worms. Given that letters have strict word limits, it's impossible to not leave interpretation open to implication. I answered Tauscher's rebuttal in the comments section:

John;

Letters are too short to deeply explore complex issues. If I had more space, I believe you would see that we are in essential agreement on this issue. Since letters are short and only one letter per person per month is allowed, let me elaborate here, and hope you read it.

“Agent of self-defense” is not an oxymoron.

The sole proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights. As the Declaration of Independence states—“To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” What does this mean, if not to be the individual’s designated agent of self-defense? 

Self-defense entails not only repelling an aggressor in the act of committing a crime, but tracking down, arresting, prosecuting, extracting restitution for his victims, and meting out appropriate penalties to the perpetrator. These functions need to be placed under objective laws and processes—meaning, a government. 

There is good reason for this. A society in which everyone acts as his own judge, jury, and executioner is not a civil society but anarchy. To live in a civilized society, an individual must be willing to place the retaliatory use of force (his personal self-defense) under objective control and oversight. This does not mean that citizens do not have the right to defend themselves when they are in imminent danger and the government is not there to protect them, such as during an armed break-in where there is no time to call 911. But even then, the government must objectively define the limits of the citizen’s defensive use of force, and the citizen must justify his actions to the government. 

But designating government as the citizen’s agent of self-defense does not mean giving up the right of self-defense. The government, at least as the Founders conceived it, is only the people’s agent or servant, after all. The right to self-defense is fundamentally an individual right, which is why I concluded my letter with “The proper purpose of gun legislation should be to protect the rights of upstanding citizens to own guns for self-defense or recreational purposes.”

“To whom would we turn for the defense of our liberty when the aggressor is the government itself?” 
 
The government already is the aggressor in myriad ways. Aggression is the nature of the regulatory welfare state. What do you want to do, start shooting it out with the cops?; with our nuclear and drone-armed military?  
 
No. We would turn first to free speech to advocate the right ideas and work to roll back government interference in our lives. We would educate people on the proper purpose of government and the moral concept of inalienable individual rights. 

Related Reading:

Reisman: We Need Gun Control--for Our Government

Gun Control Should Focus on Principles, Not Guns

The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty by Craig Biddle

Why We Need Freedom From Religion

Have you ever heard some activist say, "In America, we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion?" My latest post at The Objective Standard is up. I ask the question, "Do we properly have freedom from religion?"

Learn why the answer is yes by reading my post Freedom Of Religion Demands Freedom From Religion.

As an afterword, I would point out that the First Amendment clearly supports this view.

The First Amendment specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The principle involved has one meaning and one meaning only: No one shall be able to employ the coercive legal machinery of government in any way or form to impose his religious views on others—that is, everyone is guaranteed freedom from religion.

Freedom from religion is the first principle that makes possible the second of the First Amendment’s Separation mandates; that "congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You can not have freedom of religion, unless your inalienable right to freedom from religion is protected. The link between the two principles was understood by the Founding Fathers, and the First Amendment is a clear statement to that effect.

Related Reading:

Jefferson and the Separation of Church and State

On Church-State Separation

Deported Immigrant had a Right to Be Here

Attorney Elissa Steglich tells the story of a deported immigrant, who goes unnamed. This immigrant came to America legally, seeking asylum from an African country where "he was brave enough to do his part to encourage democracy. He spoke out against authoritarian rule and was persecuted." In the ten years he was here, he established a productive career and a family, including three children, all of whom are American citizens. His "crime": He overstayed his visa, and was arrested, detained, and forcibly deported.

After reading this sad story, I posted these comments:

This story is tragic, both for this man and for America's Founding ideals. America is the nation of individual rights, and this man's rights have been violated. He presumably posed no national security risk, did not have a criminal record, and carried no infectious disease. Such exceptions aside, he should have been allowed to remain here. People have a right to immigrate here whether they are seeking asylum or not. (The right to immigrate does not imply the right to citizenship. That is a separate issue and should not be included in immigration reform.)

Individual rights means that every person has an inalienable right to live and work where he pleases, so long as he poses no threat to the rights of the citizens of the country of his choice. America, in theory, stands for this principle. We should live up to it.

In answer to a reply that states that "It is a PRIVILEGE not a right," I said:

Freedom is a "privilege?" The fundamental premise that America was Founded on is that freedom means inalienable individual rights, possessed by all people at all times. A privilege is something granted by an authority like a king. A right belongs to the individual as a requirement of his nature, and can neither be granted nor rescinded by any king, theocrat, or democratic majority. Rights are either recognized and protected, or they are not. In America, rights are recognized and protected--at least, in theory--as stated in our philosophical blueprint, the Declaration of Independence.

In answer to the same respondent after he indicated he was referring to citizenship, I wrote:

To be clear, citizenship is not a right. The "path to citizenship" should be long and grueling  and granted selectively to people who pledge allegiance to the basic principles governing this country (principles that too many Americans have forgotten). If that's what you are referring to, I agree with you. My point concerns immigration only, as I made clear.

Most of our political leaders, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, profess belief on some level in free trade--the right of individuals to trade with others regardless of where they live. But the principle of trade presupposes production, because one can not trade what one has not produced. It follows that one has a right to live where he believes he can be most productive and happy, as he chooses. Freedom of trade and freedom of migration are corollaries.

Finally, some correspondents commented that immigrants soak up government benefits like free healthcare.  To one, I commented:

The "cost to taxpayers" is not a problem of immigration. It is a problem of the welfare state, which forcibly redistributes wealth to dole out "free" healthcare, "free" education, etc. There are plenty of Americans mooching off of the system while contributing little or nothing in taxes. Does it really make any difference whether the parasite is an illegal immigrant or an American citizen? If America was only a place to work, make money, and take care of yourself and you family in freedom, rather than leech and take money and benefits seized from others, then only productive people would be incentivized to come here. This would clearly be to America's economic benefit, as it was before the rise of the welfare state.

We should be focusing our energies on phasing out the welfare state, not keeping productive people out.

America is a sovereign country, which is why citizenship is not an inalienable right. But America is not a tribal nation. Americans are not a collective that owns the land mass our country is situated on. Americans as individuals (or voluntary associations of individuals) have a right only to the property they legally own. Americans have no more right to keep immigrants out than native American Indian tribes had to keep Europeans out.

Related Reading:

Time to Rethink Immigration

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants is not Enough, They Deserve an Apology by Harry Binswanger

Dueling Letters Over Rights

The New Jersey Star-Ledger has published my letter regarding the Origin of our rights on July 10th, 2013. It was in rebuttal to a letter published on July 3rd, 2013.

Here is my letter:

A letter to the editor (“Where rights come from,” July 3) asserted that “our rights come from government, (not) God.” In fact, rights come from neither. If they did, they would be privileges, not rights.

Rights are moral principles logically derived from the factual requirements of man’s nature. Since man’s primary means of survival is his reasoning mind, man the individual must logically be free to act on his reasoned judgment, so long as his actions don’t infringe on the same rights of others.

The principle of rights sanctions every individual’s freedom, in a social context, to take such actions as he may deem necessary to live and flourish — such as choosing and pursuing his career goals; earning, keeping and disposing of property; choosing his romantic and marital partners, associating and trading with others by mutual consent, etc.

Individual rights, properly understood, are inalienable; meaning, they cannot be granted nor taken away by government officials, self-proclaimed spokesmen for “God,” or any other authority.

While rights don’t come from government, government does have a limited but vital — and, unfortunately, long-forgotten — function: to legally recognize and protect individual rights.

Michael A. LaFerrara, Flemington

Related Reading:

Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society by Craig Biddle