On This Veterans Day, A Word About Those 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 convey the essence of that post. I wrote:

The highest tribute I can pay to our fallen 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 for that radical set of ideals that is the United States of America.

So, I’d like to use this Veterans Day post to acknowledge the unsung hero of America’s veterans, 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. Rome fell, it’s statism and corruption rendering its economy unable any longer to support its military defenders. Ditto the socialism-embracing British Empire.

America's economy, historically the most productive society the world has ever seen, is the foundation that supports our military personnel. American taxpayers pay trillions of dollars, American defense contractors invest in and produce the most advanced weaponry in the world, weaponry that American soldiers rely upon to do their jobs and stay alive. 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 is the foundation of that foundation? What enabled the creation of the economic powerhouse that enabled the creation of our military powerhouse?

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, and free from the coercive interference of his fellow man. America was built not by sacrifice, as it is fashionable to assume, but by personal achievement.

So, let’s celebrate, along with our vets, the productive American of all income levels. Let’s celebrate the individual pursuit of happiness that is the fuel for that American. Let’s celebrate his willingness to pay for 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 more than a century. Let’s stand up and reject that “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.

Because that is what American veterans fought for.

Happy Veterans Day!!

-Mike LaFerrara

Related Reading:

Atlas Shrugged: America's Second Declaration of Independence

Two Views on Religious Exemptions from Anti-Discrimination Laws

Last March, I defended Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto of a bill that would allow business owners with sincerely held religious beliefs to refuse to serve gays. I wrote:

Legally forcing religious people to contract with gays is a violation of freedom of religion. But that is a consequence of a broader rights violation. The issue of religionists' right not to serve gays is not fundamentally a religious freedom issue, as I have argued. The issue is one of freedom of contract, a right derived from the broader principle of the right to freedom of association.

The Arizona law specifically targeted gays and protected the contract and associational rights only in a limited way and only of a narrow segment of the population—religiously oriented social conservatives. This is grossly unfair. What about the underlying laws banning private discrimination? What about non-religious people? Why don't their sincerely held non-religious convictions matter? Is it right for any special interest group to be granted special exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, laws that in and of themselves violate the rights of all? I think not.

The issue can not and should not be considered outside of the context of the broader rights to contract and association. The reason: Rights are universal, meaning they are held equally and at all times by all people, and under a proper government must be protected equally and at all times. The Arizona law obviously didn't meet that test.

The proper course for these social conservatives is to call for repeal of all laws banning private discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws violate the rights of individuals to choose their associations. Such laws should be rescinded. Remove these underlying, unjust laws, and religious freedom follows.

Jacob Sullum had a different view. In his article at Reason.com, Should Libertarians Support Religious Exceptions to Generally Applicable Laws?, Sullum wrote:

If all laws were legitimate and fair, the Supreme Court's position in Employment Division v. Smith (which I take to be Mazie's position as well) would make sense. To use the classic example (offered by the Court itself in the 1879 polygamy decision Reynolds v. United States), people should not be exempt from laws against murder simply because their religion demands human sacrifice. More generally, religion should not override laws that protect individual rights, which from a libertarian perspective is the main (or only) justification for government. So if people really did have a right to free birth control, allowing some employers to violate that right because of their religious beliefs could hardly be considered just. Since there is no such right, it seems to me that letting some people escape this unjustified mandate is better than forcing everyone to comply. I can see why people might be offended by such special treatment, but to me that is an opportunity for a broader discussion: If it seems reasonable to contemplate a religious exception to a generally applicable law, that is a pretty good reason to question the law itself.

I see Sullum’s point. But where does that leave equal protection under the law? In my aforementioned post, responding to a correspondent’s comment, I wrote:

The Arizona law didn’t apply equally to everyone. Once you start carving out special exemptions for special interests, we’re heading farther away from objective law. There’s enough of that going on already.

Food for thought.

Related Reading:

Private Sector Anti-Discrimination Laws are Rights-Violating and Destructive

Does rescinding laws banning private discrimination make a moral statement in support of bigotry?

Is RFRA Unconstitutional?—Sasha Volokh, Washington Post

Statist Trick: To "Justify" Rights-Violating Laws, Nationalize the Problem

The well-written 7/29/14 minimum wage letter in the NJ Star-Ledger by Joseph F. Benning (yesterday’s post) cited solid economic theory to back up his opposition to minimum wage laws. Correspondent greg102 offered supportive remarks in the comments section, noting “The letter is correct--according to Economics 101 labor is like any other resource or input and follows the law of supply and demand.”

In reply, correspondent Dellsey wrote (a bit sarcastically), “You're citing intro to economics as your defense of your opinion on a complex national issue that affects millions of people?”

This is the classic economics-moral dichotomy, dressed up in a collectivist wardrobe: Who cares about theory (reason) when people’s well-being is at stake?

I rebutted:

Statists who want to impose their values on others always rely on collectivist catchphrases to justify interfering in other people’s lives. This is not a "complex national issue." It is an individual issue. The financial terms of employment offered and the decision on whether or not to accept the terms is morally and rightfully a matter only between the individual employers and job seekers involved. The only interest a proper government has is in protecting individual rights, such as enforcing voluntary contracts and making laws against fraud and breach of contract.

One point I didn’t make is that, while economics certainly can be complex, the moral issue is quite simple and straight-forward.

Related Reading:

What Accounts for Many Americans’ Moral Schizophrenia?

The Smoking Collectivist Gun Behind the Welfare Statists' Bleeding Hearts

To Defeat Collectivism, Deny Collectivist Premises

The Economic and the Moral Case Against Minimum Wage Laws: Perfect Together

A 7/29/14 New Jersey Star-Ledger letter by Joseph F. Benning (Wage Hike Fallout) offered a very good condensation of the deleterious effects of minimum wage laws from an economic theory perspective, including the all-important role of incentives in economic activity. Benning also makes this economic point, which connects to serious moral implications:

And while it is true that some people will receive higher wages, it will be at the expense of others who will be fired or never hired.

The immoral is the impractical. The artificially higher pay of those lucky enough to keep their jobs is in effect blood money, extracted by force not just from employers but also would-be workers condemned to unemployment. This short letter is well worth reading.

I left these supportive comments:

Well said. And to those who would refute the truth of Benning’s letter, I pose this personal question: Is cost ever a consideration in your consumer spending decisions? Of course it is. So why wouldn’t it be any different for employers, in effect the consumers of labor?

More fundamentally, minimum wage laws are immoral, because they violate the rights of individuals to act on their own judgment in pursuit of their life values. The freedom to act on one’s judgment is the essence of liberty. The government’s proper job is to protect, not violate, individual rights, including the fundamental rights of employers and employees to negotiate mutually acceptable terms of employment, and contract on that basis without interference from his fellow man, including law-making government officials.

Minimum wage laws are economically destruction and morally corrupt, because contrary to the fundamental principles of liberty.

Related Reading:

How NOT to Fight a Minimum Wage Hike

Kristen Bell’s Spoonful of Coercion—Ari Armstrong

Election 2014: Readington Voters Make My Day

The Republican electoral sweep is welcome, but sharply tempered by the fact of social conservatives’ hold on the party. Nonetheless, there are bright spots. In an Election Day editorial, the Left-leaning New Jersey Star-Ledger hyperbolically predicted a planetary meltdown if the GOP captures the Senate. The editors cited three potential committee chairmen in an effort to derail the GOP juggernaut:

• Jim Inhofe, Environment and Public Works Committee, who “doubts climate change ‘is even a problem for human existence,’ and says it was invented by ‘alarmists’ who want to make ‘energy suppression. . . .the official policy of the United States.’”

• Ted Cruz, Subcommittee on Science and Space, who “would oversee most agencies seeking federal funding for scientific research, and whose perverse incuriosity can be condensed with his theory that ‘the problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in history of the world in which the climate is not changing.’”

• Ron Johnson, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, who “has called conservation groups an ‘environmental jihad,’ he has voted three times to rescind all carbon emission regulations. . .”

Well! What better endorsement for Republicans can one want? The Left has dominated the scientific funding and debate over climate change for far too long. Maybe, with these three in charge of key committees, rational viewpoints will get a fair hearing in Washington. Maybe they’ll even call Alex Epstein in for expert testimony.

More broadly, at the very least, the Obama agenda could be stymied.

For me, the highlight of Election 2014 was the apparent victories of John Broten and Sam Tropello over incumbents Julia Allen and Frank Gatti for Readington Township Committee. Readington is my home town. As reported by Renée Kiriluk-Hill for the Hunterdon County Democrat, the challengers pulled about 5600 votes against 5000 write-in votes for Allen and Gatti. (As of this posting, the write-in votes were still being counted, so the final results are not yet official.)

As I’ve noted, the Township’s eminent domain assault on Solberg Airport, designed to head off either airport expansion or other development, was the big issue in the township. I have been actively fighting against this action; e.g. click here and here. Broten and Tropello have vowed to work to stop it. Allen and Gatti, long-time office-holders in Readington, initiated the action some seven years ago, and ran an aggressive campaign to hold their seats and continue the assault.

So, for me, It was very satisfying that an electoral majority—albeit a slim one—saw fit to stop the injustice of eminent domain in Readington.

As to the national scene, congratulations to the GOP. Whatever the reasons for their “wave”, they now have yet another chance to advance a pro-liberty agenda.

Related Reading:

My Challenge To the GOP: A Philosophical Contract With America

Eminent Domain- Always an Abuse

Without Minimum Wage Laws, Would General Wages Plummet?

As an aside to yesterday's post concerning the NJ Star-Ledger editorial Minimum wage: Fine for you, not for me, I came across comments to the effect that without minimum wage laws, wages in general would plummet.

Here are the statements:

"If you let businesses get by with $4-$5 wages, it only encourages them to lower the wage, figuring you're going to go along.

“[A] free choice society...sounds like a downwardly mobile libertarian society to me.”

In answer to this correspondent, I replied:

Then how do you explain the fact that in 2013, just 4.3% of hourly workers in America earned minimum wage or less—down from 13.4% in 1979, just before the era of modest deregulation and lower tax rates commenced. Sounds to me like more liberty fosters upward mobility.

I guess the correspondent never figured that ambitious people wouldn't “go along,” and would seek employment elsewhere in search of higher pay; or that plenty of employers stand ready to draw workers away from those employers who pay sub-market wages. Like all minimum wage supporters, this correspondent needs a good economics textbook.

Related Reading:

Henry Hazlitt on Minimum Wage Laws

Congressman Lance's Honor Role of Campaign Donors

The proposed PennEast natural gas pipeline through Hunterdon County, New Jersey continues to be a hot button issue, including in regards to the upcoming election. Andrea Bonette’s Hunterdon County Democrat letter of 10/13/14 letter, Lance’s Dark Money Donors, is a case in point.

Bonette announces her opposition to the PennEast pipeline in the first paragraph:

We cannot find any benefits to the communities it would trash on its way through, carrying gas that they cannot access and which very likely is headed for China.

Leonard Lance is the incumbent Republican congressman from NJ’s 7th district, through which the pipeline will pass. Bonette says that Lance “would support “a new plan that protects property rights and preserves public and private lands [but has not] suggested stopping the whole project.” She follows that up with a list of donors from fossil fuel companies and groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, Williams cos., and Velaro. She then cites so-called “dark money”—anonymous campaign spending—in observing:

There is no way to know how much of that anonymous funding has been donated to support Lance’s re-election, but we can safely assume that the above-mentioned corporations have contributed to preserve their interest in promoting nonrenewable energy.

Bonette concludes by urging a vote for Janice Kovach, Lance’s Democrat challenger, who opposes the pipeline.

I left these comments:

Well, you convinced me to vote for Leonard Lance. That honor roll of donors representing the great companies that supply our vital energy tells me that Lance is on the right side of the energy issue.

It’s irrelevant  whether or not the gas transported through the pipeline is available to local community members. If “community benefit” rather than individual rights were the standard, then none of us would have fuel, because the fuel we use today gets to us by passing through other communities around the state and around the nation through the hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines currently in use, not to mention what passes through other communities via rail or tanker truck. It’s simply hypocritical to stand in the way of producers based on “community benefit.”

Furthermore, it is un-American. America is based on the sanctity and dignity of the individual, not the mob. The “community” is made up of sovereign individuals, and no individual or group of individuals has moral standing to claim to represent all community members. Individual rights, not the whims of community mobs, is the proper standard for evaluating this and similar projects.

What’s relevant is that property rights are protected, meaning that the pipeline company must get only voluntary permission from property owners to cross their land—i.e., no eminent domain. Every assurance should be made that the most advanced state-of-the-art technologies be used so as to maximize safety and minimize pollution to the extent technologically possible. As the writer herself acknowledges, Lance has pledged to “protect property rights and preserve public and private lands.” So what’s the beef?

Opponents of the pipeline rarely advance any valid reason for opposing the pipeline. They are climate change dogmatists whose religious-like zealotry for their “renewable energy” fantasy drives them to hamper the industrial progress that our lives depend upon by stifling the reliable, affordable, clean energy provided by fossil fuels—in this case, natural gas produced by the wonderful technology called “fracking.”

As to that “dark money”: It’s irrelevant where the donations came from. “Dark money” is a term concocted by and for the dark political ideology of statism. But individuals and associations of individuals have a right to spend anonymously on issue and campaign advocacy, and the government should protect, not violate, that right. What matters is what is said, not who said it. People who are more concerned about who than what are either incapable or afraid to offer counter-arguments, or are ad hominem types who intend to use the identities of the donors to poison the public debate through personal demonization or smear tactics. Is it any wonder that some donors prefer anonymity?

Related Reading:

My Letter Rebutting Sierra Club Opposition to N.J. PennEast Gas Pipeline

Rights, Fossil Fuel Dangers, Future Generations, and the PennEast Pipeline

Principles of a Free Society—Ayn Rand Institute

Collectivized “Rights”—Ayn Rand