More ‘Dark Money’ Nonsense in New Jersey

The drumbeat goes on to pass New Jersey’s “dark money” bill into law. Under the interesting title To combat mistrust, the public needs to know who’s giving politicians their cash, State Senator Troy Singleton is the latest to beat the compulsory disclosure drum. Here are some excerpts:

In recent years, independent expenditure campaign committees have become a growing influence over our electoral process – not just here in New Jersey, but nationally as well. They funnel millions and millions of dollars in order to sway elections without ever disclosing the identities of their donors. This has led to a system that is dominated by wealthy special interests who remain anonymous.

These clandestine entities live in the shadows of our political system, with benign sounding names designed to conceal donors’ identities and their true intentions. Their funding is known as “dark money” for a reason – to keep the public in the dark and unenlightened.

The public has a right to know who funds the political ads they see on television, encounter on social media, and hear on the radio. Without knowing what interests are behind the information, they are unable to make informed decisions.[!]

To combat that feeling of mistrust, we need real campaign finance reform. That is why I’ve been working closely with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission since 2016 to craft legislation that would provide greater transparency through heightened disclosure, which I believe is necessary to empower voters to hold all of us elected representatives accountable. In the wake of the United State Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision, we saw how drastically the voices of average citizens were drowned out in today’s political structure, which impedes the democratic process.

The "politics of personal destruction," a phrase once made popular by former President Bill Clinton, has never been, nor will it ever be, my objective or motivation in crafting public policy.

Ever since Citizens United, the strongest victory for freedom of speech in a long time, the statists of both parties have been trying to work around the decision. Compulsory disclosure is one tactic.

All emphasized phrases in the above excerpts are mine. I posted these comments:

The “voices of average citizens” are not “drowned out” by anonymous expenditures; not my voice or anyone else’s. That ridiculous catchphrase is hollow. Each of us is free to consider the issues and candidates before we vote. Such spending amplifies the issues, fosters debate, and helps us decide.

The “public”—including the government—has no “right to know” how private individuals spend their money on political activism. Political expression is an inalienable individual right. The essence of the democratic process is expression and debate geared precisely toward the goal of “swaying” and “influencing our elections and governmental processes”; that is, persuading others to vote a certain way.

The "politics of personal destruction" is precisely what mandatory disclosure would expose activists to. That may not be Singleton’s motive. What about others? That political weapon shouldn’t be unleashed at all. Spending is integral to free speech. Anonymous spending equals anonymous speech. Anonymous speech has been sanctioned by Supreme Court justices John Harlin II, Hugo Black, John Paul Stevens, and Clarence Thomas. As SCOTUS ruled in NAACP vs. Alabama [1958], “compelled disclosure” impairs individuals’ “collective effort to foster beliefs” by exposing them to “manifestations of public hostility,” violating fundamental rights to free association and privacy thereof, free speech, and due process. So-called “dark money” is an expression of these rights and should be protected.

The political class and its media cohorts are trying to gin up paranoia about some underworld of “dark money.” It seeks “transparency” so it can demonize and intimidate private activists, especially dissenters, into silence. Why? Precisely because it doesn’t like being held accountable.

Related Reading:

NJ’s ‘Dark Money’ Bill an Attack on Intellectual Freedom

NJ’s ‘Dark Money’ Bill is an Assault on Free Speech

The Anti-Free Speech Fallacy of ‘Dark Money’

‘Dark Money’ is Free Speech. Protect It

Campaign Finance: Free Speech, Not Disclosure, is the Main Issue

Kill New Jersey’s ‘Dark Money’ Ban

Making Private Donations Anonymously is a Right

Yes, ‘Big Money’ in Politics Fosters Ideological Debate—and That’s a Good Thing

Ideas and Debate, not Disclosure, "Make for Better Voter

It’s Time to Listen to the ‘Climate Denialists’

Climate catastrophists have degenerated into hysteria. When we’re told to tow their political line or the world will end in (fill in the blank), it is obvious to me that they’re essentially admitting that their arguments  are hollow. Case in point, a recent New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial, Trump, climate change, and our Orwellian future. The editorial was published as a response to a bout of severe weather in New Jersey and elsewhere:

The usual warnings have been fast and furious since last week. Tornadoes strafed the national beltline — through Kansas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, even reaching Northwest Jersey — and raised the yearly death toll to 38. Floods are inundating Oklahoma, Arkansas and Iowa. The Gulf Coast region shudders with the start of another hurricane season.

Tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes--Oh My! Tornadoes in NJ, oh my--except that tornadoes are not uncommon in NJ. We’ve gotten to the point that routine weather events are peddled as “proof” of climate change, which is automatically assumed to mean impending disaster.

So President Trump decided this would be a good time to stifle research on the long-term impact of climate change, notably the catastrophic events that will result from it.

Get that? “Will”--not may. In fact, Trump’s policies on climate and energy are among his best. He’s trying to adjust our government’s policies to the actual facts, not the mythologies of the Leftist political climate establishment. Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist who has studied the issue of weather disasters and climate change. All of the available data from both private and government studies “don’t support [politicized] claims that the rising costs of climate disaster are due in any part to human influence on climate.” Nor, “based on the current expectations of the climate science community, . . . there is presently very little basis for expecting that changes in climate will lead to a discernible increase in the costs, severity, or frequency of disasters any time soon.” [page 6-7]

As is common among the climate Left, the Star-Ledger smears distinguished scientists like Princeton's William Happer as a "denialist crank" rather than consider what he actually has to contribute to the issue. I posted these comments, expanded and slightly edited for clarity:

But what are the ‘denialists’ actually saying? What do they say that the smear-mongers don’t want you to know? If you look behind that smear, you find a mountain of research by thousands of scientists and institutions giving us the truth: There is no “climate crisis.” Industrial progress ended it. There is no evidence of a destructive  increase in extreme weather or climate damage. Human activity is likely contributing to the changing climate, but current climate change is well within the range of natural variability.

And the facts back the “deniers”—the skeptics of climate catastrophism. The summaries of the IPCC and the NCA are written by political hacks doing the bidding of a statist political agenda. They distort facts from their own reports.

When every routine weather event, such as the tornado, is peddled as “evidence”—when you hear garbage like “Trump’s strategy [is] to make the country uninhabitable”—you know the catastrophist statists are getting desperate. And the Star-Ledger labels William Happer, a distinguished physicists with a long career, a “crank”?

If you care about your grandkids, you should embrace continued economic progress, not energy deprivation. You should embrace individual freedom, not the socialist agendas of the climate catastrophists. You should realize that reliable energy like fossil and nuclear are vital to human well-being, climate livability, and safety—and reject the catastrophists who want to take it way. The catastrophists do not have human well-being, or “future generations,” at heart. Get objective assessments of the facts from people like Alex Epstein, Ronald Bailey, and Roger Pielke Jr., and institutions like the NIPCC and Cato.

Government “assessments” are politicized science. It’s time to get the politics out of the science. If you are drawing conclusions on human activity and climate change without consulting the “deniers,” your opinions are worthless. Given the serious attacks on our lives, freedom, and prosperity that the climate catastrophists are proposing as policy “solutions” to their mythical “climate crisis,” it is imperative that people get the whole story by listening to what the “denialists” have to say. Science is on the denialists’--or progressive lukewarmers’--side.

Related Reading:

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change, second edition--Roger Pielke Jr.

New U.N. Study Shows Climate Catastrophists Getting More Open About their Totalitarian Designs

The 'Watermelon' Analogy is Real, and it is Dangerous

‘Climate Crisis’: The Dem’s Path to Totalitarian Socialism

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels—Alex Epstein

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey

Trump Provides the Right Kind of Leadership in Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord

Related Listening:

Climate change: an apocalypse, catastrophe, or annoyance? | Don Watkins and Alex Epstein

Was Ayn Rand a 'Hypocrite'? Does it Matter to Objectivism?

In  QUORA: Why is it so difficult for many people to understand that selfishness is the middle between altruism and selfism when reading Ayn Rand?, Elesa Zehndorfer answered:

Because Ayn Rand was horribly self interested [sic], despised poor people, reified business, wrote horribly and became the ultimate hypocrite in her twilight years when she accepted state financial aid. Her theory was very weak, philosophically poor but extremely pretentious and simply did not hold up to scrutiny whatsoever.

Zehndorfer doesn’t provide any example of “scrutiny” that Rand’s “poor” philosophy doesn’t “hold up” under. But I felt like answering, anyway.

I replied:

“Ayn Rand was . . . the ultimate hypocrite in her twilight years when she accepted state financial aid.”

As a Social Security recipient who is a conscientious objector to the program, I find this highly offensive.

As far as I can tell, the “state financial aid” Rand accepted was Medicare, a coercive government program that she, like everyone else, was and is forced to pay into, under threat of being dragged off in handcuffs and thrown into a prison cell for tax evasion. So accepting promised benefits of a coercive government program one is forced to pay for, even if morally opposed to the program, is not hypocrisy. It is justice. There is no moral conflict there. If you paid for it, you’re entitled to it, no ideological test required.

The opposite view focuses only on the benefits, while dishonestly ignoring the taxes. Since we are forced into Medicare and Social Security, we are entitled to the promised benefits for the same reason we are entitled to get out wallets back from a street thug who robbed us at gunpoint. When it comes to forced redistribution of wealth, there is no essential difference between turning over your wallet to the thug to avoid being shot or turning over your money to the tax collector to avoid being jailed.

The hypocrite accusation is a sleazy smear of anyone who advocates for a free society and rolling back the welfare state. I oppose tax-funded libraries and tax-funded state unemployment “insurance”. Am I a hypocrite for using the local public library, which my taxes pay for it? Am I a hypocrite for collecting state unemployment benefits if laid off, which my taxes pay for? The list can go on and on. It’s cruel to say it’s moral to force me to pay for the welfare state, but not moral to collect the promised benefits because I have dissenting views. The hypocrite accusation is a sneaky little gimmick to discredit and silence opponents of welfare statism.

Elesa replied, again without backup and again from ad hominem:

Hi Michael, Have you read Ayn Rands [sic] books? I have - all of them. I find her writing offensive and poorly thrown together. In the context of knowing her writing very well, my comments are ones I stand by completely. And yes, she was a hypocrite, if you know her life and philosophising well.

Elisa: Rand may have been hypocritical in some areas—I don’t know. I did not personally know her. But taking Medicare was not one of them, in my view. Yes, I have read all of Rand’s work—often more than once. But I do not conflate her personal life and opinions with her philosophy, which she called Objectivism. A philosopher's life is certainly open to examination. But I also believe a philosophy should be judged on its own merits, not the philosopher's personal behavior. (Personally, whatever her faults, I think she epitomizes the American Dream—a poor immigrant making something of her life.)

I have also read many Objectivist critiques. I believe I have a good grasp of Objectivism and many of the arguments against, and I find Objectivism to be a great guide to live by. So, we disagree. People should not draw final conclusions based on what you or I say, though, but should read her for themselves. Her writing is plenty clear. Sincerely, Mike. [PS; I’m puzzled by your charge that Rand “despised poor people.” I know of nothing about Objectivism or of her fiction and nonfiction writings that supports that view.]

Related Reading:

My answer to QUORA: ‘Why is it so difficult for many people to understand that selfishness is the middle between altruism and selfism when reading Ayn Rand?’

QUORA: Did Ayn Rand really accept Social Security and Medicare in the late 1970's?

QUORA: 'How do fans of Ayn Rand's work feel about the fact that she used social security?'

Social Security and the "Hypocrisy" Charge

QUORA: Is Ayn Rand's 'Selfishness' 'the middle between altruism and selfism?'

QUORA: Why is it so difficult for many people to understand that selfishness is the middle between altruism and selfism when reading Ayn Rand?

I posted this answer:

I think the lack of understanding stems from the deep-seated moral preconceptions most of us are inculcated with. To understand Rand’s concept of morality, “the Objectivist Ethics”, one must completely set aside the pre-conceptions about altruism and selfishness and the purpose of morality, and essentially start from scratch with a mental moral blank slate. That’s very hard to do. It was for me. It took time to grow into the understanding. My preconceived notions of altruism as the good and selfishness as evil kept getting in the way.

Once you cast aside this conventional understanding of altruism as the good and selfishness as the bad and morality as solely about how you treat others, you are on your way to understanding the Objectivist Ethics, which Rand termed rational selfishness to distinguish her reasoning from the biases of our preconceived notions.

Understanding rational selfishness is hard. But once you grasp it, a funny thing happens: It clicks for you that in many ways, you and most people live more like rationally selfish individualists than altruists—and that doing so does not require sacrificing yourself to others or sacrificing others to yourself. You realize that being rationally selfish is not only conducive to a good and flourishing life, but also conducive to mutually rewarding relationships with others; it is vital to both. Quite simply, you can’t live right without being selfish—rationally selfish. Achieving a life the best it can be is only possible to the extent that you act rationally selfish. Then it hits you: Rand didn’t so much as invent a new ethics as articulate explicitly something most of us try to be most of the time—only don’t know it and don’t see it as virtuous. She just taught us how to be properly selfish and that it is good, thus removing the guilt of living for ourselves.

However, it’s not only a matter of not understanding. I’m convinced there are people for whom understanding Rand is not the problem. There are people who simply like the conventional view that altruism is good and selfishness is bad, because it gives them a rationalization to use other people as means to their own ends. After all, if living for others is the ideal, then why not be “others,” and demand that they live for me? Why be immoral and selfishly keep what I earn for myself? Why not take the altruists at their word? If modern moralists are right, then my needs grant me a moral entitlement to other people’s lives and property, which is their duty to provide. The conventional view of morality is tailor-made for the unscrupulous—the greedsters and predators and socialists—and they take full advantage of it.

As to the question, I looked up “selfism” in my 1979 Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. The definition at that time, when Rand was still alive, is simply “absolute selfishness. [rare.]”—whatever that means. I don’t remember Rand ever using the term selfism in her writings, perhaps because it’s so vague. Anyway, I can see why someone could think of Rand’s selfishness as a middle between altruism and selfism. But I don’t think that’s accurate. If “absolute selfishness” means exploiting or sacrificing others to self, then it is merely the flip side of the altruist coin, which calls for sacrifice of self to others. Rational selfishness stands against both, instead calling for non-sacrificial, win-win relationships based on what Ayn Rand called the trader principle. Ayn Rand didn't propose a middle ground. She proposed a third moral alternative.

Related Reading:

QUORA *: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’

Books to Aid in Understanding Rational Selfishness

Why be moral? Your life depends on it!—Jaana Woiceshyn: “To say that many people are confused about morality is an understatement. Yet, our lives depend on getting morality right.”

Ilene Skeen’s answer, which I “upvoted.”

Related Viewing:

Yaron Brook Responds to Ben Shapiro's view of Objectivism: Regarding altruism, trade, happiness, rational selfishness, and hedonism.

‘Radical’ Should Not be Whitewashed from Our Language

In Anti-Muslim memes have no place in our politics, the New Jersey Star-Ledger opined:

There is a flyer circulating among voters in Piscataway [NJ] that uses the kind of coded anti-Muslim language that makes most of us uneasy.

The bigger problem is that the person who funded the flyer — powerful state Senator Bob Smith, the Middlesex Democrat — doesn’t see the necessity to repudiate it or apologize for it.

The language used against their opponents from the Central Jersey Progressive Democrats is unambiguous: Naming an outspoken and admired Muslim school board member, the MCDO called the opposing slate “a radical group under the leadership of Atif Nazir that wants to take over our township government. We cannot let that happen.”

The Star-Ledger quoted one opponent as calling the use of the term radical as “disgraceful” and “absolutely inappropriate.” “You can oppose their ideas,” he said, “but to use such a term violates the spirit of the political process.” [!!!--italics mine]

The Star-Ledger uses terms like “coded” and “dog-whistle stuff” to tarnish the term radical. Mind you, this is the same editorial gang that routinely labels people who oppose the Left’s climate catastrophist agenda as “deniers” to equate dissenters with Holocaust deniers.

For some strange reason, the comments section of the op-ed is closed on the same day it was published in the Star-Ledger print edition, 5/27/19. So I posted the comments I would have added to the article comments on my Facebook page. From my Facebook Page:

‘Radical’ means fundamental, far-reaching change. In and of itself, the term has no moral import. Good or bad, right or wrong, depends on what a person is radical about. The Founding Fathers were radicals: They declared that the individual is free and sovereign, not the subject of any monarchy or other supreme ruler. Today, OAC has declared herself a radical: She seeks to fully transform America into a socialist state. The sect of Islam that seeks a worldwide caliphate that subjugates the individual to totalitarian Sharia law is radical. I consider myself a radical for Americanism in alignment with the Founders and Ayn Rand.

“Radical” is a valid term. Whitewashing language by eliminating certain words from political flyers is the tool of people who want to hide something, or avoid answering what another has to say. Smith’s flyer should be challenged. But demonizing the flyer for the use of the word “radical” without answering is cowardly. Backers of the flyer should be held accountable for the description of the Nazir group as radical, and challenged to back it up. It is up to the voters to decide if the description of Nazir’s ideas as radical is valid or appropriate.

Smith and his supporters should not apologize nor repudiate. Initiating such a debate is perfectly consistent with “the spirit of the political process.” The Star-Ledger should apologize for demonizing Smith as “anti-Muslim.”

Related Reading:

‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ is Not a Bigoted Term

Education Activist Michelle Rhee is Courageous, but No “Radical”

Islamic “Paranoia” Goes Both Ways

A Welcome Recognition of the Islamist Threat from a ‘Mainstream’ Source

Murphy’s Veto of NJ’s ‘Dark Money’ Ban Should Be Unconditional

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy “conditionally” vetoed a bipartisan “dark money” disclosure bill that would have forced political advocacy groups to publicize their donors. In GOVERNOR’S VETO OF THE ‘DARK MONEY’ BILL IS WRONG FOR NEW JERSEY, NJ Spotlight’s David Goodman railed against the veto, criticizing “the governor’s misunderstanding of transparency in combating dark money’s corruption of politics and elections.” Goodman continued:

So, where do we go from here? In the past two years, almost $100 million in untraceable dark money has flowed into New Jersey elections. Special interests can manipulate elections by shuttling their money through nonprofits, corporations, and other outside groups. These groups, under the current law, do not have to disclose their donors, meaning that those special interests function in secret. Without S-1500, New Jersey voters cannot know who is trying to buy their vote.

Goodman and his ilk never explain, or offer proof of, how “untraceable dark money” corrupts politics, or manipulates elections, or buys votes.

I posted these comments:

“Untraceable dark money”, “manipulate elections”, “buy their vote”, “transparency” are hollow catchphrases meant to equate free speech to some sinister underworld. But what we’re talking about is private citizens merely seeking to express themselves in the political process—to “influence”—that is persuade—people to vote a certain way. And whether expenditures are done cooperatively, through PACs or advocacy groups, or individually, anonymity is an inalienable right. It’s especially important to dissenters or unpopular viewpoints, which could bring social, political, or economic persecution. There are many people, including politicians, who love demonizing people for their viewpoints. A person who doesn’t want to risk such attacks shouldn't have to shut up.

And that’s the real “corruption of politics and elections”--the politicians desire to escape the “corruption” of public criticism and scrutiny. “Dark money” bans are designed to mute and silence--particularly focussed on people who have the financial means of reaching a mass audience. When politicians silence “big money,” they silence us all.

A government should be accountable to the people it governs. Private citizens who have done nothing wrong should not be accountable to the politicians. The right to freedom of political expression and activism does not and should not come at the price of a person’s privacy, safety, or comfort. Money is the means of expressing one’s thoughts, and is thus inextricably linked to freedom of speech. Citizens’ political/issue expenditures are none of the neighbors’ or politicians’ business. Murphy’s veto should be unconditional.

Related Reading:

Kill New Jersey’s ‘Dark Money’ Ban

NJ’s ‘Dark Money’ Bill an Attack on Intellectual Freedom

NJ’s ‘Dark Money’ Bill is an Assault on Free Speech

The Anti-Free Speech Fallacy of ‘Dark Money’

‘Dark Money’ is Free Speech. Protect It

The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech--by Kimberley Strassel, especially Chapter 2, “Publius & Co.”

Campaign Finance: Free Speech, Not Disclosure, is the Main Issue

Making Private Donations Anonymously is a Right

The Collectivist Rationalization for Keeping Overtaxed New Jerseyans from Leaving the State

On 4/15/19, a guest column by Philip Perinelli explained “This is why I’m leaving New Jersey.” There is a fight being waged over whether to impose higher taxes on the rich, a tax that has come to be called the “millionaire's tax.” Opponents argue that the already high income tax on high earners will cause more of the rich to flee NJ. Perinelli argues that it is not only the rich who are feeling the pinch enough to flee the state:

Much has been said about a millionaire’s tax. Some say tax them and they will leave. And they well may. Of course, . . . they may not. The fact is that the truly rich can decide to stay or leave. They can afford to do either. Mr. Duffey also points out that the state needs the money. I am not a millionaire. And that is why, while there is much to love about living in this town and this state, my wife and I plan to leave New Jersey in the next several years.

Egregious property taxes are just the beginning. For example, while a retiree’s Social Security benefits are not taxed, New Jersey only allows for a retiree to pay no income tax if income is below $100,000. At $100,001, you are taxed on the entire amount. We have worked hard and saved hard over the years, and I am proud that our retirement income will exceed that threshold. As a result, we will get no tax break. Pennsylvania charges no income tax on any retirement income, including pensions, IRA’s, 401K’s, and Social Security.

On 4/22/19 came another Star-Ledger guest column, Why homeowners should stay in N.J., despite the taxes. A millennial explains, in which Jason DeAlessi chastised Perinelli for his “somewhat selfish reasons, abandoning the very location responsible for your family’s success and wellbeing.” “Furthermore,” lectures DeAlessi, “do you not understand that your wealth has been accrued through the support of millions of your fellow New Jerseyans?”

That last statement, which smacks of tribalist/collectivist overtones--including "You didn't build that"--was cited in yet another Star-Ledger guest column I’m a millennial and a mayor and I can explain why people are leaving New Jersey by Tony Perry. Backing up Perinelli, Perry writes:

An editorial was published recently by a millennial, who does not own a home in New Jersey, yet felt poised to lecture New Jersey homeowners on why they should stay in the state during retirement, despite the exorbitant cost of living and a property tax dilemma, which year after year ranks our state as highest in the nation.

From this incredibly narrow viewpoint, it can be easily understood why the author believes what he wrote. He has not yet experienced the relevant life lessons like buying a home, understanding the physical and financial upkeep and maintenance, along with all the extra costs that come along with it.

His opinions are based on inexperience, assumptions and anger toward success, the last of which has become a favorite talking point of some political leaders. The author questions retirees by stating “Do you not understand that your wealth has been accrued through the support of millions of your fellow New Jerseyans?” The retirement savings of our seniors was not built by some heinous act, it was built on hard work, risk and planning.

Echoing Perinelli, Perry also notes:

Furthermore, he completely fails to appreciate the fact that the people fleeing New Jersey are not just the uber wealthy. They are the school teacher who taught for 30 years and can no longer afford to live in the very state they worked in. The police officer or firefighter who served his or her community for decades. The small business owner who employed people within their community and decides to move to a state that does not crush them in taxes after years of hard work. Businesses that contribute billions of dollars in corporate taxes, employ our residents and provide philanthropy to the thousands of nonprofits across the state are demonized.

I left these comments, somewhat edited and expanded for clarity:

A statement like Jason DeAlessi’s “your wealth has been accrued through the support of millions” shows a person that has no idea how money is earned. To make money means to provide an economic value to people who are willing to pay you. To make money (on any level) requires virtues like thought, self-motivation, and hard work. To accrue wealth (savings) takes virtues like long-term planning and self-discipline. Yes, we can gain a lot from others. But such “support” is not gained by handouts or favor or exploitation, but by providing a value in return--that is, by trade.

DeAlessi apparently means that if you are successful, “You didn’t build that.” But the clerks and the warehouse and airport workers are not special cases of privilege. A job is a trade--a mutually agreed transaction--and job-holders get paid for their services. They contribute economically, and are paid accordingly. This millennial seems to have particular enmity for high earners. But at the end of the day, every productive worker, from clerks to CEOs, earned their keep, are entitled to no more or less, and owe nothing further to each other. In fact, the high earners are the primary movers of the economy. If wealth accruers owe a debt to “millions,” then those millions owe a vastly greater debt to wealth accruers.

DeAlessi’s is a mind poisoned by collectivism, the idea that the group is supreme and individuals are interchangeable cogs subservient to the tribe. But the individual life is the supreme value. NJ is not a tribe with any moral claim on any of us. Every dollar accrued through trade is earned, and each person should selfishly pursue the betterment of himself and his family, even if it means moving out of state to escape confiscatory taxes imposed by politicians his ungrateful “fellow New Jerseyans” elected.

I have often observed that collectivism is a moral escape hatch--an escape from the moral and civil responsibility to respect the rights of others to live by their own judgement. It is lack of respect that underpins Jason DeAlessi’s cruel collectivism.

Related Reading:

The Trader Principle--The Ayn Rand Lexicon

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

Collectivism vs. Individualism in Letters

Individualism vs. Collectivism, Profit vs. Non-Profit, in the Education Debate

Why Pick On ‘Rich Corporations’, Benefactors of the Middle Class?

'Affordable' McMansions in NJ?

From ‘You Didn’t Build That’ to ‘The Nation's Wealth’