"Clean" Energy Companies, not "Fossil Fuel Bosses," Need Political Favors to Compete

On July 28, the New Jersey Star-Ledger editorialized in House GOP Bows to Fossil Fuel Bosses that:

[The cutting of the clean energy subsidies] is the work of the fossil fuel industry, which has Republicans by the throat, gives them much more money and does not want to see new technologies threaten its business model. 

Renewable energy is getting cheaper, and the use of wind and solar power has been growing. But so has the use of fossil fuels, backed by a powerful industry.

As if consumers have nothing to do with it. As I've previously noted, "The "power" of the fossil fuel industry comes directly from our willingness to buy their products because they improve our lives and, whether we care to admit it or not, vastly improve the earth's environment."

The use of fossil fuels is growing because they are amazing sources of energy—cheap, abundant, powerful. Consumers buy fossil fuels because they enhance their lives. Fossil fuel companies should be cheered for the enormous, life-serving enrichment they bring to the lives of billions of people. They deserve our thanks, not snide inferences to being favor-seeking industrial parasites like the taxpayer-subsidized "clean" energy companies. Oil, gas, and coal companies don't need politicians' help in competing against solar and wind technologies. Their much more economical and reliable fossil fuel products "speak" for themselves.

Related Reading:

We Are Doomed Without, Not Because of, Fossil Fuel Use

End Farm Subsidies, Then End Food Stamps

A New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial lambasting the House for failing to fund the federal food stamp program known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is titled Ignoring the hungry. This is what the Republicans are accused of for severing SNAP from their version of the farm bill for separate consideration. Of course, the GOP fully supports SNAP, and merely wants to reduce its size, which has more than doubled since 2008.

I left these comments:

My answer to this editorial is titled, Ignoring the theft, which is exactly what the editors and all SNAP supporters are doing. The food stamp program is built on theft—the worst kind, legalized theft—and is therefor immoral and contrary to the proper purpose of government. The defenseless victims are the taxpayers whose wealth is seized at gunpoint to pay the bill; defenseless, because the thief is the very institution—the government—whose purpose is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. When the government becomes the criminal, there is nowhere to turn—the individual is defenseless. Fortunately, we still have free speech, so we can at least speak out against corrupt government and the corrupt morals behind it.

By ignoring the means, the editors and their ilk obliterate morality. Morality is a guide to personal action, not merely a guide to ends sought. The ends don't justify the means. A proper moral perspective acknowledges this. Need is not a moral claim on the lives and property of others. If it is, then it follows that need is a license to plunder. Plunder is what this and all other government "safety net" programs are about. A proper morality forbids plunder. The issue is not about lending a helping hand to the hungry, which people can and have done privately and voluntarily. The issue is, what right does anyone have to impose "charity" by force? None. Every individual has a moral right to spend his own money as he sees fit, including if, when, in what capacity, and to whom he extends charity.

Anyone who promotes ends without any consideration for the morality and justice of the means has no right to claim compassion as his motive or reason as his method.

Having said that, I agree that it is unconscionable that "Their farm bill . . . lacks funding for food stamps, but it is packed with generous subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses." If their is one thing worse than forced charity for the "poor," it's forced charity for the rich. The Republicans, who actually support the food stamp program but just want to trim it, would at least be credible by starting with elimination of all of these subsidies. 

As to the food stamp program, it should be privatized and ended, with its operations turned over to whatever private charities wish to pick them up, based on whatever private voluntary donations they can raise, allowing enough time for the transition. As to those posturing champions of SNAP, they are free to seek out and identify children they deem worthy, and give them their own money or food. We need the separation of charity and state, so we can remove force and return morality to the honorable practice of helping others based on what each of us as individuals judge consistent with our own values and personal circumstances.

Related Reading:

Booker's "Humble" Food Stamp Campaign Highlights the Immorality of the Food Stamp Program

Government Should Not Subsidize Junk Food or Health Food but End All Subsidies

SNAP Ends Don't Justify the Immoral Means

In response to the severing of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program from the House of Representatives' farm bill, the Washington Post's Melinda Henneberger asks Food stamps work, so why are we cutting them?

As proof that food stamps "work," Henneberger highlights the plight of some people who, but for the food stamps, would either go hungry of have to skimp on other necessities like rent and medicine.

My comments:

The proponents of welfare state programs are all phonies. They seek the unearned prestige of being a champion of the poor, by forcing others to pay for their "compassionate" craving through their taxes. They have no respect for the rights of others to live by their own judgment and conscience, to decide when, how, who, and in what capacity to help others. Peel back [a welfare statist's] thin veneer of moral posturing, and what you expose is a thief—the worst kind of thief, the dishonest kind who won't acknowledge that his whole scheme is built on theft. Worse, they lie to their recipients by telling them that they are morally worthy of their "free food," rather than the truth: Food stamp beneficiaries are participating in a legal crime by receiving stolen property. Welfare statists deserve not one shred of moral credit, no matter what their high-minded ends. Ends don't justify means. 
 
People who oppose the welfare state are the true moral heroes—the compassionate ones—because they stand for people taking care of themselves and their families by their own efforts. They defend the property of the people who earned it. They recognize that need is not a moral claim on the lives and property of others—that each of us has an inalienable right to his own life and property. It's time to phase out the welfare state, and we can start with the SNAP program. It should be privatized and ended, with its operations turned over to whatever private charities wish to pick them up, based on whatever private voluntary donations they can raise. As to those posturing champions of SNAP, they are free to seek out and identify children they deem worthy, and give them their own money or food. We need the separation of charity and state, so we can remove force and return morality to the honorable practice of helping others based on what each of us as individuals judge consistent with our own values and personal circumstances.

Related Reading:

The Spiritual Parasitism of Senator Robert Menendez

Booker's "Humble" Food Stamp Campaign Highlights the Immorality of the Food Stamp Program

American Economy is Not "Left to its own devices"

Citing recent employment statistics, Harold Meyerson claimed in the Washington Post that the American Economy is Eroding American Jobs. He cites the large number of part-time and temporary jobs embedded to the stats, as well as a decline of weekly hours worked. He acknowledges that the ObamaCare mandate on employers to insure all full-time workers—those working 30 hours or more a week—is partly to blame: "There is, to be sure, much anecdotal evidence that some employers are cutting workers’ hours to avoid the mandate."

But Meyerson claims that the job picture has allegedly been deteriorating for half a century, saying "the decline of working hours and the rise of low-wage work reflect structural changes in the U.S. economy." (Meyerson doesn't explain how our general standard of living could have grown so much during the same period.) 

There are many aspects to the job picture, and Meyerson's snapshot analysis of the current situation ignores certain phenomenon. For example, entry-level, "temp," and part-time jobs are often the first to emerge in an economy recovering from a severe decline, because businesses lack the confidence to hire full time. Also, the large number of job-seekers tends to temporarily suppress wages and salaries, based on the law of supply and demand. That usually reverses as the economy expands, and Meyerson seems to acknowledge as much: "There’s no doubt that if the economy were at full employment, workers’ hours would be longer and their wages higher."

But Meyerson doesn't want to wait for the cycle to mature, or acknowledge the government's integral role in creating the recent Great Recession. His motive becomes clear in his concluding paragraph:

Left to its own devices, the American economy is eroding the American job. Hours decline, dragging take-home pay down with them. The identity of the boss becomes mystified, much to the boss’s advantage. A government commitment to full employment, backed up by the public investment required to create it, would bolster not just the quantity but also the quality of our jobs. Republicans are dead set against that, however, and most Democrats appear to have abandoned the fight. So much for the American job.

Meyerson doesn't say where the government will get the money for all of this "public investment" will come from, considering the sorry state of the economy. Nor does he explain how the "government commitment to full employment" will work any better than the $12 trillion of deficit spending rolled up over the last dozen years.

I left these brief comments:

Where does Meyerson see an American economy "left to its own devices"; i.e., a free market economy? America has a mixed economy, with government and political interference heavily and increasingly embedded in Americans' economic affairs. ObamaCare's job-discouraging mandate is just one piece of the job puzzle. With the proliferation of constantly expanding labor laws, is it any wonder that companies avoid hiring full-time workers whenever possible? No single law, regulation, tax, or government policy is the culprit. The total burden is.

Beyond the economics, there is the moral. Meyerson's argument amounts to: I don't like the choices my fellow Americans are making, so I'm going to impose mine by government fiat. I'm going to confiscate still more private wealth for government to "invest" as it, rather than those who earned it, sees fit—or whatever other boondoggles some "government commitment to full employment" can cook up. This is the meddling mentality that led to, caused, and exacerbated the Great Recession. By what right?

It's no surprise that the growing array of problems in the American economy coincide with a regulatory welfare state that has reached its most expansive ever. The two phenomena are linked. If statists are going to complain about the economy, let them at least be honest about the economy they are complaining about; an economy of their own making.

Related Reading:

The Stock Market Record, Income Stagnation, and the Welfare State

The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class by Donald Boudreaux and Mark J. Perry

"Shared Prosperity" Another Name for Failed Policies

Will Contracts Be the Next Victim of Eminent Domain?

My latest post at The Object Standard blog sheds light on another emerging threat to our liberties. Here is the opening paragraph:

In 2005, in Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court permitted cities to take land by force for the purpose of “economic development.” Now officials in Newark, New Jersey want to expand their use of eminent domain to seize mortgages in order to pressure lenders to the “negotiating table” and thus “help” homeowners with underwater mortgages receive a reduction in principal.

Read the rest of Newark Seeks to Use Eminent Domain to Extort Principal Reductions from Lenders.

A mortgage is a legally and morally binding contract voluntarily agreed to by lender and borrower, and each has a right to expect the government to enforce its terms.  Newark’s proposed actions constitute legally facilitated breach of contract.

To halt the ever-expanding eminent domain assault on our liberties, Americans must recognize that no public good can be served by violating the rights of any individual member of the public; that any implementation of eminent domain is an act of injustice. That's why, as I concluded in my TOS piece, we must call for total abolition of eminent domain.

Related Reading:

The Eminent Domain Assault by Readington Against Solberg Land is Democracy in Action—and Un-American

Honoring American Heroes . . . Forgetting American Ideals

Eminent Domain—Always an Abuse

Obama's "Going Big"

I have often observed that Barack Obama is more philosophically oriented than most modern politicians. More evidence for that claim has surfaced, and that is the subject of my recent post at The Objective Standard blog. 

Read Obama's "Big" Statist Vision for America.

Related Reading:

Obama's "Bridge": 21st Century Tyranny Cloaked in America's Founding Ideals

Obama's Collectivist Manifesto, Parts 1, 2, and 3

King Obama's Carbon Emission Mandate

President Obama recently issued an executive order unilaterally reducing allowable carbon emissions from electric generating plants, virtually making coal-fired power plants illegal. In Obama Looks to Clear the Air on Climate Change, New Jersey Columnist Tom Moran commented on Obama's action:

"[Obama's] most baffling political challenge has been the outright rejection of the science on climate change. This blockheaded strain of American political culture has always been a nuisance when it comes to things like teaching evolution in Texas. But really, the nation can survive that.

"When it comes to climate, though, it gets dangerous. You can find a few quirky dissenters, but every major scientific organization agrees this is a dire threat. No one is sure how bad it will be. And no, they can’t pinpoint the blame on climate change for any single storm, including Hurricane Sandy.

"But they all agree the downside is potentially historic, with floods and famine and the wars that would inevitably follow. Lots of people could get killed. So we are way beyond textbooks in Texas.

"The riddle for Obama is this: If your opponents reject the findings of science, how can you win the argument? It’s as if the Enlightenment never happened and we are living by “Game of Thrones” rules. So how is Obama supposed to settle this, with swordplay?

"In a way, yes. He has no sword, as far as we know, but Obama is relying more and more on brute force of presidential power to settle the climate debate."

It's rare to see a "liberal" acknowledge that their agenda relies on "brute force." But Moran is quite open in his approval of it: "[S]cience is on the run," he concludes, "So pause to give thanks and praise to the Clean Air Act. Maybe in his second term, Obama feels more free to push the envelope like this. Let’s hope so." So much for the rule of law, another Enlightenment principle.

I left these comments:

Obama, in fact, does have a sword; the legal power of the state, and he is using it in a way that is fundamentally contrary to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment gave rise to the principle of individual rights, and the government as a servant and protector of the rights of the individual—the basic principles upon which America was founded. The only proper purpose of government’s legal powers of physical force is to fight criminals and foreign enemies who threaten the freedom of the people by initiating force against them. The extraordinary powers of today’s presidential office flip those principles on their heads, and make the president more akin to a king, and private citizens akin to his subjects. It is the power of a thug. 
 
As to the “science on climate change,” it is terminally suspect on two counts. First, those “major scientific organizations” are primarily funded by governments—which means, politicians. That means, scientists must satisfy the politicians with the “right” conclusions. How much of the “science” is corrupted by this politicization? Given the power of the environmental lobby, is it any wonder that the “climate consensus” favors catastrophic human-caused climate change?” Until all government funding of science ends, we will never be able to trust the science. 
 
Second, the idea that the effects of global warming are uniformly catastrophic is absurd on its face. But the scare-mongering serves a useful political purpose for statists: Every dictatorship needs a perpetual sense of impending disaster to maintain or add to its powers. What better way to accomplish that than to seize on every kind of weather disaster to rationalize government thuggery. The catastrophe scenario serves that purpose.  
 
Yes, science is on the run, along with our freedom. Enlightenment principles would never allow for science to become the handmaiden of dictators, or to foster the return of a government of men rather than laws. 

Moran notes that "The source of this [presidential] power is the Clean Air Act, [which] doesn’t specifically empower the government to limit carbon." In other words, in the name of cleaner air, the Act under which the president acted grants open-ended power to the executive branch, so long as the action can be rationalized as a means of cleaning the air. Arbitrary power is just what America's Enlightenment principles were meant to forbid to government officials.

The Clean Air Act, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, were passed by congress. For that reason, notes The Objective Standard's Ari Armstrong:

Congress, too, deserves a share of the blame for the assault. As Brigham A. McCown writes for Forbes, Obama’s “plan is designed to sidestep Congress, by using a presidential memorandum” to control the Environmental Protection Agency’s actions. Congress has the constitutional power to pass legislation and to regulate (or refrain from regulating) interstate commerce, but it has inappropriately ceded its powers to the executive branch in this case.

If we are to reverse the steady erosion of freedom in America, one of the things we must do is repeal the Clean Air Act, abolish the Environmental protection Agency, restore congress's constitutional law-making powers, and deal with pollution by means of objective laws based upon the protection of individual rights.

Related Reading:

Attack on "Carbon Pollution" an Attack on Human Life

Why I Don't Trust the "Climate Consensus"

Obama's War on Energy Producers and Consumers by Ari Armstrong