Discovery consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else
and thinking something different.
Albert Szent-Gyorgy
Chart of the Day
 |
| Via Cato Institute |
Liberty vs. Compulsory Sales: Political Correctness Run Amok
It's the sort of distinction that's too subtle for most people: is a discriminatory policy part of public policy or private policy. The question of Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment is clear: no state could discriminate; but what about privately-held public accommodations (restaurants, hotels, stores, private schools) where owners had implemented Jim Crow-like policies? One could argue discriminatory policies in the private sector were counterproductive, even morally-reprehensible, but do I have the right to tell a store owner how to run his business, whom he has to service, etc.? As an entrepreneur I'm more than willing to take advantage of a competitor's stupidity... But take, for instance, a specialty shop, like a tall women's clothing store; is the store discriminating, say, against petite women or plus-sized women if it doesn't carry their preferred sizes? I submit that the invisible hand works: where there is an unmet consumer need, suppliers will seize on the opportunity to fulfill that need. In the case of the public accommodations, the 1964 Civil Rights Law invoked the Commerce Clause (wrongly, in my judgment) to extend anti-discrimination policies to the private sector. (I say wrongly, since anyone with a modicum of economic literacy understands the Commerce Clause applies to guaranteeing a free market among the states (and between nations)). One could argue, perhaps for regulating discriminatory policies on transports across states, but SCOTUS has absurdly held the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to micromanage businesses within states and even non-transactions (like consuming one's own produce).
Now mere months after the dubious SCOTUS "gay marriage" decisions, we have seen bad judges in New Mexico, Colorado, Washington and Oregon basically order Christian vendors (e.g., florists, photographers, and bakeries) whom don't want to service gay clients based on any or no reason (including religious moral beliefs) to do so. That's outrageous; it's a form of unconstitutional conscription. If a judge can do that, I want him to order a voluptuous Playboy Playmate to go out on a date with an unattractive obscure blogger... In the Colorado baker's case (see below), Colorado is a traditional marriage state; a gay couple wanted a "gay wedding" in Massachusetts followed by a reception in Colorado. When a baker declined to fulfill a prospective cake offer, the gays unleashed the ACLU and a Colorado bureaucracy on him (because, as everybody knows, LGBT's are incapable of baking, snapping pictures, or growing flowers:; I'm being sarcastic, of course. A brief Internet search revealed LGBT-friendly New York bakers and eBay features a number of vendors selling gay wedding toppers, which you could put or replace on any standard wedding cake. This is all about attacking people whom disagree with your point of view. Who said this is America?)
Government Motors Leaves Taxpayers $10B Short of Whole
In exchange for taxpayer funds, GM gave the US government a large number of shares. Granted, I've been pushing the government to shed its business interests in AIG, the GSE's, and the carmakers, even though I knew the government was going to take a hit on the shares. To be honest, I think GM has a moral obligation to make up the difference. Will I ever buy another GM car? Probably not, but I never say never. Will I invest in the future? Not if the Volt is a harbinger of things to come.
Pope Francis: Time's Man of the Year? Thumbs DOWN!
 |
| Via Reuters |
I disagree with the selection; the Holy Father alienated me with his recent exhortation (see the initial exchange in my Facebook Corner below and I've gone into more detail in past posts (e.g., here and here)). As an American Catholic, I'm delighted to see a native from the Americas ascend to the papacy. I have mixed feelings about his leadership; he seems to like to stir the pot, he's got a populist streak, but almost like a Catholic equivalent to Obama, he's all mitre and no sheep... He doesn't seem to be as open to traditionalists (like an interesting pattern of Catholic libertarians like Napolitano, Woods and myself) or with Benedict's scholarship, established well before his papacy. I think he's sometimes lost control over his message and seems to share Obama's fondness for symbolism and gimmicks. Church attendance has plummeted since the days before Vatican II; many American Catholics don't follow Church teachings on morals. I don't see any strategy he has to turn things around. I have not read the Time article yet, but I suspect my analysis differs from theirs.
Facebook Corner
(Catholic Libertarians). "Free marketeers shouldn't take the critique so personally..."
Let's start by saying that I expect an exhortation to be more than derivative anti-capitalist crap, explicitly dismissive of the invisible hand, trickle-down economics, etc. He fully buys into the zero-sum view of economics. Second, I would expect him to be honest enough to publicly acknowledge his lack of knowledge and experience with business and economics. Third, he all but endorsed a Statist agenda and praised a political career as honorable. It's one thing to call, as Jesus does, for individual responsibility, which a libertarian accepts, but what about Jesus' response on the matter of the imperial tax, repeated rejections of a political agenda, a tradition of Catholic anarchism or mutualism? Where is his condemnation of morally hazardous public policy, of dehumanizing dependence on the State? Where is his recognition of the fact that under the capitalist system, the consumer is the basis for success: low prices, greater variety of goods and services: which benefit the lower-income, not just the upper 1%? That millions, if not billions, have been raised from poverty to the middle class over the past century?
It was not his governance over them that he went to war for. It was their governance over people or should I say enslavement of people that did not consent to being slaves.
Is [discussant] for real? The emancipation proclamation was delivered well into the war. In part, the South felt politically marginalized, a sort of majoritarian tyranny, which among other things enacted protectionist tariffs protecting Northern industrialists. Only about 6% of Southerners owned slaves, almost every other country that once allowed slavery had managed to end the practice without bloodshed.
(LearnLiberty). What was the biggest victory for liberty in 2013?
When Justin Amash in July unexpectedly managed to come within a dozen bipartisan votes of passing the NSA reform amendment: it may not have carried but it was a moral victory.
(John Stossel). It's bad enough that celebrities trash the only economic system that makes poor people's lives better. What's worse is that many are hypocrites...I'm amazed they're not embarrassed by what they say.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/11/hollywood-celebrity-hypocrites-2013/?intcmp=trending
They are seeking publicity, think they are saying the politically correct thing, to show they are cool, socially responsible and all that claptrap. Instead, they're putting their economic illiteracy on the record; the idea that they are bashing the very system that made their success possible is utterly pathetic. What would Lucas do in North Korea? Produce propaganda flicks? These hypocrites should put their money where their mouths are and send the bulk of their wealth to the IRS so Barack Obama can fritter it away in a nanosecond...
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Eric Allie and Townhall |
Celtic Woman, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing". Rarely have I ever heard an act completely own a traditional standard, but I could listen to this performance for a half-hour on auto-repeat. Méav's soprano just takes this song to another level... Exquisite harmonies, wouldn't change a note; it's like savoring every drop of freshly brewed coffee in the morning... Yes, those gorgeous Irish angels can sing!
