You are here: Home / Archives for Free Market

Judge Shares His Thoughts on Ending the Drug War

December 18, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Though not a new video, I just found this jem:

-

Judge Jim Gray shares his thoughts with Reason on ending the war on drugs. In the video above, he highlights those who benefit through profit from the war on drugs: drug lords, gang leaders, law enforcement, politicians, private prison businesses, terrorists. He even goes so far to call drug prohibition the “golden goose” of terrorism!

These groups are all benefiting from the drug prohibition, so why should they support ending the war, or even take an objective cost-benefit analysis? They won’t, because it’s just bad business.

“People who that are supporting the status quo are on the wrong side of history… its just a question of when. And then I guarantee anyone who will listen, that two years after we change away from this failed and hopeless policy, everyone will join arms and look back astonished, aghast that we could have perpetuated such a failed system for so long. The best thing I can do for my country is to help us repeal drug prohibition. It’s the most patriotic thing I can do, and we are going to be successful.”

I absolutely agree with this man.

Filed Under: Drug Policy, Drug War, Free Market, Social Issues Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s Choices Shape Our Future

December 26, 2008 By Leave a Comment

What we do today shapes our future; similarly, what we do shapes the country, and what the country does shapes the future of the world. Decreased freedom and the sacrilege of the constitution defile what our founding fathers intended for our nation to be. As a result, we are propelled on a slow but constant route towards socialism, which will ultimately destroy our country’s values, economy, and general success. The choices made by today’s political leaders influence the individual and their circumstances, worldviews, and future. Current restrictions and proposed laws will have a long-term impact on American thinking; examples include the near inevitable move towards socialized healthcare and the recent smoking ban that’s been passed in many places across the nation.

Many of the leading politicians want to socialize healthcare. If this proposition is eventually passed, it will set a foundation for the socialization of other vital industries in the United States, including banking, transportation, utilities, and communication companies. While their intentions may be pure, the impact of these decisions may have an irreparable impact on America. The socialization of healthcare has been tried throughout the world with varying degrees of success; in Canada, it takes months to get the proper care. Many Canadian doctors move to the United States to treat patients, which shows flaws in the system. History shows that when governments take control and monopolize any business, things turn out for the worse. An accurate example of this is the postal system; while the postal system worked perfectly fine as it was, the introduction of independent postal companies such as FedEx and UPS, revolutionized the shipping industry. With new competition, the U.S.P.S. had to work harder to compete, which resulted in better services for consumers. Competition produces better results in every industry, including shipping and healthcare.

One of the prime examples of decisions made today that will impact our future is the recent smoking ban in Illinois and many other states. This is a major breech on our freedom. However, because many people don’t smoke, they do not fight for their right to do so. While smoking is certainly not healthy, who is the government to tell us that we cannot do it on our own property? If a man owns a business, a bar, for example, he should have the right to allow people to smoke on his property. If other customers do not want to be around smoke, then they should go elsewhere. These choices today shape our future by giving the government more control. We have let them take away this freedom; as a result, more restrictions will follow. Because of this choice, in the future they will have more control over regulating many more aspects of business.

The basic duties of the government are to protect the people from foreign and domestic threats, establish a justice system, and coin currency. Anything beyond that can do little good and only harms the people and economy. Denying basic constitutional rights are only the beginning; socializing healthcare and banning smoking on private property are two choices that have been made today that will shape the future of our country, resulting in an imprisoned society fed, bred and manipulated from the cradle to the grave.

The above is an essay I wrote around a year and a half ago for a local short essay contest about how our choices today impact our future. If I recall correctly, it won 3rd place. This was written before Obama was the President Elect. Notice how I briefly mentioned how socialization in one industry (healthcare) will result in the socialization of other industries (investment/banking, transportation, utilities, and communication companies). While we have not yet passed socialized healthcare, we are beginning to socialize some companies in the banking and investment industries.

The concepts expressed in this essay hold true today. If we give up some of our rights, we’ll ultimately end up giving more. We sacrifice one thing because it doesn’t apply to us; eventually, when rights we care about are threatened, we cannnot do anything about it because we’ve already given up too much. It’s a slippery slope. It may be cliche, but it’s true nonetheless.

Filed Under: Big Government, Featured, Free Market Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Should We Really Tax “Radical” Oil Profits?

August 8, 2008 By 1 Comment

Many of you have heard the complaining or have been the ones complaining about the record profits that oil companies are making. ExxonMobil recent released their high record earnings for oil and natural gas, showing a $11.7 billion profit this quarter. This is the most profitable quarter for any company, ever. Barack Obama has called Exxon’s profits outrageous, suggesting a $1,000 rebate for working couples; this attractive rebate would be funding by “a windfall profits penalty on oil selling at over $80 per barrel.”

It’s hard to deny that for the average American, this is a very appealing proposal. The big oil companies are making record profits – shouldn’t we get a piece? As is expected, the concept of a federal handout is appealing to those who receive the handout, but we should consider the principle of the matter. Why should we get a portion of a public companies profits through tax? Did they lie, cheat, or steal? No. They’re simply being successful in the free market. Some argue that this taxation on windfall profits is necessary. Is it? Let’s look into it in more detail.

Worth noting is the fact that Exxon Mobil’s earnings actually fell short of what analysts predicted, which resulting in their stock price actually dropping. More importantly, the company’s net profit was a modest 8.5%. That’s a good profit margin, but it isn’t fantastic. Moreover, a company that has a mere 8.5% gain shouldn’t be taxed excessively with a profit penalty. That being said, few people know the difficulty it is to actually get the oil America has grown to depend on. Oil companies have to explore and produce oil, which requires large amounts of capital. Many times this process can hurt the company significantly, so there is a large amount of risk involved. When you contrast the 8.5% profits to a near 20% profit by Coca-Cola, things are put into a better perspective, especially considering that many regard oil as a necessary and soda as a luxury. Following the ideology of many people today, Barack Obama included, all companies that make more than Exxon Mobil’s radical 8.5% profits should have a penalty, profit tax. Not only does this go against the concept of liberty, the concept of taxing someone for being successful is fundamentally wrong.

The idea of taxing profits that aren’t excessive or placing a price cap goes against gthe entire concept of the free market. I would propose that with one comes the other. If we place a windfall profits tax on big oil companies, what do you think will happen? It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out – they’ll raise the price even higher to make up for the new tax! If the federal government increases tax on Exxon on other companies, it makes economic and business sense for the company, in turn, the raise their prices to make up for their decrease in revenue. If that happens, gas prices will spike even higher, leaving us with a choice; remove the profits tax, add a price cap, or live with an increased price for oil and gasoline. No one wants to pay high prices, so I think it’s practical to say that many legislators would propose we add a price cap. If they artificially force the price lower, this will result in a shortage. Not only will we have a shortage of fuel, but we will have a increased demand. With lower prices, people will want to travel more, but will be unable to do so because of the shortage.

The solution is to help create opportunities for entrepreneurs to find new ways to get oil, increase our supply by use of domestic oil, and explore alternative fuel options. Price ceilings, profit taxes, and more restrictions on the free market are not the solution and will only harm the economy and the average consumer, despite how just or attractive politicians make it sound.

Filed Under: Current Events, Economics, Free Market Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Dangers of Economic Compromise

August 5, 2008 By Leave a Comment

Any type of political compromise is dangerous. In my opinion, you should never give up what you stand for, your  beliefs, your principles, or your personal liberty. Any law or compromise politically that takes away from one’s doctrine should be regarded with high scrutiny.

Economic compromise is especially dangerous and problematic to the country as a whole. One thing I’ve noticed in the past year or two is that there’s been increased anger over the free market. Because of recent economic problems, many people have blamed capitalism for Americas problems. Some people have gone so far as to suggest that we should rethink our entire economic structure and scrap capitalism for a much dangerous and unworkable socialistic system. In reality, socialism would be far worse that the most restricted of free markets; moreover, it is not the free market that has caused our recent economic problems, but rather restrictions on the free market and economic compromise.

What many people don’t realize is that the free market and limited government often go hand in hand. With a big government, the ability to have a truly free market is greatly restricted. Increased taxes, high tariffs, trade restrictions, zoning laws and other restrictions on trade are restrictions on free trade and should be reduced or eliminated.

A good example of a poor economic compromise would be keeping tax cuts for the poor but disposing of them for the rich. On the surface, this sort of thing sounds good to the average American. The greedy upper class gets taxed and I get taxed less. This is not good for the average citizen or America. Taxing the rich more than the poor doesn’t help the poor become any richer, it only makes the rich poorer – and that doesn’t help anyone. More importantly, the rich, the ones who would be taxed in such a compromise, are many of the people who create jobs, invest in companies, or venture in new startups. Essentially, by taxing the rich we would be hurting the economy by taking money away from people who would have otherwise pooled that money into economic investments and ventures.

Another example of a bad economic compromise would be in the matter of federal spending. The federal government is constantly spending more money than they have or receive in tax revenue; many times these spending are on trivial and unnecessary things. The government should be run like a household, at least in this case. Would you spend more than you have? Many people do and they end up with enormous debt and often file bankruptcy. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that radical spending and poor fiscal responsibility is hurting America.

In order to move towards economic freedom and keep our current economic liberties, compromise must be a rarity. Political compromise may sometimes be necessary, but one should never sacrifice ones principles or liberties, regardless of how attractive it may be.

Filed Under: Economics, Free Market Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Fast Food Immoral? LA Thinks So.

July 31, 2008 By 1 Comment

Well, the Los Angeles City Council has done it. They’ve successfully and unanimously passed an ordinance that prohibits the building of new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area. Over 500,000 low-income people live in this area. While it’s hard to deny the fact that eating fast food regularly is unhealthy, the LA City Council has crossed a dangerous line; they’ve actually banned selling fast food from new restaurants. Not only are they telling business owners how they should run their business, they’re telling consumers how to live their lives.

The ordinance hasn’t yet gone into effect since the mayor hasn’t yet signed it, but he is expected to. Fortunately, this ordinance doesn’t affect existing restaurants. It also only lasts for one year, but many members of the City Council hope to make it permanent. Essentially, the government is beginning to regular where certain types of businesses can and cannot run. They’ve already done this for liquor stores and now they’re doing this to fast food.

In a press release, Council member Jan Perry said, “This ordinance is in no way attempting to tell people what to eat but rather responding to the need to attract sit-down restaurants, full service grocery stores, and healthy food alternatives. Ultimately, this ordinance is about providing choices—something that is currently lacking in our community.”

Her argument is saying, essentially, that by prohibiting choice they’re bringing more choice. This is poor logic. No restriction on freedom can bring more freedom. Furthermore, it’s a restriction on free trade. If consumers don’t want to eat healthy, the government shouldn’t force them to do so.

There are all kinds of things wrong with this law. We have the increased regulation, which is particularly disturbing when coupled with a related ban on transfat elsewhere. There is also the problem of the increased fascist-like regulating of business. Why should the government, even a local government, tell business how to run their business? Just like with a smoking ban, it’s unnecessary and is an attack on freedom. Additionally, it infringes on the property rights of the business owner. However, none of these things that are wrong with this ordinance are as bad (or even as insulting) as the fact that the ban takes away the choice from the people. Not only does it take (or diminish, at least) the choice of locals to eat fast food when the please, it makes the assumption that the locals aren’t smart enough to make the right choice themselves. The government is effectively saying, “since you are eating fast food, you must be dumb. Don’t worry, we’ll manipulate the free market to take away what you want and give you something you don’t want. We’ll make you eat it anyway, even though you don’t want it, since we known what’s best for you better than you do.” This logic is very nearly insulting to the average citizen. Without choice, what are we?

One could present the argument that this ordinance is an attempt to regulate morality. Yes, the LA government thinks that eating fast food is immoral. If not, why the regulation? Why the destruction of freedom and personal liberty? Just what are they afraid of?

Filed Under: Big Government, Free Market, Legislation, Property Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Facebook