This Week on the Web (May 5 – May 11)
********************************************************************************************
Quote of the Week:
The modern political premise implicitly held by many politicians is that the government owns you, or at least knows what's best for you. This logic requires that the government tell you what you can and should do with your life, such as not costing the government too much for your medical care.
At the logical extreme, government officials could — and should — force you to sacrifice your very life for a greater good.
The other premise is that you own yourself, such as articulated in our Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
In this vision, human beings have rights prior to government; government is a tool of the governed, not the other way around.
Audio of the Week:
Allison on Strategy, Profits, and Self-Interest
EconTalk
John Allison, CEO of BB&T Bank, lays out his business philosophy arguing for the virtues of profits, self-interest and production. His definition of justice, one of the core values of his firm, is that those who produce more, get more. He argues that Bill Gates would do more for the world improving Microsoft than running his foundation and giving away money. Allison praises Atlas Shrugged and refuses to let his bank make loans to companies that use eminent domain to acquire property. Is this any way to run a company? Does Allison really run his company this way? How does he deal with the gap between his philosophy and our popular culture's view of business and profits? Listen as Allison and host Russ Roberts discuss BB&T's unusual business strategy.
NEWS
Gas station owner told to raise prices
Yahoo! News
A service station that offered discounted gas to senior citizens and people supporting youth sports has been ordered by the state to raise its prices.
But the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection says those deals violate Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act, which requires stations to sell gas for about 9.2 percent more than the wholesale price.
Bhandari said he received a letter from the state auditor last month saying the state would sue him if he did not raise his prices. The state could penalize him for each discounted gallon he sold, with the fine determined by a judge.
Bhandari, who bought the station a year ago, said he worries customers will think he stopped the discounts because he wants to make more money. About 10 percent of his customers had used the discount cards.
Dale Van Camp said he bought a $50 card to support the local youth hockey program. It would have saved him about $100 per year on gas, he said.
COMMENTARY
Jamestown: Birthplace of America's Distinctive, Secular Ideal
Eric Daniels, ARI Media (via Principles in Practice)
On May 14,
Although many Americans recognize that
The
Don't Extend the 'Hate Crime' Law---Abolish It
ARI Media (via Principles in Practice)
Last week the House passed a measure that extends the federal "hate crime" law to include attacks motivated by the victims' gender or sexual orientation.
"Congress should not extend the federal 'hate crime' law," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "It should abolish the law.
"The government's job is to punish criminals for initiating force against other citizens; objective laws that ban the use of force and fraud are its means of doing so. But 'hate crime' laws undermine objective law at the root by punishing criminals, not for their actions, but for their ideas.
"According to 'hate crime' laws, a murderer deserves a greater punishment if his crime is motivated by an idea such as racism or sexism. If the government assumes the power to punish on the basis of 'unacceptable' ideas, it has assumed the power to exonerate and offer leniency to favored ideas. If anti-abortion religionists hold sway in government, on the premise of 'hate crime' laws, a zealous Christian who guns down an abortion doctor could receive a lighter sentence or be exonerated—on the grounds that such an act is evidence of noble 'idealism.'
"Once the government starts punishing criminals for acting on 'unacceptable ideas,' it has assumed the role of arbiter for which ideas are acceptable or not. If whoever wields power can shape the law to advance an ideological agenda, then it cannot be long before merely holding unorthodox or unconventional ideas becomes a crime that the government punishes.
"The government has no business punishing people for their ideas, no matter how repugnant. By demanding the government do precisely that, 'hate crime' laws threaten our freedom of thought—and undermine the system of objective law that protects it. Such laws should be abolished."
The Democrats’ Assault on Freedom of Speech
Edward Cline, The Rule of Reason
“Fight the doctrine with slaughters the individual with a doctrine which slaughters the individual.” (Ellsworth Toohey, The Fountainhead, p. 669, Centennial edition.)
The gloating, drooling avarice with which the Democrats took possession of Congress should have shocked no one. They took over the House and Senate like a spendthrift heir who had finally won a long-contested lawsuit over the distribution of a decedent’s estate. All their plans for expanding the welfare state and government powers were put on hold for the longest time – they thought – and now they were going to have a feast redirecting the nation’s private wealth and abridging its remaining freedoms as they saw fit – with government force.
They were ready and eager to bulldoze everything to make way for Hillary’s “Village,” declaring political eminent domain over the whole country.
The irony is that the man who blocked their agenda for seven years, Republican President George W. Bush, is responsible for having expanded government powers and enlarged the federal debt on such a scale that his administration’s record would turn Franklin D. Roosevelt green with envy. Bush pulled a rabbit out of his hat, in the name of “free enterprise” and other “conservative” values, and did what the Democrats would have given their eyeteeth to do in the name of explicit collectivism, only wholesale. Bush’s social, economic and moral values are certainly not those of the Democrats; they are just different forms of the same things, different expressions and applications of statist and collectivist policies.
[…]
The Republicans have always wanted to experiment with censorship, but what has stymied them is not being able to find a nicer, less scary term for it. In fact, freedom of speech over the airwaves and in some newspapers has allowed them to criticize the liberal left. The abandonment of the “Fairness Doctrine” on the airwaves, instituted by the FCC in 1949 and dropped in 1987 – the failure of government power to coerce a radio or television station to carry “opposing “ or “conflicting” viewpoints – has been a boon to especially conservative radio talk show hosts. Until the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, many stations preferred to remain silent on issues rather than attempt to perform the “public service” of presenting opposing positions.
As Adam Thierer observed on the Cato Institute’s TechKnowledge site:
“…The Fairness Doctrine actually stifled the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, made free speech less free. As the FCC noted in repealing the doctrine in 1987, it ‘had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance.’” (April 20, 2004)
The Democrats, however, are not so shy about what they want to impose. They want to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” as a means of silencing or muting popular talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity.
Chavez Steals American Property, Bush Does Nothing
ARI Media (via Principles in Practice)
On Tuesday president Hugo Chavez forced ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil to cede operational control over their multi-billion dollar projects to the Venezuelan government. With their backs to the wall, these oil companies are "negotiating" the terms of their surrender, and trying to get some "compensation" for the property being stolen from them.
"President Bush should do something to protect the assets of American companies in
"At a minimum," Dr. Brook said, "Bush should denounce Chavez's nationalization of private businesses as a form of robbery and cut
Federal Efficiency Rules Ruin Washing Machines
Competitive Enterprise Institute
New findings by Consumer Reports on washing machines demonstrate that their performance has been severely degraded by federal energy efficiency standards. The findings should raise alarms about the federal government’s push to tighten its energy conservation mandates, especially when it comes to more complex technologies such as the automobile.
The just released June issue of Consumer Reports finds that many new top-loading models are “sacrificing cleaning ability” due to the Department of Energy’s new standards. The standards, which were issued in 2001 but took effect this year, require the machines to use twenty-one percent less energy. The new models comply with these rules, but when it came to cleaning ability “some had the lowest scores we’ve seen in years”, according to the magazine. High performing models are still available, the magazine notes, but often at $900-1000 more. This is in sharp contrast to DOE’s claims, in 2001, that the new rules would save consumers money and not affect cleaning ability.
The findings for washing machines should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the federal government’s fuel efficiency program for new cars. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules, in place since 1973, have also had the effect of downgrading performance – specifically safety, in large part due to new cars being made lighter. According to the National Academy of Sciences, CAFE rules contribute to thousands of deaths a year.
“The government’s claims that its efficiency standards would give us a better product have turned out to be absolutely false,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute General Counsel Sam Kazman. “Instead, it has managed to take a simple, reliable, low-cost appliance and wreck it. Why should we believe that government will do any better on something as complex as the car?”
As the Senate Commerce Committee meets tomorrow to mark up more stringent CAFE standards, the example of the humble washing machine is especially relevant. Poorly functioning household appliances are bad enough; vehicles that are less safe are far worse.
********************************************************************************************
Other links
Web Logs
Principles in Practice– Principled commentary on cultural matters and current events from “The Objective Standard”
Cox and Forkum – Political cartoons and commentary
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid – Donald Luskin
Dollars and Crosses – CapitalismMagazine.com
Rule of Reason – The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism
**********************************************************************************************************
Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested (or they can sign up by sending an email with “Week on the Web” in the subject line to rsmurphy@hotmail.com).
Send links to articles that you feel would be a good addition to this newsletter to rsmurphy@hotmail.com.
To receive this newsletter in Microsoft Word format, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - MS Word” on the subject line.
If you wish to unsubscribe, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - unsubscribe” on the subject line.
0 comments:
Post a Comment