The Wrong Approach to Rebuilding Iraq

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 12 August 2008 | As the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on Iraq’s stockpile of resources, outrage erupted on the Senate floor. And that outrage will most likely spill over into the minds and hearts of many Americans.

The reason for the outrage—while Americans have been paying the lion’s share of the bill for Iraqi reconstruction, Iraq has been building up a budget surplus that is projected to reach $80 billion by year’s end. Since 2003 the “United States has put about $48 billion toward reconstruction.” Spending by Iraq for its own reconstruction has been significantly less. Rising oil prices have caused Iraq’s revenues to soar, yet they are spending American taxpayer money to rebuild their nation. “The export of crude oil accounted for 94 percent of Iraq’s revenues from 2005 to 2007, the GAO reported.”

The outrage is understandable. The war and reconstruction have been costly. Despite buzz that the war has been all about oil money, major oil contracts have been handed out almost exclusively to non-American companies. Additionally, Americans were told that this was a cost they would not be responsible for. “Bush administration officials said on the eve of the war that Iraqi oil money would pay for reconstruction.” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is quoted as telling the House Appropriations committee, “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.’”

With an already troubled economy, many Americans have questioned covering the cost of the war itself, let alone the costs of rebuilding. Sen. Carl Levin says, “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves.” And, while I agree that this should not be the duty of the American tax payer, I would say that it is equally inexcusable for us to push Iraqis to use government dollars for projects that should be privately funded. If Iraq is to ever have true freedom (something we don’t even have here), our focus cannot be the amount of money they do or don’t have. Our focus has to be adherence to the principles that form and guarantee freedom.

Key Points

• War and its devastations create a uniquely strenuous circumstance. The needs of the people are magnified as basic utilities, systems, and resources are rendered inoperable. Regardless of circumstance, principle is ignorant of need. God is the author of prosperity and He does not play dice with the universe. Principles govern at all times and in all conditions. When need is used as the basis for policy decisions, principle is discarded and freedom and prosperity will consequently die. It is when needs are greatest that principle must be adhered to if lasting solutions are to be found.
• For example, it would have been much more convenient for our Founders to avoid war with Great Britain and just remain subject to the crown than to stand for that which they knew to be right. Yet, had they chosen any path other than the principled one, we would not be the country we are today with the freedoms we enjoy.
• The Iraqi Government will never be able to stand and protect a free people if it is built on a flawed foundation. There are two major flaws being ignored in this foundation:
  • Encouraging the government of a prospective free nation to be the owner of oil reserves and incomes (or of any “public” property).
  • Establishing the habit of using government incomes to meet the needs of the people.
• Both of these flaws are plays taken straight out of the communist handbook. E.C. Riegel said, “When government undertakes to solve man’s problem for him it undertakes the mastery of society and it cannot be both master and servant.”

Conclusion

It is a difficult thing to perceive that the American Government can help establish a proper framework and set a proper example of freedom when we have strayed so far here at home.

Even if the Founding Fathers had chosen to enter a war like this (which they would not have chosen), they would clearly see the dangerous precedent being set here. While it has long been that oil and its revenues have been the property of the Iraqi government, this practice should be abolished in the process of setting up a free nation. Ownership of oil and its subsequent revenues should be private. James Madison said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” I have never had to endure the immediate ravages of war and therefore have no concrete understanding of what it would be like. Regardless of the calamities, however, I believe that if I were an Iraqi, my request would be simple: “Let freedom ring, and let it ring completely.”

Action Items

1. Recognize teaching opportunities as you hear others complain that the Iraqi Government isn’t covering the cost of reconstruction. Share how freedom can’t be achieved by creating a socialistic welfare state.
2. Ponder difficult moments of need in your life. Do you stick to principle, regardless of the gravity of the situation?
3. Consider how you offer help to others. Do you teach them to help themselves, or do you create dependence?

MRFC Principles: 1 (1, 3, 13)

Sources

CNN, Iraq’s oil-fueled surplus could hit $80 billion, report says, CNN.com, August 6, 2008

Robert H. Reid, US officials defend Iraqi budget surplus, Associated Press, August 6, 2008

E.C. Riegel, Private Enterprise Money, a Non-Political Money System, 1944 (For more of Riegel’s writings, click here).

James Madison, speaking on the house floor, concerning a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees from San Domingo, 1794.

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)

Can the Kibbutz survive without Capitalism?

MAPLETON, UT | 17 April 2008 | In the kibbutzim of Israel, as in communal societies around the world, an entire generation attempted to live by the ideology of collectivism. Years later, all such social experiments have ended with one choice: adopt capitalist principles or cease to exist. The consequences of collectivism have resulted in two critical failures – economic bankruptcy, with communities unable to sustain themselves, and moral bankruptcy, with new generations rebelling against the oppression of communal sacrifice for parasitic consumption. The result has been deserted colonies, lacking resources, and devoid of the renewal of youth who abandoned them for the promise of individual freedom abroad.

Readers of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand will remember the account of the 20th Century Motor Company, whose heirs decided to turn the company and its employees into a communal “family”. Rand describes a Marxist society that few today would consider plausible – yet the socialist kibbutzim are the literal ideological descendants of the axiom, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” To learn the economic history and hear the personal tales from the kibbutzim is to witness Rand’s fictional community come to life (with the exception that many modern kibbutzim have chosen reform).

Kibbutz Yasur, founded in 1949, serves as an example. Though it began with high ideals, textile and toy factories, they were unprofitable, and soon closed, leaving many without a means to provide for their future. Homes eventually sat empty, as children left town and no new members joined the community. Today, those homes are nearly filled, and old farmland is being sold for new real estate development.

“The new kibbutz is not perfect, but economically things are improving,” said Mr. Kilon, who manages Yasur and another kibbutz nearby (many kibbutzim are now run by professional managers rather than by popular vote). “The incentive to work has gone up, and after changes in the management, we are standing on our feet.”

Boaz Varol was born on a kibbutz in the far north, but he left at 18. “My parents worked all their lives, carrying at least 10 parasites on their backs,” he said. “If they’d worked that hard in the city for as many years, I’d have had quite an inheritance coming to me by now.”

Key Points:

• In the year 2000, more than half of Israel’s 257 collective farms were bankrupt.
  In the past, kibbutz members were rewarded equally, whether they milked cows or managed a large industry.
• On the new kibbutz, members earn salaries or receive end-of-month allowances reflecting the income they bring in.
• About half the kibbutzim have moved into real estate, selling plots for luxury neighborhoods in place of the fields and orchards outside their gates.
• House buyers generally do not join the kibbutz, but pay for services like child care.
  While the major assets of the kibbutzim are still collectively owned, the communities are now largely run by professional managers rather than by popular vote.

Conclusion:

What has emerged in the social consciousness of the kibbutzim is a newfound appreciation for the principles of prosperity – if not a total embrace. After decades of reaping the starving harvest of collectivism, the kibbutzim, in an attempt at self-preservation, have re-introduced the concepts of private property and wages based on productivity. The results have spoken for themselves.

The kibbutzim have traded pure socialist collectivism not for capitalism, but for a modern mixed economy, where individuals are free to work for themselves, generating private profits that are then taxed in order to fund communal socialist programs. Many assets are still owned communally, though housing is often owned privately. Such a policy is usually termed “privatization”, though leaders prefer to call it “renewal”. Allowing people to own property, produce value and be compensated for it has resulted in a surge in productivity and profit among the kibbutz members. Finally, the prosperity promised by marxist illusions is beginning to appear where free exchange is honored.

Such a society, however, is still not a free society, but a parasitic one. The socialist strategy over the past century has evolved pragmatically from one of total collective control (which, as the kibbutzim demonstrate, has always resulted in economic failure) to a parasitic co-existence with the private producers of value. Such an arrangement has allowed the socialists to remain on life-support, sustaining their moral bankruptcy as long as they allow just enough freedom for their capitalist hosts to produce the profits they are unable to produce for themselves.

The modern residents of the Kibbutzim are enjoying some of the benefits of capitalism, and their prosperity has attracted the attention of outsiders, resulting in increased demand and waiting lists for membership. While the changes have increased incentives to work and reduced the parasitic tendencies of the past, it remains to be seen whether the people will fully embrace the ideology at the core of their newfound prosperity. Their future depends on it.

Action Steps:

1. Read Atlas Shrugged – specifically the account of the train tramp who revealed to Dagny the story of the 20th Century Motor Company after its founder had died.
2. Examine your role in your community – what determines your individual prosperity? What determines your community’s prosperity?
3. What can you do to associate with others and develop local communities based on the principles of capitalism and freedom?

MRFC Principles: (2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13)

References:

The Kibbutz Sheds Socialism and Gains Popularity
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/world/middleeast/27kibbutz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Bureau of the Brain-Dead

MAPLETON, UT | 7 April 2008 | There is a little-known disease that afflicts a special segment of any population. It is very contagious, but it seems to manifest itself most frequently when the carrier is either elected to public office or is appointed to a government department. The most severe cases are witnessed in those who are career bureaucrats. Few seem to be able to resist infection after years on the government payroll.

It thrives in a specific climate, namely an environment created by looters, nourished by plunder, and devoid of sterilizing agents such as productivity, accountability, and the consequences of profit or loss.

This is the story of a certain individual who worked in such a government workplace, fighting the culture of the diseased minds. Like the character Robert Neville in the novel “I Am Legend”, her immunity to the disease made her an outcast in her world. Her struggle reject the creed of the moochers and to bring to light the violations of principle in her workplace resulted in her being fired – with the only explanation given that she was terminated for the government’s convenience.

Sibel Edmonds was hired as a translator at the F.B.I’s language division after the events of 9/11. Her story has been featured on major news programs, usually for the purpose of illustrating the government’s inept response to the events of 9/11. There is another aspect of her story, however, that is not typically noticed. In an interview with Ed Bradley of CBS News, her comments reveal the glaring symptoms of the bureaucratic disease.

Key Points:

• From the day she started the job, she was told repeatedly by one of her supervisors that there was no urgency – that she should take longer to translate documents so that the department would appear overworked and understaffed. That way, it would receive a larger budget for the next year.
• “We were told by our supervisors that this was the great opportunity for asking for increased budget and asking for more translators,” says Edmonds. “And in order to do that, don’t do the work and let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.”
• Edmonds says that the supervisor, in an effort to slow her down, went so far as to erase completed translations from her FBI computer after she’d left work for the day. “The next day, I would come to work, turn on my computer, and the work would be gone. The translation would be gone,” she says. “Then I had to start all over again and retranslate the same document. And I went to my supervisor and he said, ‘Consider it a lesson and don’t talk about it to anybody else and don’t mention it.’
• Edmonds said, “The lesson was don’t work, and don’t do the translations. …Don’t do the work because — and this is our chance to increase the number of people here in this department.”
• When she made formal allegations, her boss said, “Do you realize what you are saying here in your allegations? Are you telling me that our security people are not doing their jobs? Is that what you’re telling me? If you insist on this investigation, I’ll make sure in no time it will turn around and become an investigation about you.”

Commentary:

Most who read these accounts can clearly identify the incompetence that results in the mishandling of important information. What is recognized less often is the mentality that leads to such a situation. In this case, the quotes concerning the management’s desire to artificially stifle productivity in order to build a case for greater funding is most telling. In a government bureaucracy where productivity and efficiency is not rewarded with profit – in fact, where the opposite is true, is it any wonder that workers would be incentivized to hold back? Why work so hard to finish a task if you can simply let important work pile up and claim to be unable to do anything about it? Why bother innovating and succeeded when incompetence and inability are rewarded with bigger budgets and increased staff to lessen one’s workload?

The very nature of the existence of government bureaucracy is systematically opposed to the forces that govern every private endeavor – which some defend as a indication of moral superiority, as opposed to the presumed “lesser laws” of profit and productivity. However, the mentality that breeds such bureaucracies is doomed to devolve into the very situation apparent in the story of Sibel Edmonds. When the source of the wages of each worker in that bureaucracy is provided by political pull, graft, and the “public good” (as determined by those currently in power), and any negative evaluation of their performance is determined to be simply a result of insufficient funding, it is not surprising that managers would direct their workers to perform at less than their full potential.

Some would argue that an agency such as the F.B.I., being essential to the public good, must operate “above” the rules that exist in the private workplace – yet they are shocked to discover such behavior as was revealed in the case of Sibel Edmonds. Rather than recognizing the principles that govern the actions of all men, they prefer to express outrage, assign blame to bureaucratic scapegoats, and pretend to solve the problem by appointing new directors who are presumably more “principled” than the last ones. This is the best the socialist, bureaucratic mentality can come up with. Since, in their minds, there would be no corruption without corrupt leaders, their best bet is to keep swapping out the leadership every so often – all the while ignoring the cancerous disease that cripples the very operation of the department. Without productivity as a standard (Principle 10), and profit as the tool of validation of that productivity (Principle 9), the bureaucrats are at the mercy of a disease which infects all those whose “mental immune systems” are compromised by the morality and mentality of the moochers and looters. All, that is, except those who refuse to assent – like Sibel Edmonds.

The failure of any government agency to perform its duties can be most effectively corrected by addressing the culture of bureaucracy and the mentality that keeps it alive. Public outrage over the particulars of this case and many others has failed to effect meaningful change, because it appears to the public that these failures are the result of simply having the wrong person in charge. Unless and until the same principles that govern productivity and excellence in the private marketplace are applied in the halls of government, this mental disease will continue to flourish.

Action Steps:

1. Choose to live by principle in your workplace – take personal responsibility for your productivity, and reject the moocher’s mentality of idleness and victimhood.
2. Research what is meant by Principle 10: “Productivity is the Standard”, and ask yourself how you can be more productive. What would be the result of such a commitment to productivity in your life?
3. Read “The Brain-Off Conspiracy” by Rick Koerber in the Free Capitalist Primer – what description best fits those who express outrage at the government without offering principled solutions?

Principles:  (3, 9, 10)

References:

Lost In Translation – CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

Sibel Edmonds – Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

Supreme Court to Review Broadcast Profanity Rules

HIGHLAND, UT | 27 March 2008 | Arguments about the proper role of government regarding the First Amendment have recently flared as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed its rules about “fleeting expletives.” The basic argument in this story is whether government has the power to regulate and fine networks when expletives are used during live broadcasts.

Key Points:

• The FCC has recently changed its policy making it a violation for broadcasters to allow “fleeting expletives” to be aired. Previously, such fleeting expressions were allowed under certain circumstances.
• A federal appeals court said the new policy was invalid and could violate the First Amendment. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.…” The federal appeals court is in essence saying the FCC ruling is an act of Congress abridging the freedom of speech.
• The Founders’ intent with this prohibition against the federal government was intended to protect those who chose to speak out against the government and was not intended to protect profanity or other vices.
• William Blackstone, predecessor of the Founders and British proponent of man’s rights, stated in 1758, “Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public….But if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his temerity.” Profanity is, in effect, improper and mischievous in a moral society.
• The FCC’s appeal is that the court has left the FCC accountable for “the coarsening of the airwaves” with no authority to address the situation.
• The involved networks say the old policy of allowing “fleeting expletives”, in place for 30 years, worked well and should not be suddenly changed.
• The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall.

Conclusion:

The debate over rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are important to a thinking and vigilant individual. One of the gems of the United States Constitution, the right of an individual to express himself should be protected for the individual. Clearly understanding this principle is the duty of each citizen. Also, understanding the government’s proper role in this matter is a critical element. Our Founding Fathers believed and taught that the Constitution was built upon the foundation of morality. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Further, Benjamin Franklin noted, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Does the government have the right to regulate the use of certain words over the airwaves of the country? A moral society chooses to regulate itself through independent constraint and general respect for one’s neighbors.

Action Steps:

1. Review the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
2. Read Principle 216 of W. Cleon Skousen’s Making of America.
3. Consider the statements by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin quoted above. Discuss in a family council meeting how to remain free under the Constitution by living virtuous lives.
4. Read the 30-year old ruling between FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation.

MRFC Principles: (3, 4, 11, 12)

Resources

Mark Sherman, AP. “Court Will Examine Profanity Rules,” March 17, 2008

The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Making of America. National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS), Washington, D.C. 1985. p. 688-9

Skousen, W. Cleon. The 5,000 Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World. NCCS, Washington, D.C. 1981. p. 49, 56

Candy Sales Go Underground Amid Junk Food Ban

VICTORVILLE, CA | 26 March 2008 | Many times people create policy meaning to do good. They really do not wish to become tyrants or otherwise exercise unrighteous dominion. They simply know what is best for everyone involved. Because health the ability to live a quality life is such an important issue, this has its place many times in food related activities. Such was the case with the “French fry ban” in New York City in 2006–2007. City officials recognized the damaging nature of deep fried foods and attempted to ban such items in city restaurants, thinking that citizens would conform. After all, it’s for their own good and they should know such fattening foods are not healthy. But, perhaps it will be remembered what an outcry resulted from this ban. Such is also the case with the ban on candy and other junk food in California government schools. Further, most bans do not eradicate the undesirable behavior; they only send it underground. This Victorville report of local schools is a perfect case in point.

Key Points:

• In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation attempting to combat childhood obesity.
• In an effort to comply, Victorville schools have removed all candy from vending machines and replaced it with “healthier items” such as baked chips, granola bars, and juices.
• Some students reportedly fill their backpacks full of candy bars and Twinkies and even energy drinks, bringing to school a veritable convenience store on their backs to sell to fellow students. This has become quite the black market economy for many of the students, some earning upwards of $40 a day.
• Local school principals and teachers report seeing just as much junk food as before.
• The students, if caught selling the candy, are punished with detention and confiscation.
• The solution, according to officials reported in the news article, is for parents to put lunch money on special lunch account cards that can only be redeemed at the school cafeteria, and that way the parents will know their children are getting a healthy meal at school instead of spending lunch money on candy and junk.
• A quick check of physical education scores and a good look at the children reveals that the ban is not working, reported one principal.

Conclusion:

Though it may be smart for individuals not to eat so much candy, pop and junk food, a ban in the schools does not solve the problem. Children can still obtain such items elsewhere and bring them into the halls for sale and personal consumption. Furthermore, this is a microcosm of a greater problem in society where perception determines the action of individuals. Parents seem to have abdicated teaching their children correct principles, perhaps even contributing to the problem of unhealthy eating in their own homes. So, when collective authority exercises dominion in improper places the behavior simply goes underground and the desired results do not manifest. Simply put, the government cannot control eating behavior; it cannot force people to eat more healthy. It is not within the confines of its proper role to do such and should therefore distance itself from such coercive tactics. Rather, it may use its bully pulpit to educate its citizens and help them to gain a better perspective about nutrition, but this is best done without the aid of a gun.

Upon first glance of this article it appeared that the topic would be the favorite behavior of government schools to ban any semblance of capitalist behavior within their walls. However, the article concentrated more on the effects of the ban and subsequent underground behavior on their health and freedom than on the kids actually selling the items to one another.

The instigators of this ban on junk food mean well. They sincerely want the upcoming generation to be healthy and strong. They do not recognize that the techniques they are using are tyrannical and improper. They wish to be obeyed because they know better and it is for the children’s good. They simply do not recognize that they are using force because they do not understand the full ramifications of their own behavior. In this case, if they would learn correct principles themselves, they could then use those principles to guide their children and students in the proper way to behave regarding nutrition. And it could be done without compulsory means.

Action Steps:

1. Review “The Proper Role of Government” by Ezra Taft Benson
2. Since perspective determines action, review proper nutrition principles in a family council meeting with your children. Teach them correct principles and help them to govern themselves.
3. Visit your children’s schools and see if there is a similar ban which has caused underground activity. Discuss with school officials better, more effective ways of accomplishing the desired behavior.

Reference(s):

Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Source: Victorville Daily Press, “Students turn Profit from Candy Sales.”
Author: Rachel Byrd
MRFC Principles: (4, 9, 11)