Fast Food Slow Down in L.A.

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 30 July 2008 | Amidst the ongoing news of a heated and controversial election, failing companies and markets, and myriad world conflicts, talk of fast food seems a low priority. The city of Los Angeles thinks otherwise, however. In a unanimous vote, the city council voted on Tuesday decided to “place a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city.”Their reasoning? “A proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity.”

Their goal? “To attract restaurants that serve healthier food.”

Their problem? For whatever reason, restaurants that serve healthier food have not already freely chosen to operate in the area, and the number of fast food restaurants is not likely to be the thing that has kept them away.

Key Points

• After analyzing market conditions and local customer base, many restaurants have decided that it is in their best interest to operate in other areas of town.
• The only real incentive that the government has to attract new business to the area is tax breaks.
• Use of tax breaks to attract a business to an area that doesn’t have the customer base to support it is a recipe for failure. While lower taxes appear to increase profit margins, the increase is synthetic. Without revenues from a loyal customer base that can afford the products offered, there will be no need for tax breaks—there will be nothing to tax. Both the business and the government will be frustrated when the venture doesn’t work.
  Blocking other ‘less desirable’ establishments from opening is an abuse of the city’s power. If the market supports the fast food joints, they should have the freedom to operate as they please, where they please.
• If people really are looking for healthier choices, then the market will support the restaurants that offer those choices. Those businesses should compete based on their merits, rather than on government-given advantages.

Conclusion

Just like some of the left believe that they should keep the price of gas high because it will force people to quit ‘damaging the earth’, the L.A. City Council believes that they can force the people to be healthy by limiting the amount of fast food available to them. This is faulty logic. Dollars follow value. That means that people spend on the things that are important to them. “They should have better things for children,” said Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four. “This fast food really fattens them up.” If the price and convenience of unhealthy fast food has caused people to ignore healthier options (inside or outside of restaurants), then it is unlikely that any amount of government planning will lead them to patronize healthier, government-sponsored restaurants.

When the Nazi’s came to believe that there were problems with certain groups in their society, they began eliminating them. Their impossible goal was the social engineering of a perfect race. While the tactics being used by the City of L.A. are significantly less harsh, they are based in the exact same vein of thinking. With all that is going on in the world today, fast food does seem a low priority. But, the underlying attempt at social engineering is highly disturbing and should be a high priority to any freedom loving capitalist.

Action Items

1. Look at some of the ordinances passed by your city council. Do they generally tend to promote individual freedom or limit it?
2. Pick an ordinance that has been in place for a long time. Does the ordinance really make any difference in the city?
3. Make a list of ways that the community (citizens, not government) could persuade its citizens to effect the same changes without using force.
4. Take a deeper look at your personal relationships. When you want something to change in someone else, do you persuade or try to force?

MRFC Principles: (2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12)

Sources

Christina Hoag, LA blocks new fast-food outlets from poor areas, Associated Press, July 29, 2008.

(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.)

The Moral Confusion of Wal-Mart Haters

MAPLETON, UT | 16 May 2008 | It’s not that uncommon for people to resent big business – and the degree of their resentment is usually in proportion to the size and success of the object of their hate. In response to an article on the Huffington Post, I would like to examine the claims of one particular writer, who is not alone in his delusion – such is the tone of criticism heard in many venues against the successful businessman. This writer’s wrath was kindled as he observed efforts to entice people to spend their “economic stimulus tax rebates” at Wal-Mart. In explaining why he thinks such action won’t truly stimulate the economy, he reveals a deeper misunderstanding of moral economics:

With its low price focus, Wal-Mart may appear to help the U.S. economy. But, the reality is that with its poor wages and benefits, massive China sourcing and tax avoidance, Wal-Mart makes its workers and the communities where it operates poorer.

How is it possible for a company that hands out millions of paychecks every year to be “making its workers and the communities where it operates poorer”? No matter how small the paycheck and benefits are, can you actually become poorer by getting paid? Would even a 10-cent paycheck not make you 10 cents richer than you were before? If you could magically wave your hand and make the Wal-Mart disappear from your neighborhood, would people suddenly start becoming wealthier? Maybe the writer believes that unemployment benefits and other government programs are the key to wealth.

Think about what even a small raise for Wal-Mart’s 1 million+ workers would mean nationally, or what it would mean to your city or town if everyone at your local Wal-Mart got a raise.

What a great idea! Here, the writer, from the perspective of someone outside the relationship between Wal-Mart and its workers, proposes changing the terms of employment for the good of the community. He doesn’t bother to ask how to accomplish it, nor does he consider any consequences other than the presumed benefit to the people as a whole. In this mentality, it is assumed that the costs of such an idea will simply be borne by the wealthy, who have enough already and can afford to give more to everyone else. Presuming a beneficial outcome for “the people” is supposedly justification enough. Readers of Atlas Shrugged will immediately recognize this philosophy, and the consequences of imposing it on the producers of value by force.

As our nation’s largest employer and most financially-successful company, Wal-Mart is a singular American institution. It occupies a unique position in our world by virtue of its size, reach and responsibility for the livelihoods of millions of workers and the needs of billions of consumers. And with such overwhelming influence comes certain moral responsibilities. It is the acceptance or rejection of those responsibilities that determines greatness.

There is both praise and damnation in this statement, acknowledging Wal-Mart’s success while simultaneously using that status as tool of condemnation. These words embody the very morality of the modern socialist mentality. It is a sentiment that views profit as guilt, a burden to be relieved by giving it to others. It is the claim that the degree of one’s success is the degree of one’s indebtedness to others – that it is an indication not of the value one has created, but of a debt owed to society by virtue of its ability to do so. Here, greatness is measured by obedience to “certain moral responsibilities”, which are unnamed, undefinable, and subject to no standard other than the self-loathing of the moocher. No recognition is made of the effort required to succeed, only demands made of the fruits of those efforts – as if such fruits were simply a matter of luck and required better allocation.

Ironically, if a person were to win the lottery, few would claim that the prize should be redistributed to all those who weren’t lucky enough to win (despite the fact that those winnings were created from the pockets of all those who participated freely). But when the prize is earned through value creation and free exchange (from the pockets of the customers of Wal-Mart), many call for the profits to be more “fairly spread”. Such a mentality rewards gambling and penalizes effort, and breeds the idea that the lottery is a fair game where no one wins at the expense of others, while mercantile exchange is a dirty business.

Wal-Mart has rejected those responsibilities and because of that choice, the money spent there does nothing of what it could to strengthen our economy. Higher salaries, quality affordable healthcare and paying what they owe like any good American, are just three things Wal-Mart can do tomorrow that will make them a company worthy of our money.

By ignoring the debate about whether government handouts (taken from the taxpayers or from the printing presses) are even capable of “strengthening our economy”, and proclaiming the presumed evils of Wal-Mart, this writer has successfully avoided any meaningful discourse on how to effectively stimulate any economy. In the process, he has revealed his true agenda: to discourage people from shopping at Wal-Mart due to their failure to adhere to the moral standards of the moochers and looters.

Conclusion:

At the core of this argument is the presumption that if everyone who worked for and shopped at Wal-Mart knew (as the writer claims) the “hidden costs” of doing business with Wal-Mart, they would cease to do so on moral grounds. The fact that millions of people choose freely to accept wages and purchase goods from Wal-Mart is the greatest evidence of the morality of its business, and a far greater indicator than the complaints of this writer. As is usually the case in the socialist mindset, the writer presumes to know better than millions of free individuals how best to use their resources (even their own labor) – and given the power (of government), would likely use force against the villain he condemns, claiming to do so “for the good of the people”. And like every other well-meaning tyrant in history, would ignore the evidence and the freedom of the actions of “the people” for their own sakes.

If Wal-Mart – or any company – is not in the business of creating value for its employees and its customers, it will not be in business very long. Thus Wal-Mart’s success is evidence of the value it has created (Principle 6: Profit is the Tool of Validation). As long as its business does not rely on force or deception in its transactions, whether for wage labor or for cheap laundry soap, there can be no greater statement of the value it provides to each individual and thus, to our economy as a whole, than this confession by the writer:

“…our nation’s largest employer and most financially-successful company”

Action Steps:

• Examine your relationship with the people and companies you do business with – are your dealings with them voluntary, and free of force or deception?
• Write a letter to the editor in your local newspaper in support of those businesses (big or small) that are successful as a result of the value they create for you.
• Research what laws are being proposed in your community (from the city council to the state legislature) that seek to control prices, wages, or other terms of free exchange. Contact your representative and express your opinion.

MRFC Principles: 6 (5,7,8,9)

References:

Why Wal-Mart Does Not Strengthen Our Economy – by David Nassar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-nassar/why-wal-mart-does-not-str_b_99463.html

Senate Seeks Control of Internet

HIGHLAND, UT | 23 APRIL 2008 | In 1964, Ayn Rand wrote about the chaos that was previously the radio industry. She explained that capitalism was the perceived blame for this chaos but countered that the lack of ownership of the airwaves, rather than a rational system of ownership of them, was the actual blame. Forty years later, the nation is still grappling with this chaos, and it wishes to bring radios younger brother into the fray: the Internet. John Dunbar of the Associated Press (AP) reported Tuesday that the Senate, specifically Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Bryon Dorgan (D-N.D.) introduced legislation that would force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to assume a policy of “network neutrality.” Currently, ISPs admittedly prioritize data packages, sending what they believe is more important ahead of lesser important ones. This, to some, seems unfair, and Dunbar reports that this debate has lately heated up. Adequately understanding the government’s proper role would aid greatly in this matter—the issue is not about fairness; it is about property rights.

Key Points

• Rand teaches, “Any material element or resource which…requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” In other words, the person who put forth this Human Life Value should be the rightful owner of his efforts.
• The Internet exists in name only, for it is merely a system of wires, hardware, and software, no matter how high tech; all assembled by individuals and therefore individually owned, operated and maintained. The government neither owns nor controls these devices collectively.
• There are many levels of ownership involved with the Internet. For example, those who own the servers, routers, cables, etc; and those who own the intellectual property stored and transmitted on these devices.
• An individual user owns the data he created, an email for example. He is simply renting the rest. He therefore has no more right to those devices than a driver on the road has a right to owning the guardrail or the lines painted on the street.
• Though acting more like a pipeline than hauling buckets, the transmission of data through this web of communication is only facilitated by the work of human hands.
• Ayn Rand explained, “It is the proper task of the government to protect individual rights and, as part of it, to formulate the laws by which these rights are to be implemented and adjudicated. It is the government’s responsibility to define the application of individual rights to a given sphere of activity—to define (i.e., identify), not to create, invent, donate, or expropriate.” In other words, if the dispute over ISPs discriminating between pieces of data does come to government’s doors, government should ask one question: “Whose property is this?” When the owner is sufficiently found, government should then say, “Great. All the rest of you, do what the owner says.”
• However, there is a great sickness in our land. It is the sickness of collectivism. Too many people believe in the mantra what’s yours is mine. Dunbar reported beautifully on this when he quoted Justine Bateman, the TV actress, “The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your amterial or allow quick access is appalling.” A closer look at this statement reveals an entitlement attitude regarding activity on the Internet, and a lack of understanding of how the web works.
• A great way to sort this out is to return to the first statement: “Any material element or resource which…requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” With this it becomes understandable that individuals own the Internet and it is their agency and stewardship to manage data traffic the way they see best. If customers are dissatisfied, they have the right to seek out a more satisfying Provider and become their customer. If data traffic is handled inefficiently, the market will decide who stays in business, and who finds a different line of work. This is as it should be.

Conclusion

Just as radio revolutionized the way we communicate, the Internet has revolutionized that revolution, making the availability of information almost instantaneous around the world. It has revolutionized the way we communicate, how we do business, how we store information, how we pass time. Properly understanding the hard lines of property ownership will aid each one of us in acting appropriately in this matter. The government’s role is not to demand fairness, as seen in the eyes of those who would rob others of their hard work, but rather to insure that the lines defining ownership are clearly drawn and that those who would cross those lines are duly dealt with. Anything else is an abuse of power.

Action Items

1. Review Ayn Rand’s “The Property Status of Airwaves” (p. 122–129 of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). Decide how her message applies to the question of Internet use and government restrictions.
2. In questions of “Is it good to do _____” (i.e., Is it good to demand that ISPs treat each bit of data equally?), start asking, “Whose property is ______?” Then act accordingly.
3. Evaluate your own life. Identify areas where you may have misunderstood the principle of property rights. Resolve to change your perspective regarding property rights.

MRFC Principles: 13 (11, 12, 13)

Resources

John Dunbar, “Senators Debate Future of Web” AP, Yahoo! News, April 22, 2008.

Ayn Rand, “The Property Status of Airwaves,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Signet, 1967. pp. 122–129.

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

Superheroes? Carl Wimmer and Friends

UTAH COUNTY, UT | 4 April 2008 | The Salt Lake Tribune’s least credible columnist, Paul Rolly, has recently demonstrated how scared and inept the democratic party loyalists are when conservatives get organized in Utah. Absent any credible criticism of Carl Wimmer (R – Herriman), Ken Sumsion (R-American Fork), Chris Herrod (R-Provo), Keith Grover (R-Provo) and Steve Sandstrom (R-Orem) Rolly decided to make a political argument by sarcastic metaphor, but like most liberals – he doesn’t quite come to grips with the power of action over rhetoric.

For example, Rolly whimsically claims that the GOP is out to “rescue its superheroes” because of a flier recently distributed for an event designed to support the “Fab Five” state legislators. Funny thing is that Rolly has no argument to back up why a normal, organized fund-raising & event is a rescue attempt. Perhaps it’s a victory rally? Of course, Rolly doesn’t see it that way, because like many in his camp he’s still too busy gloating over the Utah vouchers issue to see much of anything. In fact, Rolly’s only substantive remark in his entire essay is that “All five dutifully followed leadership’s admonition to vote for vouchers…”

The facts are however, as they say, stubborn things. They are especially difficult for Attila like bullies who call it a job to poke rhetorical fun at good men who serve their community.

Fact #1 – Vouchers.

Rolly argues that the GOP leadership is supporting these five legislators because they “dutifully” followed orders this past session. Funny thing is that three of the five campaigned in support of vouchers long before receiving any orders from anyone. Sometimes Democrats forget that to hold office you don’t actually have to wait for a leader to call you up and tell you your position.

Fact #2 – Stand-Out Legislation

Rolly glosses over all of the legislative details with a blanket accusation that none of these five elected representatives had any “stand-out legislation.” The first error in Mr. Rolly’s argument is t o think that Utahans, especially Republicans, send freshman legislatures into office solely for the purpose of writing new laws.

I think it is a serious surprise to most liberals to actually try and imagine a government whose effectiveness isn’t measured in the number of new laws passed. Additionally, Rolly ignores records like Wimmer’s where fully half of his “introduced bills” were proposed amendments to existing laws, on such important subjects such as child abuse, environmental crimes, toughening prosecution on those who hurt children, etc. Other legislation sponsored by this freshman group included immigration reform, the rights of adopted children, and the reform of certain outdated criminal codes. Of course, this isn’t “stand-out” to Rolly because it left out global warming.

It is quite obvious that Rolly doesn’t count on educated Utahans to simply hop on the Internet and take 15 minutes to view the actual records of these freshman legislator’s – which records speak for themselves (with or without the support of leadership).

Fact #3 – Republican Challengers

It is true that four of the five candidates mentioned are being challenged by members of their own party, however it is far too early to tell how serious the challenges are. The state and county conventions will play their role, and the newly elected delegates will get to decide if any of the challenges are serious enough to merit a primary election. The irony is that Rolly lumps Wimmer into the same analysis (Wimmer is the Mr. T of the group Paul, just to answer your question) – when he is not even opposed by a Republican. Wimmer, as Rollly notes, is opposed by a “former” Republican who is now running as a democrat. Small details, I’m sure, for Mr. Rolly. Think about this for a minute, Dave Hogue was in the state legislature for ten years as a Republican and has now come out of the closet as a democrat (which most of us already knew by the way.) Stubborn facts.

Rolly’s “ad hominem” humor is no substitute for “brain-on” activity. Thank goodness he writes for the Tribune, or else some voters who are actually affected by the decisions of these legislators might have been confused.

It does take a superhero these days to stand up against the politics of liberalism, socialism, and do-gooders who think that the reason a man or women is elected to office is to continue the plunder of previous legislatures. Rolly also ignores important events that are actually working to root out government abuse, waste, and corruption here in Utah, events that would not be happening without the support of men like these. For example, it will be interesting to see what tongue in cheek quarterbacking Rolly offers when the legislative audit of the Utah Department of Commerce comes out if it tarnishes the reputations of his fellow travelers such as Francine Giani, Wayne Klein, and Thad LeVar. But, we’ll leave that for a future day.

The truth of the matter is Rolly is simply trying to stoke the flames of some internal conflict with the Republican party, but as appropriate, the Republicans are best left to solving their own problems. In the end we can all be thankful that the “Superheroes” and the “A-Team” showed up this past legislative session because the alternative would likely have been some version of Mr. Rolly staring as Pinky’s “Brain” devising some new diabolical plot to take over the world. That, is certainly, frightening.

As for me, I’ll side with Representative Wimmer and his superhero colleagues, thank you.

Reference(s):

Date: Friday April 4, 2008
Source: Salt Lake Tribune – Paul Rolly: GOP Out to Rescue its Superheroes
Author: Paul Rolly
MRFC Principles:

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

Parents Ordered: Vaccinate Kids or Go to Jail

ALPINE, UT | 12 March 2008 | It is becoming more and more common to see stories where parents are being attacked by government agencies for choosing not to vaccinate their children. Independent of the merits of their choice, contrary to the conversations that usually ensue when this subject is discussed, to the “Brain-On” Free Capitalist the real issue is Read more

Francine’s Domain: Scandal Brewing in Utah Government

ALPINE, UT | 14 February 2008 | In Utah right now there is a scandal brewing. The scandal penetrates the highest reaches of the Utah government. The question is, “Where will the buck stop?” as the evidence rolls out that an entire section of Government is in need of a major overhaul.Steven Oberbeck of the Salt Lake Tribune, quoting Chuck Newton of the Financial Planning Association of Utah, reported yesterday that there have been enough “shocking actions” in recent years that he believes its highly likely that “some government officials may eventually be criminally prosecuted.” Mr. Oberbeck’s report in the Salt Lake Tribune touches just the tip of the iceberg. The Department of Commerce is ultimately under the direction of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R) – a politically ambitious McCain backer who has little tolerance for scandal given the import of this year’s election and his political future. Huntsman is the one who appointed the highly controversial Francine Giani as the State’s Executive Director over the Department. Ms. Giani is not an attorney, has no legal background and did not have any substantial experience in executive level positions. Yet, she currently holds Utah’s highest regulatory position over business activities in the State.Since Ms. Giani’s appointment, the Department of Commerce has been the subject of a surprising degree of scrutiny. Many legislative leaders on both sides of the political isle have expressed “disgust” at how the Department’s activities have been and are being carried out by Giani and her associates. One legislator, Utah Representative Jim Bird (R-West Jordan) recently uncovered an alarming complaint.

“Ms. Giani allegedly was made aware of illegal activities taking place within the division and responded by telling employees that she didn’t care if the actions of the division were legal or not – but that employees were to perform the jobs without question.”

Some Utahans are hoping that the current controversy will allow the public to clearly separate “lip-service giving do-gooders” in government positions from authentic leaders who care about civil liberties, small business and simple concepts such as fairness. At the core of this issue the question is, “How far up the chain does the corruption go?” In recent years the State has behaved with little concern for small business owners who find themselves entangled in the Department of Commerce’s web of scandal and corruption. One of the State’s highest elected officials recently commented:

“Francine Giani is the single greatest threat to small business and personal liberty in the State of Utah.”

“The world of [regulation] is reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously…It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict – after the fact.” (Greenspan, Alan. Later Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Paper given at the Antitrust Seminar of the National Association of Business Economists, Cleveland, September 25, 1961.)

Quiet whisperings have become all too common in Salt Lake City among government employees, elected officials, and community leaders about this rogue agency stealthily persecuting small businesses. Over the last 12-15 months Ms. Giani’s commissars in the State’s Division of Securities have come under the most serious scrutiny.Allegations of corruption, incompetence, mismanagement and “too many unfair prosecutions“under a cloud of controversy are growing relentlessly frequent and more substantial. Last week, apparently in an effort quell the unraveling of her department – Giani reportedly pressured Securities Director Wayne Klein to resign

“They obviously haven’t told me the results of the audit but I’ve heard words like [the division is in] ‘disarray’ and the ‘deeper we [the auditors] go, the deeper we need to go,’ “ (Representative Bird testimony last week during the Utah Legislature’s meeting of the House Business and Labor Committee.)

Klein’s resignation, however, is not likely to insulate Ms. Giani (or several other employees involved in this mismanagement such as Securities Enforcement head Mr. Michael Hines who is also suspected of official wrongdoing in the Department) from the political and legal fallout yet to come. Apparently hoping this will all blow over quickly, Ms. Giani has tried to appear disconnected recently asserting, absurdly, of Klein;

“He has been a good director, and in terms of his background in the securities industry, there is no one better.”

Utahns can only hope Ms. Giani is simply posturing here. Wayne Klein is not only personally vindictive but has a fairly well known reputation in the legal community from his previous positions both in the Utah Attorney General’s office as well as with the State of Idaho for being a loose cannon, an unjust prosector, and having contempt for legal restrictions on his own activities. It makes one wonder, in light of all the information that is now coming out, how Mr. Klein was appointed with the approval of the Governor and the legislature in the first place. According to Ms. Giani’s recent statements to the press, Klein is precisely is the “type” of regulator she strives to appoint in her department. Yet, Klein is quite simply a commissar (listen to the Free Capitalist radio broadcast archives from August 31, 2007 for elaboration). Specifically, he has increasingly become an embarrassment to government and legal professionals. He and his staff routinely fail to demonstrate even basic familiarity with the A-B-C’s of securities law. Reportedly, his own agenda is more important than the letter of the law and he is known to stammer and hesitate when trying to describe even the most basic federal standards for simple concepts such as what constitutes an accredited investor.One of Klein’s former government employers recently remarked that he, and a number of other government officials are not surprised at the recent discoveries about Klein and Giani’s philosophy of government.

“Mr. Klein is the worst kind of loose cannon. He’s often going after someone who’s offended him, regardless of the law. He’s really only effective if someone with very strong supervisory skills watches his every move and Francine is not that capable.”

Securities attorneys in Utah should not only be alarmed and offended at Ms. Giani’s defense of Klein, especially given his track record, but extremely diligent in working to ensure that there is serious reform in the Department. With Ms. Giani still at the helm she’ll likely just pick another “Wayne Klein” to run the Division. As reported by a notable Salt Lake City attorney recently,

“It has become common practice in Utah for knowledgeable, reputable, and highly educated attorneys to have to grovel to Giani, Klein (and their heretofore behind the scenes bulldog Mr. Michael Hines, Director of Enforcement in the Division of Securities). None of whom have shown much if any appreciation for the details of the law. It’s embarrassing.”

In 2007 a group of private citizens and business owners, fed up with the egregious behavior of an entire section of state government, began a private investigation on their own to look into the State’s activities. So far, the investigation has uncovered a remarkable cache of written documents and audio recording. The evidence includes recordings and transcripts of private meetings, official and unofficial conferences, lunch meetings, early morning meetings (as early as 6:30am at the home of one resident) and late night investigative activities (with government workers showing up to the homes of some “witnesses” as late as 10:00pm). The mounting evidence shows a disturbing pattern of Giani, Klein, and Hines each engaging in deception, incompetence, misstatement of the law, and abuse of the legal processes. Perhaps even more telling, the evidence is beginning to show a growing rift in the Department of Commerce between those public servants who want to carry out the legitimate duties of the Department and those like Hines who reportedly remarked recently that he hopes to retire by “writing a book” about one of the cases he’s currently investigating. The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that it is precisely this internal rift between real public servants and self-serving bureaucrats that brought about the legislative audit working to uncover the details of this brewing scandal.

“After hearing from several division staff members who expressed concerns about how the agency was being run, Rep. Jim Bird, R-West Jordan, late last year requested that the Legislative Auditor General’s Office audit the division.”

This kind of situation makes for a very unfriendly business environment and is embarrassing to everyone in government. With a formal audit underway, it appears Ms. Giani is simply buying herself time to try and get out from under the explosive details now coming to light. Consider a few embarrassing examples of the work being conducted by Ms. Cruella and her henchmen.

1. Wrongful Accusation of Criminal Behavior against Utah Citizens.
2. Misuse of the Courts and Legal Process.
3. Lying to Government Officials.
4. General Incompetence when it comes to explaining rudiments of the law.
5. Defaming Members of the Legislature who scrutinize the Department.
6. Punishing Citizens with Evidence Against the Department for their Political Activity.
7. Demanding “prior restraints” on Utah Citizens’ free speech, in an attempt to silencecriticism of the Department’s methods in public or in the courts.
8. Government employees lying to the public in order to “create” causes for investigation.
9. Disseminating confidential information obtained during investigations to private sector colleagues to enrich their business efforts.
10. Offering jobs and/or job referrals to witnesses who are willing to lie or distort the truth to defend the Department.

This kind of behavior is precisely what Ronald Reagan warned America about as early as 1964 when he deplored:

“It is time we realized that socialism can come without overt seizure of property or nationalization of private business. It matters little that you hold the title to your property or business if government can dictate policy and procedure and holds life and death power over your business. The machinery of this power already exists. Lowell Mason, former anti-trust law enforcer for the Federal Trade Commission, has written “American business is being harassed, bled and even blackjacked under a preposterous crazy quilt system of laws.” There are so many that the government literally can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute.” (Reagan, Ronald, A Time for Choosing, Speech given October 27, 1964)

Legislation has recently passed the Utah House of Representatives that would rein in the powers of the division and its director in an effort to secure more just handling of the Department’s responsibilities. However, as reported on FreeCapitalist Radio Monday February 12, 2008 this attempt to “rein in” the powers of Ms. Giani and her flying monkeys is being received about as well as the “Wicked Witch of the West” receiving Dorothy and her ruby slippers. For example, after Bird’s HB83 passed the Utah House, Giani defender Utah Senator Curt Bramble (R-Provo), apparently in an effort to help Giani and the Governor’s office stall the brewing controversy, strategically stalled the legislation from being considered by the State Senate indefinitely.

Reminiscent of something behind the iron curtain in the 1980s the outgoing commissar Klein remarked to the attorneys of a Utah citizen recently, who was cooperating with State legislators in their attempts to get to the bottom of the abuses going on in the Department that: because of his political activities the Division was “forced” to take tougher action. In a similar case Klein justified:

“Part of the problem is that I’ve been painted in a corner because your client has gone on the radio and publicly accused us of stuff. He’s got legislators out there trying to cut our powers because what we’re doing as if he’s entirely right in what he’s doing and government is unfairly coming after him. So ordinarily we have more flexibility but where I’ve got public attacks coming in saying we’re being accused of being unfair…[interrupted].”

Ayn Rand also famously warned us of situations like the present scandal brewing in Utah under Ms. Giani’s watch.

“This means that a businessman has no way of knowing in advance whether the action he takes is legal or illegal, whether he is guilty or innocent. It means that a businessman has to live under the threat of a sudden, unpredictable disaster, taking the risk of losing everything he owns or being sentenced to jail, with his career, his reputation, his property, his fortune, the achievement of his whole lifetime left at the mercy of any ambitious young bureaucrat who, for any reason, public or private,may choose to start proceedings against him…It is a form of persecution practiced only in dictatorships and forbidden in every civilized code of law. It is specifically forbidden by the United States Constitution. It is not supposed to exist in the United States and it is not applied to anyone-except to businessmen.”(Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 50 – from a speech given at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on Dec. 17, 1961)

The official audit of Ms. Giani and her staff is still under way. Potential legal action is reportedly pending against the State from private parties alleging damages in the hundreds of millions. Additional complaints are coming in from victims of the Department’s abusive handling methods including complaints against the Division of Real Estate, Licensing, Securities, and Consumer Protection. Transcripts and audio recordings of Commerce employees lying about Utah businessmen and their activities and other highly problematic behavior on the part of government employees are being delivered to government officials and media outlets. In the mean time, Utah citizens (the real Ma’s & Pa’s Mr. Hines is so fond of talking about while he pursues his agenda) are getting tired of being scammed by the so-called “scam busters.” Some investors have recently been told according to evidence obtained through recorded conversations that (consistent with what has been reported about Giani’s style of administration) if citizens want the State to help them they have to be willing to distort the truth and cooperate with the State’s agenda – independent of the facts involved. One local businessman recently complained,

“For more than two years now the Department of Commerce has been after me. They have come at me from every angle, from the Real Estate division, the Securities Division, Consumer protection etc. Every time, I’ve been able to demonstrate that they have no evidence against me and that I and my associates have done nothing wrong. Yet, the government continues to make horrible allegations, publicly bad mouth me and my colleagues and even accuse me of being a criminal to legislatures, business colleagues, and some of my closest associates. All of this so that Francine Giani, Wayne Klein, and Michael Hines can “look” like they’re doing their job. They’ve got all my clients in an uproar, they’ve told this story about what my business “really is,” all truth be damned, and their efforts have cost dozens of real Utahans their jobs and as essentially bankrupt me and my partners to the tune of millions of dollars. All this and not one charge filed, not one official action taken, and not one person in government responsible. There’s not even a forum where I can defend my case, I simply have to wait until these very powerful men and women are done playing politics with me, my investors, my customers, and my business. Maybe I’ll get an apology like Mr. Teran received from the Department, after they’ve succeeded in destroying my company.”

While the citizens of the State wait for the Governor to weigh in on the issue, thank goodness for good legislators and government leaders who don’t hesitate to reach for the pail of water when the Wicked Witch comes around. On a side note, sources suggest that Ms. Giani may already be preparing for her exit, vying for a position as an investigative journalist (Geraldo watch out!) back at Utah’s local Channel 2, KUTV along side consumer watchdog Bill Gephart. If it’s true, it’s likely that Ms. Giani can serve the people of Utah better there – for certainly there’s a role for consumer watchdogs. If she does return to the media perhaps she’ll feel less burdened, being freed from sticky things like State law, due process, fairness, etc.

Its time for Utahns (including our Governor) to get past the old cliché of Utah being among the “scam” capitals of the world, and start taking a closer look at the corrupt bureaucrats irresponsibly promoting that myth to the detriment of good people in a good state working hard to do many good things. Once again scandal is brewing in Utah. This time it’s the government in need of systematic reform. Perhaps Mitt would accept an invitation to come save the day in Salt Lake City one more time. Stay tuned…