An astonishing number when you consider that the United States produces over $14 trillion in goods and services annually.  If that number frightens you and raises red flags about the growth of government, then something is on the horizon which will make that number worse. And that is why we need your leadership today.

Big Labor is expecting a pay back from President Obama.  For the hundreds of millions they spent on his election, they expect him to sign an innocent sounding, yet deceptive bill called Employee Free Choice Act – better known as “Card Check.”

Card Check is a cunning device that will make unionizing companies less democratic in the process of union organizing and more prone to intimidation and harassment.  Currently, unions must have at least 30% of the employees sign cards voicing their support for a union.  In the vast majority of cases the employer will then require a secret ballot election to determine if a union will be formed.  If the new “Card Check” federal legislation is passed, unions may contact employees directly, and when they get 51% of the employees to sign a card, the right of the employees to vote by secret ballot is abolished and the workplace is automatically unionized.

Card check will dramatically speed up the unionization of America by harassment and intimidation. As a result, government will grow bigger and mandatory union dues – the main objective to Card Check – will increase Big Labor political donations to Democrats and left wing causes.  In 2008 alone, 91% of all union contributions went to Democrats.  A staggering number when you realize that Big Labor can simply take dues out of union employees’ paychecks. This is one of the biggest power grabs in recent memory.

It is inconceivable to believe government will not grow bigger and more confiscatory with a larger union presence. Government’s 39% total of our GNP will soon grow to the mid-to-high 40s if card check passes. Do we want that? Will that help or impede innovation, freedom and entrepreneurship?

Big Labor and their allies hope to accomplish this power grab by taking away a working man and woman’s right to a secret ballot.  Can you imagine if your elected officials knew how everyone voted in their districts? How many more votes do you think they would receive on Election Day?  The same logic applies to union voting. Without the privacy of the secret ballot, people become more acutely aware of the need of their jobs and their unwillingness to go against the pressure of union leaders. That is why Save Our Secret Ballot (www.sosballot.org) was organized – to protect the right of the secret ballot for all Americans.

Save Our Secret Ballot is doing this by placing on the ballot in 15-20 states a state constitutional amendment (not federal) to protect the right to a secret ballot (for exact language go to www.sosballot.org).  We want voters to know exactly what is at stake and what unions want to accomplish. Holding a public debate is the last thing unions want.  House Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are ready to take away your right to a secret ballot and President Obama is ready to sign it. All that stands in its way is you!

Where you and I want public discourse and debate like the famous Lincoln – Douglas debates over 150 years ago, unions want to treat this issue like a Venezuelan policy debate – the less discussion the better.

Unions want to pass this without the American public knowing about it. Like a thief, they want to do this in the darkness of night without the glare of daylight. Unlike a thief who steals material goods which can be replaced, they want to steal freedoms that cannot be replaced.

We need your help today – not tomorrow.  Today, Monday, this freedom protecting legislation will be up for a vote in the Utah House of Representatives.  We have some Republicans still frightened of the unions.  Please help today by getting your family, friends, business associates and YOU to call your Utah State Legislator and State Senator and ask them to vote YES for HJR-8 (Save Our Secret Ballot).

You can call them at the Capitol Hill

Utah State Senate 801-538-1035
Utah House of Representatives 801-538-1029

Without your help and leadership, unions will take away a fundamental freedom. For more information, go to www.sosballot.org and help stop this power grab today!

Chuck Warren is a partner at Silver Bullet, LLC (www.silverbulletllc.org).

“We can’t be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms,” said Solomon Yue, a cosponsor of a resolution that would put the RNC — the party’s national governing body <<<Read the Full Story>>>

The text of the Constitution does not define citizenship for us, so how do we define citizenship in the United States?  It is actually in the US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1401, where we read:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
a)    a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

… and then there are more specific definitions of other ways one becomes a citizen at birth.  I suggest that everyone have a look at Title 8, and specifically Chapter 12 of the US Code.  It was both a confusing and enlightening experience for me, and I am left with a question in my mind.

Why is birth, when it happens under the jurisdiction of the United States a qualification for citizenship by itself?  Is all it takes to be “worthy” of having someone else risk their life and property to defend my freedoms, for me to be born to the right people in the right place and the right time?  It seems to me that this is just a derivative of the divine right of kings.  If you happen to be lucky enough to be born under the right circumstances to the right people, you are inherently more worthy of citizenship than someone who was not so fortunate.  Anyone else must study for years, establish residency and take an oath of allegiance.  Why am I, being a natural born citizen of the United States, not required to take an oath of allegiance in order to benefit from that agreement?  Of course those, like children and the mentally handicap, who are not able to make such an oath for themselves, fall under the stewardship of their guardians, and are thus protected by the commitment of their guardian.

A satirical article in the Deseret News addressed the issue of citizenship and the US Constitution.  It reads:

It is a generally accepted fact that the Constitution of the United States of America is obsolete and no longer applicable to our times. By “generally accepted,” I mean by me.
In this age of iPods, iPhones and iRaq, it is clear that the current generation is not interested in the tenets of a document written more than 200 years ago. We forget the text messages we received less than 200 seconds ago. No, as important as the Constitution was to our forebears — who spoke of each amendment with solemnity while working actively to undermine them — the digital age requires a digital solution, a solution that captures the nobility of that sacred parchment, a solution that can be easily achieved with a mouse click.

There is only one realistic possibility: The Constitution must be replaced be an End-User License Agreement.

The Constitution, by not requiring any such action, is far too lenient. Any bum, lowlife, scoundrel or complete moron can be born in this country and be declared president by the Supreme Court. Any inept buffoon has the right to free speech and the ability to turn that into a radio contract with Fox News. Any self-serving and morally bankrupt individual is granted the freedom to bear arms and use that freedom to shoot an attorney while on a hunting expedition. No citizen of the United States has to do a darn thing to enjoy the Constitution’s protections!

Key Points

• Agency implies stewardship – the agency gained through citizenship has an accompanying stewardship.  Anyone who does not accept that stewardship, should also lose their citizenship.
• The government is not an organization, government does not exist as such.  “The Government” is an agreement using our right to govern our own lives.
• The US Constitution is not out of date, or archaic.  It is much more than a mere document with sentimental and significant historical context.  It is a very real agreement between the citizens of the United States and those they elect to take on the stewardship of part of their self-government.

Conclusion

The Constitution IS an end-user license agreement (EULA), or at least it should be.  The Preamble states, “We the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.”  It is an agreement for the end user – us.  Citizenship is something that must be earned.  It is not an entitlement because of our parentage.

Action Items

1. Study Title 8, Chapter 12 of the US Code and find out what it takes to become a citizen of the United States.  Think about why some people do so much to obtain that privilege and seek to meet those requirements yourself whether you are applying for citizenship or not.
2. Write an essay on what citizenship in the United States means to you.  If you are a citizen of another country, write about what citizenship in your country means to you and how you can best help promote the cause of freedom in your own community and nation.
3. Make a personal pledge to be worthy of citizenship in a country that values and protects freedom and liberty above comfort and security.

MRFC Principles:

Sources

Jeffrey R. Wilbur Let’s replace Constitution with user agreement, Deseret News, August 31, 2008.

Cornell University Law School Website

Ammon Nelson was born the second of ten children. Raised in West Valley City, he graduated from Granger High School in 1992 and served an LDS mission to the Northeast region of Brazil. He graduated from Salt Lake Community College in 2000 and from the University of Idaho, in Moscow, ID, in 2003. He enjoys discussing philosophy, performing and learning music, and spending time with his family. He currently lives in West Valley City with his wife, the former Heather Mann, and their six children. He works for the Nucor Building Systems of Brigham City, Utah, and has been a part of the FreeCapitalist Project since September 2006.

A similar housing crisis in the late 1980s led to stronger federal regulations in many areas of the real estate industry. One of the strongest holds the government took was upon independent appraisers. Mitch Weiss’ in-depth AP article this week gives a good overview of that history. However, the rest of Weiss’ article was lost on the lament that the regulation is basically a paper tiger, lacking any teeth in bringing “rogue appraisers” to justice. Questions a thinking reader must pose include: What is such an appraiser cheating on? Whom is he cheating? According to what standard is such an appraiser deviating? Who says he is acting fraudulently? The reader’s questions may be endless in this respect.

Correctly understanding the principles of prosperity will enable even the most casual looker on to recognize the trouble and to take appropriate measures to right this sinking ship. Namely, one must begin to understand the relationship between agency and stewardship.

Key Points

• Regulation means discipline and well measured action. Regulation means maintaining honesty in transactions. Regulation is attached to stewardship.
• Stewardship properly lies in the parties involved in a given transaction.
• In the 1980s real estate crisis, the federal government has erroneously yet effectively assumed stewardship of nearly every real estate transaction in the U.S. This happened progressively over the decades, first with the founding of the twin debacles of Freddie Mac and Fannie May; then with the Savings and Loan Bailouts where the government finally got a hold of the real estate agents and the appraisers.
• This erroneous assumption of stewardship simply is not within the government’s proper role.
• This has robbed the buyer, seller, and lender of their agency, in that they have been unable to determine their own values in a given transaction—they must now seek government permission for the transaction.
• Government regulation begets black markets. Because the human soul is autonomous and yearns for that freedom, it will search for it and achieve it in any way possible. This has created a system that is broken and a bureaucracy unable and unwilling to enforce itself.
• Stewardship is very closely tied to self-interest. One who lacks self-interest will not do his due diligence in a given transaction; but one who recognizes much self-interest will seek to establish the truth regarding the transaction he wishes to engage in.
• Mortgage lenders also have a stewardship in real estate transactions because if a borrower defaults on a mortgage, mortgage lenders will want to make sure they are adequately collateralized. They have surrendered their stewardship because government agencies have guaranteed nearly every loan. This has robbed the lender of his self-interest so he feels no need to do due diligence.
• In the end, the entity that is defrauded in a given real estate transaction is ultimately the government because of those loan guarantees.
• No one, however, is willing to take responsibility of the due diligence.

Conclusion

On the John Pendleton show on the Accent Radio Network this morning, the author of Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis explained that to eradicate all regulation would make this problem worse. This introduces the question: Is it good to regulate? The answer is shockingly: Yes. However, what was missed on the radio and is also missed in Weiss’ article is that regulation must accompany stewardship. The regulation is the individual’s personal adherence to correct principles. As this problem illustrates, the government, ultimately, is unable to enforce such regulations unless it is willing to bring out the big guns to force its hand. Fortunately, this country has not seen the veritable bloodbath of its appraisers, real estate agents, and mortgage brokers. However, to continue down this path of ever tightening government regulation would ultimately result in such a bloodbath. Nothing short of a full-scale overhaul of the system will remedy itself of these problems. And when that overhaul takes place, the government must not be invited to the party.

Action Items

1. Evaluate your own life. Are there stewardships that you willing hand over to someone else, hoping that everything goes alright? Resolve to reinsert your own human life value (HLV) into the equation. Take back the stewardship and do your due diligence.
2. Write to your Congressman and express your opinion that the govern should remove itself from all real estate activity and allow the marketplace to overhaul itself.
3. Search for alternative solutions to the real estate crisis, including methods which do not require a mortgage for a lending institution.

MRFC Principles: (2, 3, 6, 11)

Sources

Mitch Weiss, AP IMPACT: Weak rules cripple appraiser oversight, Yahoo! News, August 17, 2008.

John Pendleton, The Tom Pendleton Show, August 19, 2008.

Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla, The Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis, Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Son’s, Inc., 2008.

Key Points

• The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the greatest and most significant examples of proper use of free speech. After seeing that their cries for change had fallen on deaf ears, the Founders set forth a system of checks and balances that would allow for grievances to be effectively addressed.
• Regulation of free speech is a removal of those checks and balances. If one cannot address his views of a problem without fear of sanction, he has no avenue in which to protect his freedoms.
• While the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t provide direct sanctions against speech, it takes steps in that direction by limiting the amount that can be said. Effectively slicing broadcast time in half, it forces stations to cap the discussion from either side of any issue. Failure to provide equal airtime to either side (or to find someone willing to fill the necessary time slots for both sides) would result in sanctions.
• Plato said, “Where no contradiction is evident, there is no cause for reflection.” Opposing views are needed in the debate process to help us refine our views of truth and error.
  However, forcing the public to listen to views that are unprincipled or flat-out wrong will cause gradual acceptance of these ideas. Sales trainings often teach that repeated exposure to a concept will eventually break down objections and build familiarity and acceptance. This is also a tactic of the socialist agenda.
• Continued exposure to diametrically opposed ideas will lead to schizophrenic confusion and inaction (if the public are dumb enough to not turn off the radio when needed). Liberals foster this sense of helplessness in order to create a need for and dependence on government solutions, which is also a tactic of the socialists.
• In the free market system intended by the Founders, there is no need for a doctrine to mandate fairness. People are free to share their opinions and the system will sort out good from evil, truth from concoction. Dollars follow value and market will see that voices that are meant to be heard are heard.

Conclusion

Because a free market system will see that truth is brought to the forefront, one must question the motives of anyone who seeks to regulate or eliminate that system. If elected officials are doing what they believe is right, they will feel no need to regulate what is said about their actions. As they often have no idea what is right or do things that they know to be wrong, they fear people’s opinions and shy away from criticism.

It has been said that no single drop feels that it is responsible for the flood. But, regulated speech is always one of the first drops to hit the masses as the floodgates of socialism are opened. Viewing the Fairness Doctrine as either fair or harmless shows a wanton disregard for the principles that maintain and guard our freedoms. To see such a doctrine being considered in a free country is ludicrous. To see that it is being pushed by liberal minds who have often considered themselves the defenders of free speech is infuriating.

Action Items

1. Read the First Amendment to the Constitution.
2. Post here as to what you believe the Founders intended with this amendment and how Americans have mistranslated that intent.
3. Consider contacting your Congressman to express your concern about the loss of freedom that the Fairness Doctrine would lead to.
4. Support freedom in talk radio—listen to FreeCapitalist Radio live or via podcast, or check your local listings for a chanel in your area.

MRFC Principles: (7, 9, 11, 12)

Source

“Fairness Doctrine Vote Not In The Cards”, FMQB.com, Aug 1, 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 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.)

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.)

June 14, 1777! The newly independent country was embroiled in war against its mother country. The Founders were looking for symbols to create a distinction for this land. The Second Continental Congress published the following resolution.

Resolved, That the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation

Throughout history the American flag has taken on various appearances, with the stars assuming many different shapes as sizes.  Designers have even toyed with 51- and 52-star flags in recent years as Puerto Rico and the Philippines have toyed with entering the Union.

Ever since the Revolutionary War, the American Flag has symbolized freedom. It is no wonder then that Francis Scott Key, while aboard HMS Tonnant negotiating the release of a prisoner friend, kept an eye on the flag over the battlements of Fort McHenry. As long as the then 15 star, 15 striped Star Spangled Banner flew atop the flag post, he knew freedom still reigned in that Maryland night. Our national anthem memorializes that experience that shows Key’s exultation of seeing that flag wave over the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Today, the flag still stands for freedom wherever it flies and its perseverent nature tends to tug at the heartstrings of even the most hardened American, such as viewing the sight of the flag found at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. But take away two keystone documents and the symbolism of the American flag begins to ring empty.

Our Founders, driven by newfound glimpses of freedom based upon ancient principles, declared their break from England in 1776. The Declaration of Indepedence explains that when a “government becomes destructive of [those ancient principles] it is the right of the people … to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…” Eleven years later they completed that process by creating the Constitution. Thus, the Declaration of Indepence enumerates ancient principles that declare man free, and the Constitution makes the rules under which the government will keep man free. Without these two documents, the freedom and power of the American flag is nothing more than a piece of cloth flapping in the wind.

Today we pledge allegiance to that flag. We declare our love for this country. But if we allow the strength of these two documents to sink into oblivion ignorance and entitlement behavior, how long will that land be free and the people be brave over which Old Glory flies?  

Resources

Declaration of Independence

The History of Flag Day USFlag.org

A Brief Outline of the Flag of the United States, God-bless-America.org

Flag Acts (United States), Wikipedia.org

A History of Our Flag, by Rose Marie Heck, republished on Hasbrouck Heights, NJ website

Friends of the American Revolution

The Stars and Stripes: An Official History of the American Flag, New York Times, May 29, 1892. This is a fascinating read in the original printing of the newspaper. You get the history of the flag plus the visual history of how the paper was printed back in 1892.

29 Little-Known, Fascinating Flag Facts from the Book; Flag: An American Biography.

What Do the Colors of the Flag Mean? USFlag.org

Francis Scott Key, wikipedia.org

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

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