Does this Country Really Need Its Tyrants?

HIGHLAND, UT | 4 June 2008| “Personal liberty requires private propety.” So, the collective psyche of our nation instills into our minds. This is the most basic and simple to understand of the 13 Principles. At least from a visceral point of view. But what is property ownership? What is the proper use of the stewardship? And what do we do with the people who choose to use their agency regarding this stewardship improperly? In Canton, Ohio, this week, the city council voted unanimously to impose stiffer penalties against property owners who do not maintain their property according to the standards of the rest of the neighborhood, that being keeping the grass under 8 inches. These penalties include higher dollar fines and even jail time for repeat offenders. Many Principles of Prosperity come into play in this current event, perhaps the two most relevant are 12 and 3.

Key Points

• Collective Action has no unique moral authority.Every irate neighbor in Canton, Ohio should asking him/herself this sobering question: If I do not like how my neighbor keeps his grass, do I have the right to march over there and put a gun to that person’s head and threaten to shoot if he/she does not mow the lawn? If this is absurd individually, then it is also absurd to pass a law that allows government officials to do the same. Consider: if the city submits citations and the owner still does not comply how does the city enforce the law it just passed? Eventually, it must send an armed police to the premises where that officer can force the property owner into compliance—at the point of a gun. This is immoral behavior by the citizens of Canton, collectively.
• Agency implies stewardship. Property owners often argue, “It belongs to me, I can keep the grass as long as I want to.” Yet, this is a mistaken statement. While, yes, as owner, an individual does have the right to decide how he takes care of his stewardship, it is also a portion of that agency that shows that a stewardship ill-kept is soon a lost stewardship. Last week’s news story and the responses to it provide the cases in point for this story. Typically, an unkempt yard is indication of an owners inability to maintain and retain the property. Many of the current violators of the city’s ordinances are banks, corporations, and “the poor.” Some residents have argued that they prefer the longer grass because it reflects the natural state of the earth. While this may be a matter of choice for a few, most people who do not take care of their yards, allow the overgrowth because they can’t afford to purchase a mower or a yard maintenance team, or do not have the time because they are overstretched in other areas of their lives. Thus, if they do not take the initiative to make some changes in their lives, they will soon find themselves “relieved” of this particular stewardship.

Conclusion

Our Founding Fathers took property ownership and stewardship very seriously. It was a major factor in their break with Great Britain at the time. John Adams explained, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral … people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Further, Benjamin Franklin explained, “As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Both Cantonese sides of this argument are based in falsehoods. Because the nation has lost sight of such morals or virtues as the proper care of property, and the proper role of government, the people find themselves continually relying upon tyrannous solutions to their problems.

Action Items

1. Control your life so no one else will. Learn how a person in the Abundance Paradigm maintains his stewardships and resolve to act in such ways. Strive to improve where you see necessary.
2. If your neighbor is struggling to keep his yard up to your standards, resolve not to resort to tyrannical measures to get him to comply, whether personally or collectively. Rely upon rational persuasion to help him/her change perspective.
3. Encourage those in city and county leadership positions to refrain from the same tyrannical opportunities. This may require first establishing meaningful relationships with those leaders in order to invite them to rational discussions on the matters, rather than just being another shrill voice in the crowd.

MRFC Principles:   (3, 4, 11, 12, 13)

Resources

Ed Balint, Canton Council proposes jail time for tall grass, CantonRep.com, May 20, 2008.

Associated Press, Mow your lawn…or risk jail time in Canton, Ohio, Yahoo! News, June 3, 2008.

John Adams quote as printed in 5000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen, 1981, seventh printing 2006 by National Center for Constitutional Studies, p. 56.

Benjamin Franklin quote as printed in The Real Benjamin Franklin, published by NCCS, 1982, p. 497.

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.

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:

Is It Immoral to Use Food Crops for Fuel?

ALPINE, UT |31 March 2008| The recent surge in production of bio-fuels (fuel derived from food crops such as corn, soy, and sugarcane) both in the U.S. and around the world has sparked a debate about whether such production should be promoted or even permitted. Aside from arguments about the energy efficiency of bio-fuels, the latest criticisms have arisen from the recent rise in prices of staple foods, such as the corn used to make tortillas in Mexico. Far away from the corn fields in Iowa, yet linked by the global economy, some have expressed anger over the rapid increase in cost of a commodity they purchase daily for their sustenance. In many third-world countries, citizens have been shielded from the full effects of these cost increases through government price controls and subsidies – but these programs are straining to maintain the illusion of cheap food in the midst of a worldwide jump in food prices. Ironically, in many industrialized nations, governments have been pressured to use tax dollars to “stimulate” the production of bio-fuels through grants for bio-fuel factories, infrastructure, and subsidies for farmers – with the intent of reducing our dependence on petroleum fuels.

Key Points:

• Increased use of food crops for fuel production has reduced the amount sold for human consumption, resulting in price increases (supply & demand).
• Where bio-fuels have been more profitable than selling crops for food, some farmers have chosen to sell their crops to the fuel producers.
• Government price controls on food commodities have limited the profit possible to farmers, incentivizing them to seek other markets for their product.
• Government subsidies for bio-fuel production have distorted the economic value of food crops by creating an artificial demand (using tax dollars to stimulate production in the place of buyer dollars, which would demonstrate true demand).
• Acute shortages of subsidized bread, which is sold at less than one U.S. cent a loaf, have caused hours-long lines and violence at some sites in poor neighborhoods in Egypt in recent weeks.
• The supply of subsidized bread has been decreasing. Many people in Egypt believe subsidized bakeries sell some of their flour on the black market rather than make bread.
• Egypt has long been one of the top importers of U.S. wheat, but its U.S. purchases have been falling as it searches for cheaper sellers on the world market, where prices have tripled in the last 10 months.
• Some have criticized the use of food crops for fuel as “uncaring” and an example of “lopsided priorities”, due to the effect it has had on food prices, making it more difficult for poorer people to purchase basic foodstuffs.

Commentary

Not surprisingly, those who are suffering the consequences of government manipulation of the free market are the first to cry for the government to manipulate it further. This mentality believes that all costs are determined by the power of huge corporations, greedy middlemen, and government regulators – thus creating the illusion that the economy is simply a constant struggle between greedy businessmen and “the public” (represented by government protectors), waging price wars, with both sides continually seeking the upper hand. This illusion, during times of economic hardship, leads to the cry for government to be given greater powers to control commerce and trade, and to set “fair” prices.

What is not seen or heard in this debate is the fact that in a free exchange, the price of the product is decided mutually by the buyer and seller. Absent force, neither party can demand the other buy or sell the product – they must mutually agree. Thus, a general rise in the price of a commodity would indicate that someone is willing to pay more for it, and is doing so. Attempts to manipulate such an exchange through force will always result in its collapse, for the buyer will refuse to sell (reducing the amount of product available) and the seller will refuse to buy (creating a surplus in product available). These forces cannot be changed by government edict, and those who clamor for the force of government to be exercised to impose their opinions on what should be sold for what purpose and for how much will reap the consequences of history – shortages, recession, and general economic collapse.

In a real sense, what is being demanded by those who condemn the use of food crops for bio-fuel, is that each individual farmer should not be allowed to sell the fruits of his labor for the best price he can ask. He should be constrained to use his crops only for the benefit of those determined to be “in need” – by selling it only for food use and only at a price that is deemed “fair” by those who are demanding it from him. Such a policy can only be implemented through force, and has only one possible outcome. Eventually, the farmer will cease to produce when it is no longer profitable for him to do so under the coercive terms of the “public good” – and when that happens, there will be no food to buy at any price, no matter how great the need.

In the case of food crops and bio-fuels, both sides of the equation have been manipulated by tyrants – those who wish to control the direction of the fuel industry, and those who wish to mandate the value of a simple food product. Both distortions have aggravated what might have a been a simpler development in our modern economy. When men are free to exchange, temporary disruptions like those created by the invention of bio-fuels are quickly adjusted to, and self-interested people are quick to fill the needs and desires of others, for a profit. And that motivation, whether you revile it or not, is truly what fuels the economic activity of every person on the planet.

Action Steps

1. Read “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Friedman (available in the F.C. Primer).
2. Ask a local farmer what determines the sale price and use of the crops he produces.
3. Research the recent trends in the commodity markets – do you know the cost of the sources of your food?
4. Email your congressman and ask his/her opinion about the U.S. Farm Bill.
5. Read “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat – How does the concept of “legal plunder” apply to the issues of production, free exchange, government subsidies, price controls, and other economic manipulation?

MRFC Principles: (6, 7, 8, 9, 11)

Resources
Indian minister attacks biofuels
BBC – March 26, 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7315308.stm

Egypt tries to tackle deadly bread crisis. CNN – March 4, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/24/egypt.bread.riot.ap/index.html?eref=rss_world

Maryland Approves Cell Phone Ban

ALPINE, UT | 24 March 2008 | The proper role of government at any level is to protect the individual’s inalienable rights. Many times, in an effort to do the right thing, officials make the wrong decision. They mean well, but are misdirected. We see this on the state and local levels as much as on the federal level. The Maryland bill banning cell phone use while driving is such a case in point. While the effort is good-natured, it simply is not within a government’s proper role.

Key Points:

• The bill prohibits cell phone use while driving, including talking on the phone and text messaging.
• The bill provides for only a secondary infraction, meaning police would not be able to pull someone over for just using the phone while driving, but the citation could be added if the driver was speeding or has other infractions.
• Proponents to the bill have attempted for many years to put this bill on the books.
• The bill still would need to pass the Maryland State House before it could become a law. Ms. Wyatt reports that it is not clear whether it would pass the House.

Conclusion:

The Founding Fathers were smart about the way they set up the governing processes in the United Sates. They drew up a Constitution that very specifically defined the proper roles available to the federal branches. And the intent was to push issues such as this cell phone use down to more local levels. So far, the good thing is this bill is considered on the state level in Maryland, the highest level at which it belongs. The basic idea is the closer to the people a decision like this gets, the better it will be for those people. They will know the legislators on a personal basis and will have more sway in their opinions.

Many people believe that since one of the proper roles of government is to protect life, there ought to be laws such as this to protect its citizens. This is, however, misapplied, for it robs the citizen of many other rights. The citizen should be allowed to think for himself to make the most relevant decision for himself. It may be true that using a cell phone while driving impairs the driver’s ability to respond to road conditions.

Some people may respond by saying this type of bill is too trivial to worry about, especially while the supreme court is arguing gun control and similar issues; however, if you give the government an inch, they’ll take your whole life. Best to stop them in their tracks on these smaller matters rather than waiting until they want to take your guns and your house and your life.

Action Steps:

1. Read “The Proper Role of Government” by Ezra Taft Benson.
2. Review current bills in your area, on every level. Pinpoint the ones that violate the proper role of government as outlined by Benson.
3. Contact those legislators in your area who are grappling with those issues and discuss with them your opinion.

Reference(s):

Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Source: Washington Times, “Senate OKs Ban on Driver Phoning”
Author: Kristen Wyatt
MRFC Principles: (11,12)

Supreme Court to Decide on “Right to Bear Arms.”

ALPINE, UT | 17 March 2008 | Does an individual citizen of the United States have a Constitutional “right” to bear arms? 72% of the US public believes so, but few can even articulate a good reason why. Can you? Stop reading for just a second and pick up a pencil and jot down an explanation of your own understanding related to the issue. Answer the question in simple terms. “Does an individual citizen of the United States have a Constitutional “right” to bear arms (own and carry a firearm)?” Read more

Gold at Record High: Government Secretly Confiscating Your Savings

ALPINE, UT | 17 March 2008 | There are certain economic concepts that most people are just oblivious to. Even worse, we have been trained, taught, and educated to let things we don’t understand about economics just float by our conscious minds with little critical thought at all. For example, I think most people have heard on the radio, watched on the television, or read in the paper reports that the “dollar” is not doing well (an intentional understatement). But I don’t think most people understand what this means for them directly. Specifically, if “dollars follow value” what I don’t think most people are aware of is Read more

Credible Worries: Fed Causing Next Depression

ALPINE, UT | 14 March 2008 | Everyone like to talk about the economy these days but very few people have the gravitas and credibility to send out warnings to the general public like those now rolling out almost daily. While wanna be experts and pundits through out casual references and sensational warnings about America’s current economic woes seldom have institutional voices been so dramatic in their assessments. That is until recently when Telegraph writer Abrose Evans-Pritchard has published a series of startling stories about the criticism and warnings now coming from inside “the close-knit world of central banking.” In a stunning interview with 92 year old Anna Schwartz the Telegraph probes the shocking revelation by a revered figure at the Fed that Read more

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

Next Page »