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

Conflicting Energy Bills Reveals Consequences of Regulation

HIGHLAND, UT | 12 May 2008 | Effects of improper use of governmental powers last for many decades. The current energy crisis is a good example of that. Associated Press writer, H. Josef Herbert, reports that Congress is considering two bills this month in an effort alleviate soaring gas prices. He warns, however, “don’t wait for anything that will drive down prices at the pump.” The rest of his news report reveals that government control (force) has stopped energy progress virtually dead in its tracks, and that any further government action will stifle progress even more.

Key Points

• Republican solutions are said to be too little too late and more geared for the long term, thus not able to help the current gas prices.  
• One solution to the most recent so-called oil crisis, is the proposal to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), an issued hotly debated for nearly 30 years. Critics say any drilling in the region would not increase production for another 10 years.
• Congress passed a bill in 1995 to allow this drilling but it was vetoed by President Bill Clinton. Had it not been disallowed at that time, perhaps our current oil supply would enjoy a surplus which would result in corresponding lower prices. Since that was vetoed 13 years ago, it put our nation behind by another decade. Regulation in this respect has been a detriment to our economy.
• The Democrat bill is replete with further sanctions and regulations that would stifle progress even further. They wish to confiscate profits from oil companies because they are excessive. They also propose new laws against price gouging and market speculation. Experts, as reported in Herbert’s report, say this would “do more harm than good.”
• The reason being, any time government gets involved with regulating markets, it slows them down and discourages exchange.

Conclusion

Collective action is generally very short sighted. The current energy crisis is the result of many years of regulation and ignoring America’s lack of self-reliance. Had government acted with more prudence in earlier decades, we may have been looking at surpluses now that allow for better market conditions for all involved. As it turns out, the condition is one in which producers of energy find little incentive to meet the demands of the growing market. In many respects Congress treats the American people like helpless little children who are unable to make decisions between rational options. Gas prices are not “unconscionably excessive” as the story reports the Democrats’ perspective. The market (the people involved) have the ability to decide that on their own. If the price is too high, demanders will refuse to exchange at that price. If the price is too low, suppliers will refuse to sell their goods. Both of these pressures in the market tend to drive the price of any good toward the equilibrium. Currently fuels and other energies are in high demand. The suppliers of those energies have every right to push the price until they discover the price equilibrium. But when the market gets involved, it distorts the market. The result of such is a disadvantage for everyone involved.

The current crisis will take many years to be truly overcome. The nation has waited far too long for a solution on this matter. Only when the rulers of force divorce themselves from the regulations of these types of industries will we see improvement.

Action Steps

1. Quit looking to government to solve your problems. 
2. Recognize that the individual has agency and therefore an abundance of solutions. As an individual, explore your own solutions, especially if the price of gasoline seems “unconscionably excessive” right now.
3.  Discuss with your friends, when the topic arises, the basic concepts of supply/demand economics, and that a lower demand for fuel would result in lower prices.
4. Communicate with your Congressman, your desire to have the force of government out of the oil sector by relaxing regulations on harvesting and production of oil products.

MRFC Principles  (3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12)

Resources

H. Josef Herbert (AP) “Congress divided on energy plan” Yahoo! News, May 12, 2008.

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

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

Candy Sales Go Underground Amid Junk Food Ban

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

Key Points:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

Action Steps:

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

Reference(s):

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

Should Congress Make Talk Radio Fair?

ALPINE, UT | 11 March 2008 | For the last several years it has becoming increasingly clear that many of the elected officials in Washington D.C. are not happy about what is happening in the marketplace, especially with talk radio. After years of failed attempts to find “more suitable” talkers to fill the airwaves (most shows have simply gone broke and were unable to entice programmers to continue) lawmakers are Read more