Social Justice Destroys the Prospects of the Downtrodden

“What if the teachers of that era had been imbued with the present day conception of fairness? Where would my schoolmate and I be today? On welfare, in prison, perhaps at a halfway house if we were lucky; and would that not have been an injustice? To take individuals capable of independent, self-supporting and being self-directed women and men with pride in their own achievements and turned them into dependents, clients, supplicants, mascots?”

What we commonly refer to as social justice, Thomas Sowell calls cosmic justice. In the above video he gives his take on the damage that is caused by the quest for equal outcomes.

This is one of my favorite speeches of his because it speaks to the way in which these typically liberal policies which sound helpful, are actually harmful by being enabling. You know, there was once a time when Italians, Jews, Irish, and Asians were all very heavily discriminated against in America. How did these groups largely overcome that? It wasn’t by government handout. The simple fact is, that if you want to give a person or persons the ability to rise above discrimination, you have to give them economic freedom which will enable them to not be dependent on anyone who would choose to discriminate against them.

How Government Created Wage Inequality

It’s a popular maxim of the left today that wage inequality is out of control in the United States, and you know what? They’re right. The latest statistics show that CEO’s make somewhere along the lines of 300 times more than their employees, on average. This figure certainly sounds astounding, and there are lots of arguments for why this is such a terrible injustice. I’m not going to discuss the merits or perils of inequality today, but rather I’ll focus on how we arrived at such a staggeringly high disparity in wages.

For as long as there have been CEO’s running companies with employees, there has been a wage gap. The fact that as you move up the company hierarchy, your compensation increases is something which I will venture to say most people find to be normal and not morally reprehensible in and of itself. Rather, I believe that the outrage at this wage disparity appears after people see how large that gap actually is.

In the mid 60’s the average CEO made 20 times what their employees made, and in the mid 70’s they made almost 30 times what their employees made. These disparities continued to gradually increase, and by 1989 CEOs were making almost 60 times what their employees made. So the growth in this disparity had been occurring for quite some time, and then, as now, the non-CEOs of the world were becoming discontented with this disparity.

When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, he promised to tackle this issue. He planned to achieve this by not allowing companies to write off salary expenses if the salary was over $1 million per year. It was a soft government control that on the surface sounded reasonable. After all, they aren’t preventing a company from paying their CEO whatever salary they deem fair, but simply eliminating the taxpayer subsidization of such high salaries.

It didn’t work.

Not only did it fail to slow the growth of the wage gap, but it likely resulted in even more unexpected damage to shareholders and American innovation. At the beginning of Clinton’s term, average CEO compensation was at $4.9 million, after his bill passed average CEO compensation skyrocketed to $20.3 million, meaning that the average CEO compensation at the time was nearly 400 times that of their employees!

2018-04-03 12-05-07_CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less _ Economic Policy Ins

How is it possible that Clinton’s bill, intended to shrink the wage gap, had actually had the opposite effect? It’s simple. When the rule changes regarding tax write offs and high salaries were implemented, CEOs began taking less in salary, and more in stock options. If the stock performed well, they got paid out in huge bonuses. This did two things, 1) it incentivized CEOs to value short term stock gains above all else, and 2) it created competition among executives, as their earnings were now required to be made public. CEOs never really cared how much more they were making than their employees, but they sure as hell cared if they could be making more money as a CEO elsewhere.

The first result of this legislation is particularly damaging, because it not only grew the wage gap, but it damaged the long term profitability of American companies, jeopardizing millions of American jobs while CEOs made short sighted decisions to optimize the lining of their own pockets. Money that had previously been invested in R&D was now being used to boost dividends and short term stock performance.

There are other hazards to this short term viewpoint as well, such as the dramatic rise in cost of the Epipen treatment. In 2014, a company called Mylan offered a stock grant worth up to $82 million dollars to their top five executives if their earnings and stock prices met the companies’ targets by the end of 2018. If the company did not achieve these targets, the executives would receive nothing. Almost immediately, the price of the Epipen treatment doubled; and with a government granted monopoly on the product, consumers were left out to dry.

There’s an old expression about the way in which the road to hell is paved. While I have no doubt that inside the government their are workers who are good and decent human beings, genuinely seeking to improve the world around them, these actions almost always have unintended consequences.


The Danger of Identity Politics

Identity politics inflict great damage on those individuals who belong to marginalized groups. Unfortunately for them, both sides of the political spectrum run entire political campaigns on identity politics, rather than any identifiable political ideology and Americans gobble it up.

We could, for instance, take a stand that free speech is an important ideal; one which is worthy of fighting to protect. Instead, what we see across the political spectrum is that free speech is worth protecting only when it doesn’t make someone feel bad. On the left this commonly shows up in the case of mandating that people use gender pronouns which they may not even be aware exist; on the right, this same sensitivity to free speech has most famously reared its head in the disapproval of kneeling during the national anthem. If we recognize that freedom of speech is necessary for the voluntary exchange of ideas and the perpetuation of our freedom, it should also be recognized that we must defend this ideal regardless of whether we like what another person is saying. If you dislike someone’s message steps can be taken to counter it, and disapproval of the message can be portrayed even while acknowledging that that individual has the right to say those things which you disagree with.


Similarly, an actual ideology would be that police brutality is bad and violent force by the police should be reserved for use in situations only where it is absolutely necessary to protect themselves or innocent citizens. I would imagine few people would find these ideas objectionable, and an even greater number of people might even ardently agree with them. Identity politics however, does not allow for such a universally applicable idea to exist. Identity politics insist that we must explicitly decry excessive use of force against only particular groups of people, rather than taking the broader stance that excessive use of force against everyone is bad. To make the latter claim is to somehow discredit the suffering of the identitarians’ selected group; a group which they will typically claim is the most proportionately disadvantaged in whatever cause they are fighting for.

While this is wonderful logic for capturing emotion, and winning political favor and elections, in actuality it serves to perpetuate the damage against marginalized groups of people. The reason for this, while it may not be immediately apparent, is rather simple. Let’s continue with the police example. Members of the identity politics movements in this arena (BLM and others) believe that they are fighting for a very noble cause, and I don’t necessarily disagree with that assertion. In reviewing the actual effects of their movements though, I see little that has been accomplished besides creating further divisiveness in this country. By pitting one group against another, they create the scenario where anyone who doesn’t take up their fight finds themselves backed into a corner. These people then naturally become defensive as they feel they’re being attacked. Those engaging in this form of identity politics are telling everyone who doesn’t participate that by doing so they are morally corrupt, this, in my experience, has never been a successful persuasion tactic.

Now let’s pretend that instead of associating this belief with a particular social or ethnic group some number of Americans took up the stance that the use of all excessive violent force was bad. I again pose the challenge to find anyone who disagrees with that original statement. You might find differing opinions of what constitutes excessive force, and that’s fine, it opens the door for a healthy and rational debate. Without the alienating effects of the identity politics based stance, a large scale disapproval of excessive force and the associated voluntary collective efforts to stop it would result in the toning down of violent force used by the police and this change would, by statistical necessity, benefit the group or groups who are most heavily a victim of said excess force. By the mere fact of proportionality, African Americans, and other groups of people who are most often on the receiving end of excessive force would see the largest improvement in their condition, while rich whites and others who never or very infrequently experience this, would see almost no change in their condition, because there would be nothing to change.


Hypocrisy Part I

The basic fundamental flaw in modern progressive thinking can be summed up exactly by their stance on gun control, wherein they feel that only police officers ought to have guns on the one hand, while also loudly proclaiming that police are corrupt, racist and cannot be trusted on the other. Of course, their explanation for this logic is simple. The racist and corrupt officers should be relieved of duty, and only good police officers should be left on the force to protect us. This is a fine sentiment, but it is not based in any sort of reality. Firstly, because a sense of what is good moral behavior is relative, and secondly because it is simply not possible to monitor that closely and predict the future behavior of any human being who desires to take the job as a police officer. There is a more robust system, as Milton Friedman puts it,

“The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”

The Notion of Voluntarism

Recently I found myself in a Facebook “discussion” with someone, regarding the image shown above. My argument went something along the lines of pointing out that if the birds in the image were acting of their own self-accord, without force from some other entity then this was not communism, or even socialism, but rather voluntarism.

The original poster laughed at this assertion, giving me the proverbial pat on the head at my innocence. “How could this possibly be voluntarism?” She cried. “In a voluntaristic society the brown bird would be left behind unless he could pay the blue birds!” She then proceeded to spout off a bunch of terms such as anarcho-communism among others, which apparently explained this comic better than voluntarism; at least to her.

Since I was unfamiliar with many of the terms she used, I figured perhaps she was unfamiliar with the true definition of the term voluntarism, so I thoughtfully provided the Merriam-Webster definition of the word, it is: “the principle or system of doing something by or relying on voluntary action or volunteers“. Seemed like a pretty good fit to me, but she still wasn’t buying it and insisted that I was not seeing the image correctly. Apparently I was too focused on the hammer and sickle, and not focused enough on the color black in the background. Well, this was getting truly confusing to me now as I had no idea which parts of the comic strip were supposed to have meaning and which weren’t, so I decided to leave the conversation at that point.

My question now is, was this person seeing something in the image that I’m missing that makes it not voluntarism, or was she arguing with the dictionary?

Libertarianism Defined

In the not so distant past I was a liberal. Not a classic liberal, but a “progressive” liberal. Educated as an engineer I considered myself to be a fairly smart individual, someone who could understand the “common sense” policies proposed to keep the government involved in our lives. Sure, not all politicians had pure intentions, but certainly the checks on their power would ensure that the good intentions of public policy would mostly shine through; or so I told myself at the time. I voted for Barack Obama in his first term, thinking that he was the obvious choice while indulging myself in the rhetoric of his campaign about change and hope; I even posted an Obama campaign sign in my front yard.

So what happened? How could I have gone from that to writing a libertarian news/opinion site? Well the short answer is that I initially found myself interested in libertarianism under what were, admittedly, somewhat selfish notions. I had become disillusioned with politics and the feeling that my input did not – and never would – matter in a significant way. In 2012, with only the most basic understanding of libertarianism I cast my vote for president of the United States for Ron Paul. Since that time I have greatly enhanced my understanding of libertarianism through studying economics in graduate school, and independent study of such renowned economists as Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand.

So what then is libertarianism? It is the political, economic and social system which provides the most opportunity for success – however you may define that – to the greatest number of people.  The foundation for libertarianism is the idea that each person is their own sovereign individual with the right to decide how they lead their life and the ownership of their property and all products of their efforts with the caveat that an individual’s actions must not inflict harm on another individual. This is of course a high-level overview, but it is this right to life and property which form the basis for libertarianism.

Economic Freedom

It has been suggested that libertarianism benefits only the haves, while leaving the have-nots out to dry. This is false. The current system of crony capitalism, which is the direct result of not following libertarian principles, does do this. The course of history however, has been perfectly clear in showing that a free market system has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system so far yet devised. In a free market system, the economy is not a fixed pie and for someone to rise up does not require someone else to sink down. On the contrary, in a free and voluntary economic system, agreements are only made when both parties see a benefit to the agreement. Now let’s not delude ourselves, this is not to say that no one will ever make a mistake in judgment, or enter into contracts which do not provide the originally anticipated benefit. We are dealing with humans, who are imperfect, sometimes corrupt, and almost always greedy, but we must remember two things: first, it is a proper role of the government to enforce contracts between individuals, so that if one party strays from their original agreement, the government does have a responsibility to take action against that individual and second, while we acknowledge that a free market society may have imperfections, so do all other economic systems, and the failings of those other systems have been proven throughout history to be much more detrimental to the overall well being of the people.

Personal Freedom

Milton Friedman once said, “History suggests only that economic freedom is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.” At first glance, the idea that economic freedom is required for political freedom may seem unrelated or backwords. However, economic control is the means through which the government can most easily control an individuals’ actions and ability to care for themselves. A heavy system of taxes limit an individuals’ options to engage in a self sufficient lifestyle, while simultaneously giving government the permission to regulate actions.

Why is it that someone who wishes to paint fingernails or give manicures requires government licensing? Is this such a dangerous task that the government must closely monitor your activities in this field? What if a customer decided they wanted to use someone’s services who did not have this license? If this person chose to operate a store front or had to report their income taxes they would quickly be found out for operating an illegal business, and the government would quickly descend upon them, to punish this horrible individual who simply sought to exchange the service of painting nails for money. In order for there to be a law, such as mandatory occupational licensing, there necessarily has to be consequences for disobeying the law. If there are no consequences then it is not a law, but merely a suggestion.

Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy is one of the most easily identifiable areas where libertarians disagree with modern Republican rhetoric and agree with Democratic rhetoric. In reality, both major parties have been following the same interventionist foreign policy for years. Obama failed to withdraw from Afghanistan as promised and killed thousands in drone strikes in the Middle East. Before him, Bush was elected to his first term on a non-interventionist foreign policy, though that quickly went out the window.

Libertarianism favors a non-interventionist foreign policy for the reason that it actually strengthens America’s position in the world. Free trade and diplomacy will always build more allies than bombs. The founders advocated for this position, and it was this approach that prevented the Cold War from breaking out.

Wars, contrary to popular rhetoric, are not good for the economy. Tanks, airplanes and ships must all be paid for through either increased taxes, printing of money (which causes inflation), or borrowing from other nations.

It’s important to note that non-interventionism is not isolationism; countries that trade and interact peacefully with each other will be much less inclined to take military action against one another. However, in the case that military action is necessary for the defense of the United States, the proper course of action should be followed. That is, the declaration of war should be voted on by Congress, not declared by the President. The founders purposefully reserved this declaration for Congress and not the President because the implications of declaring war are so great that they should not be exercised unchecked at the whim of a single person.

Environmental Protection

One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding libertarianism is that a libertarian environmental policy is where mother earth goes to die. It is an understandable misconception, and it was one of my last policy holdouts in embracing libertarianism. Since the protection of our environment is what allows all of life to exist, it is uncomfortable leaving such an important matter up to the marketplace. It provides a much higher comfort level to utilize government force to provide environmental protections. However, like most government provided functions, the benefit anticipated and the benefit received are not the same.

Instead of protecting the environment, the EPA has actually been the largest responsible party for pollution. If we revisit one of the foundations of libertarianism, private property, we can begin to see how libertarian policy protects the environment.

First, pollution of land, water and air would be self regulating. If, for example, a factory decided to dump pollutants into a stream, any property owner downstream of the factory would be able to file suit against the factory for destroying their property. The factory owner would then be responsible for restoring the damaged property to its original state.

Property owners also have an incentive for conserving resources, including wildlife. These are attractions for which individuals willingly pay, and we all know that an increase in demand is the best way to trigger an increase in supply. Government currently attempts to simulate this free market conservation model, distributing greater funding to wildlife areas which sell the most hunting and fishing licenses. Of course, this simulation adds levels of extra bureaucracy, skips the incentives and removes the competition which force private enterprises to operate efficiently. There is another, less obvious downside to state ownership of land and wildlife. That is, if the government damages the lands or its inhabitants, who takes action against the government to reverse the damages?quote-the-smallest-minority-on-earth-is-the-individual-those-who-deny-individual-rights-cannot-ayn-rand-24-0-085