A Quote I Like

"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free." – William F. Buckley, Up From Liberalism

The Call of the Entrepreneur

I went to see the Chicago Premier tonight of the Acton Institutes's film The Call of the Entrepreneur. The film looked at the utility of entrepreneurship to society in the guise of three people, a compost farmer in Michigan, a merchant banker in New York, and a media mogul in Hong Kong.

To often, people view the economy as a zero sum game. Yet, that is far from true. Levittown made the Levitts wealthy, but did it really pauperize anyone? It gave people like my grandfather jobs building the houses, and created new homes for people needing homes. Wealth was not transferred, it was created from basic materials with labor, risk and a desire of others to buy. No one was impoverished by building Levittown, rather people were enriched to varying degrees.

After the film, the producer had a question and answer session. When all that is said and done, what is the real difference between rich and poor societies. It is not race or religion but rule of law. In countries with rule of law, people are able to take risks. If there is not rule of law, if private property is not respected, society becomes impoverished.

Keeping with the beliefs of the Acton Institute, the film has a strong undercurrent that faith and economic liberty need not be in opposition, but rather entrepreneurship is really something from God.

I highly recommend the film.

And some people want them to run healthcare

Today, we received a letter marked "Return to Sender". That is not that strange. Sometimes people move or we put down a wrong address or forget something like a unit number.

But notice what is strange about this letter:

Can't guess? The postmark is dated December 23, 1990. The return address is correct, but obviously someone who owned the house long before we did. Which begs the question, has this letter been siting around a post office somewhere while postal officials tried to determine where this person lived?

Lysander Spooner, where are you?

"Conservative Libertarianism"

When asked to describe my politics, I say I am a "conservative libertarian." So what does that mean? My usual explanation is that while I think marijuana should be legal, I do not think you should enjoy smoking it.

Generally, I consider myself a "fusionist." I share many of the concerns of traditional conservatives. I worry that civil society is failing and that traditional values are under attack.

Where I differ from traditional conservatives is in the cause and solution. Traditional conservatives, especially in the Bush years, have begun to believe that the way to protect traditional values is through government action. I, however, believe that much of the reason for the decline in values is government intervention itself. When the government promises much, people can walk away from their individual responsibilities. And the more government promises, the more government tries to socially engineer results. And as government usually lacks flexibility, as programs become centralized in Washington, we see one size fits all solutions.

Hence, I believe that the best way is to generally let people find their own way. Government should be limited and any government action (such as what we probably will see on health care in the next administration) should provide the maximum flexibility and choices to individuals. To stick with the health care example, we should see a system that retains most of the elements of the current system, but is tailored to provide choices to those earning too much for Medicaid but not receiving employer health insurance. Single payor, under which every person in America is insured by a federal government program, would be a disaster.

(Of course, if I were a pure libertarian I would say government should have no role in health care, but if the democratic process wants it, at least I can try and push for what I believe is the best system).

Soccer as a Metaphor for America

I am a big soccer fan, which puts me in a small minority of Americans. Soccer is seen as "communist" or "anti-American" and I cannot understand why. If anything, soccer better represents American ideas than does that most American of games "football." In fact, football is closer to totalitarian socialism.

Compare the two:

In football there is a very elaborate set of rules that limit the individual freedom of each player. The coach after consultation with his staff chooses a play which is sent to the huddle. The players stand around for 20 seconds, talk about, then work for about another 30 seconds. Then they start again. This is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where the General Secretary, after consultation with his Politburo, came up with a five year plan, that the workers worked a little on, and talked about much more.

In soccer, there are basic rules mostly designed to protect life and limb. There are genera aspirations chosen by the coach., The players then are free to work together but achieve also singularly to reach their goal.

Which is more like America?

Beat Mexico!