People and Profits Are In Harmony
Mountain Xpress | 3/7/2012
In today's headlines and protest signs we hear pleas to "put people ahead of profits." But are people and profits opposed to one another? In commercial transactions, two parties profit: the seller and the buyer. The buyer acquires a product and the seller gains financially. This peaceable, voluntary transaction of value for value to mutual benefit is an exercise of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It is the proper and moral exercise of economic and political freedom.
When a person offers to mow your lawn for payment, he seeks to profit financially from his labor for his own betterment as he sees it. The same principle holds on larger scales. When Steve Jobs invents and sells an iPhone, Apple Corporation profits. And so do you. Profits motivate individuals to improve the lives of others and the prospect of making a profit is what makes any business enterprise worthwhile.
In a free market, a business profits to the extent that it pleases people by improving their lives. When it does not, it properly loses its profits and is replaced by competitors who stand to do a better job of pleasing people and, therefore, of making a profit. Profit is what people willingly give to businesses in exchange for the improvement of their lives in material ways. Profit is the measure of successfully serving the needs and wants of the community in a free, voluntary marketplace. It is the people who rule in a free economy. Consumers vote in the marketplace with their dollars and they are ruthless in their choices. They ultimately determine who will earn a profit and succeed and who will rack up loses and suffer defeat. In this sense, people and profits are in harmony and are not opposing concepts.
RELATED
Why Is Creating Value Good, Profits Bad?
By Paul Hsieh
"Profit" is a dirty word. Profit-seeking businessmen are stock villains in Hollywood movies. "Occupy Wall Street" protestors demand, "People not profits" (whatever that means). Companies reporting healthy profits are automatically assumed to be exploiting customers and can only atone for this by "giving back" to their communities. "Making a profit" has an unsavory, morally suspect taint.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
A Better Tea Party Slapdown
Posted on Voices of the Tea Party
I do not dispute Michael Patrick Leahy's claim ("Tea Party Slaps Down Mitt Romney in South Carolina"), January 21, 2012) that a fair measure of Newt Gingrich's wide victory margin in SC can be attributed to Tea Party influence. I would agree with that claim. The Tea Party is angry. Newt Gingrich is angry.
Gingrich, the winner of our third presidential contest, gives voice on a national stage to the Tea Party's outrage and frustration over enlarging socialist public policy, liberal media bias and entertainment industry antagonism. He goes after them directly and does not tend to mince words or shrink from a fight. The tea partiers are hearing from Newt what they want to say themselves -- and how they want it said. And voting for him over Romney in this Southern primary sends a message to all concerned that this is their attitude toward a whole host of adversaries; some included the Republican establishment.
The question for me is this: Is a primary election the proper place to vent a frustration that could give improper cover to a candidate that does not deserve their attention and which could give the false impression that this candidate, above all others, understands and respects their values and will carry them forward into national policy once in office?
I think not. The stakes in this election are high and missteps along the way are amplified. When the Tea Party calms down and takes a careful, steady look at the candidates still standing, they would be wise to seriously consider the candidate who has been with them all along and even heralded their very emergence: Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the quintessential Tea Party politician and has been for decades preceding the rise of this populist movement. Physician, veteran and congressman Ron Paul consistently articulates the Tea Party position on a range of public policy issues. He opposes unconstitutional and immoral entitlement programs, corporate bailouts, stimulus packages and capricious military adventures that materially harm our national security. He would happily dismantle federal agencies that do nothing but prop up union power and favored special interest groups at taxpayer expense. He is the primary spokesman for ending the central banking cartel that controls monetary policy, debases our currency, prints endless supplies of debt-based money and manipulates interest rates that trigger devastating economic booms and busts. In Congress, he has steadfastly voted for lower taxes, for a balanced budget, for gun rights, for an unregulated internet and for stricter limitations on the power of the executive branch.
Both the Tea Party and Ron Paul have long agreed that the country is moving in the wrong direction. If you are driving your car toward the edge of a cliff, you need radical change. Ron Paul is precisely that type of change. And we need it now, not later, when it's too late. And I think it is also important that we lend our considerable support to a candidate who not only has the right message but who delivers it consistently as a seasoned statesman with an even temper.
So, consider wisely and vote accordingly. We all have a lot to loose. A national victory for Ron Paul would be the hardest slapdown the Tea Party could possibly deliver.
RELATED
Coulter Not Happy With Gingrich's South Carolina Win
Difference Between Streamlining the Military and Isolationism
I do not dispute Michael Patrick Leahy's claim ("Tea Party Slaps Down Mitt Romney in South Carolina"), January 21, 2012) that a fair measure of Newt Gingrich's wide victory margin in SC can be attributed to Tea Party influence. I would agree with that claim. The Tea Party is angry. Newt Gingrich is angry.
Gingrich, the winner of our third presidential contest, gives voice on a national stage to the Tea Party's outrage and frustration over enlarging socialist public policy, liberal media bias and entertainment industry antagonism. He goes after them directly and does not tend to mince words or shrink from a fight. The tea partiers are hearing from Newt what they want to say themselves -- and how they want it said. And voting for him over Romney in this Southern primary sends a message to all concerned that this is their attitude toward a whole host of adversaries; some included the Republican establishment.
The question for me is this: Is a primary election the proper place to vent a frustration that could give improper cover to a candidate that does not deserve their attention and which could give the false impression that this candidate, above all others, understands and respects their values and will carry them forward into national policy once in office?
I think not. The stakes in this election are high and missteps along the way are amplified. When the Tea Party calms down and takes a careful, steady look at the candidates still standing, they would be wise to seriously consider the candidate who has been with them all along and even heralded their very emergence: Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the quintessential Tea Party politician and has been for decades preceding the rise of this populist movement. Physician, veteran and congressman Ron Paul consistently articulates the Tea Party position on a range of public policy issues. He opposes unconstitutional and immoral entitlement programs, corporate bailouts, stimulus packages and capricious military adventures that materially harm our national security. He would happily dismantle federal agencies that do nothing but prop up union power and favored special interest groups at taxpayer expense. He is the primary spokesman for ending the central banking cartel that controls monetary policy, debases our currency, prints endless supplies of debt-based money and manipulates interest rates that trigger devastating economic booms and busts. In Congress, he has steadfastly voted for lower taxes, for a balanced budget, for gun rights, for an unregulated internet and for stricter limitations on the power of the executive branch.
“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” --Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801
So, consider wisely and vote accordingly. We all have a lot to loose. A national victory for Ron Paul would be the hardest slapdown the Tea Party could possibly deliver.
RELATED
Coulter Not Happy With Gingrich's South Carolina Win
Difference Between Streamlining the Military and Isolationism
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
LTE: New Tribune Editor
As a long-time local libertarian activist, I was happy to hear about the changes in the editorial staff at the Asheville Tribune (“Who is Clint Parker,” November 10, 2011). I remember, not so long ago, when the paper's editor was Bill Fishburne, a religious conservative who took every opportunity to deride libertarians and their political principles of individual rights, limited government and free markets. Then the Tribune installed John North, an outspoken Austrian-school economist, with his articles on the Federal Reserve central banking cartel, fiat currency debasement and Constitutional politician Ron Paul. Now, the new editor is a self-described “Constitutional libertarian," who promises us a series on individual rights. My, how times have changed.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
LTE: Occupy Wall Street
Occupy Wall Street protests are misguided
Asheville Mountain Xpress
October 26, 2011
Dear Editor,
Capitalism is morally good. It also happens to work remarkably well, raising millions around the world out of poverty and providing the marketplace with a myriad of life-enhancing material goods. This social system of economic and political freedom is the only one that fully recognizes, respect and protects individual rights. It is a system that we do not have in this country and have never had. We have had only greater or lesser degrees of economic freedom. We were the closest to capitalism during the inventive period of the late 19th Century, when most of the great innovations and conveniences we live with today were invented (phones, cameras, lighting, cars, appliances, etc.). Today, entreprenuers, like tech visionary Steve Jobs struggle, to provide society with innovations that give individuals more power over their lives.
Our current crisis is the result of government intervention in the marketplace through regulation, taxation, welfare, economic incentives, bailouts, central banking, fiat currency and rank cronyism. We live in a mixed economy. It is a mix of some capitalism and some socialism; some freedom and some political control. Half good and half bad equates to bad. And what we have today is bad. Businessmen, lobbyists and special interest groups are buying politicians because politicians are for sale. When you first hang up a shingle, buyers soon appear and compete for favors, handouts and bailouts, all at the expense of the rest of society.
The “Occupy Wall Street” protests are misguided by focusing on only one half of the equation. You cannot cure a disease with a misdiagnosis. Those angry protestors in New York and Asheville have misdiagnosed the problems they accurately perceive and would be better served by properly identifying the true source of their grievances: Government.
For an entertaining video on these points, visit econstories.com.
Asheville Mountain Xpress
October 26, 2011
Dear Editor,
Capitalism is morally good. It also happens to work remarkably well, raising millions around the world out of poverty and providing the marketplace with a myriad of life-enhancing material goods. This social system of economic and political freedom is the only one that fully recognizes, respect and protects individual rights. It is a system that we do not have in this country and have never had. We have had only greater or lesser degrees of economic freedom. We were the closest to capitalism during the inventive period of the late 19th Century, when most of the great innovations and conveniences we live with today were invented (phones, cameras, lighting, cars, appliances, etc.). Today, entreprenuers, like tech visionary Steve Jobs struggle, to provide society with innovations that give individuals more power over their lives.
Our current crisis is the result of government intervention in the marketplace through regulation, taxation, welfare, economic incentives, bailouts, central banking, fiat currency and rank cronyism. We live in a mixed economy. It is a mix of some capitalism and some socialism; some freedom and some political control. Half good and half bad equates to bad. And what we have today is bad. Businessmen, lobbyists and special interest groups are buying politicians because politicians are for sale. When you first hang up a shingle, buyers soon appear and compete for favors, handouts and bailouts, all at the expense of the rest of society.
The “Occupy Wall Street” protests are misguided by focusing on only one half of the equation. You cannot cure a disease with a misdiagnosis. Those angry protestors in New York and Asheville have misdiagnosed the problems they accurately perceive and would be better served by properly identifying the true source of their grievances: Government.
For an entertaining video on these points, visit econstories.com.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Makes Me Want To Holler
Money. We make it
'Fore we see it, you take it
Oh, make you wanna holler
The way they do my life.
'Fore we see it, you take it
Oh, make you wanna holler
The way they do my life.
Friday, September 02, 2011
LTE: Food Trucks
Asheville Tribune Executive Editor David Morgan argues ("Downtown Asheville without restaurants?," 9/1/2011) against the operation of food trucks downtown because they might provide some competition to restaurants and this, in turn, he speculates, would lead to a ghost town.
He first states that it is the government's role to "make the rules for free market competition reasonably equal and fair." He is right. To wit: government should not interfere in economic activity and should allow the greatest possible economic freedom between entrepreneurs and consumers, trading value for value to mutual benefit. But then Mr. Morgan puzzles us when he states that in allowing food trucks to operate downtown, local government is, by doing so, "picking one kind of business that they like or favor;” namely, food trucks.
Yet, Mr. Morgan would have government actively shield restauranteurs from food truck competition. As if Mr. Morgan is advocating that government ought to pick one kind of business that they like or favor; namely, restaurants. This is a contradiction. Mr. Morgan establishes a sound principle and then proceeds to violate it.
It would appear that Mr. Morgan is confused about the proper role of government as well as the rights of business people and their customers. One, food truck operators have a right to conduct a business that does not violate the rights of others. Two, consumers have a right to select from an array of food offerings without the interference of government or newspaper editors. Also, it is not the government's proper role to protect businesses from competition. On the contrary, it is the government's proper role to allow for maximum competition in a free market.
In using the force of government to protect one business over another – restaurants -- it is Mr. Morgan who would use government to violate individual rights and, therefore, turn Asheville into a ghost town by dictating economic activity to free adults.
RELATED
David Morgan's lame-ass response:
Asheville Tribune LTE
He first states that it is the government's role to "make the rules for free market competition reasonably equal and fair." He is right. To wit: government should not interfere in economic activity and should allow the greatest possible economic freedom between entrepreneurs and consumers, trading value for value to mutual benefit. But then Mr. Morgan puzzles us when he states that in allowing food trucks to operate downtown, local government is, by doing so, "picking one kind of business that they like or favor;” namely, food trucks.
Yet, Mr. Morgan would have government actively shield restauranteurs from food truck competition. As if Mr. Morgan is advocating that government ought to pick one kind of business that they like or favor; namely, restaurants. This is a contradiction. Mr. Morgan establishes a sound principle and then proceeds to violate it.
It would appear that Mr. Morgan is confused about the proper role of government as well as the rights of business people and their customers. One, food truck operators have a right to conduct a business that does not violate the rights of others. Two, consumers have a right to select from an array of food offerings without the interference of government or newspaper editors. Also, it is not the government's proper role to protect businesses from competition. On the contrary, it is the government's proper role to allow for maximum competition in a free market.
In using the force of government to protect one business over another – restaurants -- it is Mr. Morgan who would use government to violate individual rights and, therefore, turn Asheville into a ghost town by dictating economic activity to free adults.
RELATED
David Morgan's lame-ass response:
Asheville Tribune LTE
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Candidate Questionnaire: Step Right Up
1. Are you planning to attend “The Step Right Up” on Sept. 22nd?
Yes.
2. Tell us something about your transportation habits. How do you get around Asheville?
I always drive an automobile wherever I go.
3. What recent advancement in Asheville’s transportation infrastructure do you think has had the greatest impact on our community? Why?
All of the parking decks going up downtown are a great improvement. They help automobile drivers. I'm also happy to hear that city council voted unamimously to approve the lease of 62 new parking spaces from AT&T near Grove Arcade.
4. Even if you haven’t held elected office, you’ve likely been an active member of Asheville’s community. Please describe one thing you’ve done to make our city friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists and/or bus riders.
I've done nothing to make our city friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists and/or bus riders.
5a) As a council member, would you advocate for the implementation of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan? If so, in what specific ways? If not, why not?
I would not advocate the implementation of the city's Bicycle Master Plan. It's not a priority and we can't afford it. People prefer cars. The city’s current resurfacing schedule is 81 years. The priority is paving streets.
5b) If you are a current council member, have you advocated for the implementation of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan? In what specific ways?
n/a
6a) As a council member, would you advocate for the implementation of theTransit Master Plan? If you’d advocate for the plan, how would you encourage increasing ridership? If you wouldn’t advocate for the plan, why not?
I do not support implementation of the Transit Master Plan. Transit services should support actual transportation needs and not the development schemes of central planners. The government should get out of the transit business and eliminate regulatory controls that hamper the development of private sector transportation services. The city should immediately develop and publish a Request for Proposals to private contractors to provide transit functions.
6b) If you are a current council member, in what specific ways have you advocated for the passage and/or implementation of the Transit Master Plan? What are some of the challenges with the implementation of the transit plan?
n/a
7. What role do you think greenways play in Asheville’s future?
Greenways play a valuable role in Asheville's future but we can't afford them.
8. Past City Councils invested in planning efforts. Our city has a Sustainability Management Plan, a Greenway Master Plan, a Bicycle Master Plan, a Transit Master Plan, and a Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan. The next step is to fund the implementation of these plans. In these hard economic times, how would you propose to fund these plans? Or, do these plans need to be cut? If you think the plans need to be trimmed, what plans or pieces of plans should be cut?
The cost for implementing all current community plans is $200M. Revenue options are either maxed out, declining or no longer available. The only way to fund any of these programs is to cut spending. The only way to cut spending is to convert the City of Asheville to a contract city that outsources all basic services, other than police and fire, to private industry.
9. What is the most compelling reason to improve transportation options in Asheville?
Actual demonstrated need.
Yes.
2. Tell us something about your transportation habits. How do you get around Asheville?
I always drive an automobile wherever I go.
3. What recent advancement in Asheville’s transportation infrastructure do you think has had the greatest impact on our community? Why?
All of the parking decks going up downtown are a great improvement. They help automobile drivers. I'm also happy to hear that city council voted unamimously to approve the lease of 62 new parking spaces from AT&T near Grove Arcade.
4. Even if you haven’t held elected office, you’ve likely been an active member of Asheville’s community. Please describe one thing you’ve done to make our city friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists and/or bus riders.
I've done nothing to make our city friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists and/or bus riders.
5a) As a council member, would you advocate for the implementation of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan? If so, in what specific ways? If not, why not?
I would not advocate the implementation of the city's Bicycle Master Plan. It's not a priority and we can't afford it. People prefer cars. The city’s current resurfacing schedule is 81 years. The priority is paving streets.
5b) If you are a current council member, have you advocated for the implementation of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan? In what specific ways?
n/a
6a) As a council member, would you advocate for the implementation of theTransit Master Plan? If you’d advocate for the plan, how would you encourage increasing ridership? If you wouldn’t advocate for the plan, why not?
I do not support implementation of the Transit Master Plan. Transit services should support actual transportation needs and not the development schemes of central planners. The government should get out of the transit business and eliminate regulatory controls that hamper the development of private sector transportation services. The city should immediately develop and publish a Request for Proposals to private contractors to provide transit functions.
6b) If you are a current council member, in what specific ways have you advocated for the passage and/or implementation of the Transit Master Plan? What are some of the challenges with the implementation of the transit plan?
n/a
7. What role do you think greenways play in Asheville’s future?
Greenways play a valuable role in Asheville's future but we can't afford them.
8. Past City Councils invested in planning efforts. Our city has a Sustainability Management Plan, a Greenway Master Plan, a Bicycle Master Plan, a Transit Master Plan, and a Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan. The next step is to fund the implementation of these plans. In these hard economic times, how would you propose to fund these plans? Or, do these plans need to be cut? If you think the plans need to be trimmed, what plans or pieces of plans should be cut?
The cost for implementing all current community plans is $200M. Revenue options are either maxed out, declining or no longer available. The only way to fund any of these programs is to cut spending. The only way to cut spending is to convert the City of Asheville to a contract city that outsources all basic services, other than police and fire, to private industry.
9. What is the most compelling reason to improve transportation options in Asheville?
Actual demonstrated need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)