Blog

Fairness. Individual rights. Equality under the law. These are all things we, as Americans, and more deeply, as human beings, cherish. We have accepted these ideas as moral, virtuous, and something towards which we ought to strive. It was allegedly in the name of these values that President Obama, with a swift stroke of his pen, signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

The Act, a law against discrimination on the job, attempts to establish equal pay amongst the supposed unequal within the workplace---for men and women; for gay and straight; for ethnicities and so forth. Obama noted that the Act would “send a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody”.

Who could argue with that? What reasonable person does not regard discrimination as something distasteful and irrational? It seems that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a definite step in the right direction- an expression of Americanism.

And yet, in our personal lives, most of us wouldn’t support a law against discriminating on the basis of sex, race, religion, and so forth. We would think there is something un-American about the government regulating how we make decisions regarding friends, peers, or lovers. Even though some people undoubtedly make irrational choices, we still wouldn’t want the government to make a law against that. Whatever reasons one exercises in selecting a particular wife or husband, for example—whether one seeks someone who shares the same virtues or goals or interests, or whether one has deep-seated prejudices—we would not want these judgments rendered moot by government legislation.

With the passing of the Fair Pay Act, however, precisely this sort of law now exists within the workplace. Businesses no longer have the freedom to exercise their own judgment.

But what’s the difference? Like our personal lives, isn’t a private business just that—private? The local bar, the bowling alley, and the flower shop trade their daffodils, lagers, and bowling shoes, balls and alleys to individuals for money, at the price those individuals are voluntarily willing to pay. Such businesses are privately held, and privately employed. The amount or regularity of public customers does not make the business public. It serves the public, but it is not publicly-owned.

Just as private individuals choose whom they befriend, whom they steer clear of, whom they love, and for what reasons, shouldn’t private employers be free to choose whom they fire, whom they hire, at what pay level, and for whatever reasons? Both realms are private. Within both, individuals choose with whom they interact. What possible justification is there to support a law against discrimination in a private work environment, and not in a private personal environment? Just as we would object to a law that dictated with whom we spend our time in our private lives, we should also object to a law that dictated whom we hire, and for what reasons, in our private business.

The most important idea here is not whether sexism or racism or anything of the sort is irrational and immoral. They are, undoubtedly. The real issue, of the most importance, is whether or not the government should be telling people what they can and cannot do in their private lives. While supporters of this Act may think that laws dictating whom and for what reasons we hire or befriend in the private realm serve to “make sure it works for everybody,” they are wholly mistaken. It does no such thing. Americans don’t think that way. Individuals don’t think that way. And as individuals, in our personal lives, and in our work lives, we make our decisions, and we reap the consequences of these decisions, good or bad, irrational or rational. Government should have no say here; they should have no part in these decisions. Not even a little bit. For an alternative to dealing with irrational employers who discriminate unfairly, see this post.

Millions of Americans choose to continue smoking despite known health risks. Presumably, the value they get from smoking is (rightly or wrongly) worth the risk to them. But for a short time, it appeared that smokers had a healthy third alternative: electronic cigarettes.

The electronic cigarette is a relatively new innovation that works by allowing smokers to inhale vaporized nicotine instead of burning smoke. The effect and experience is very similar to smoking, but without the ill effects of the carcinogens and tar associated with traditional cigarettes. This is an incredible invention. Suddenly, cigarette breaks may no longer need to be a source of guilt. Instead, smoking becomes equivalent to coffee—just another reasonably safe way to get a little extra enjoyment and relaxation out of life.

Extensive studies of this technology are lacking, but preliminary research suggests that e-cigarettes are incomparably healthier than traditional cigarettes. Scientists have long known that it is the burning of tar and other carcinogens that is the basic cancer-causing mechanism of cigarettes, and this mechanism simply does not exist in electronic cigarettes.

The FDA, however, does not give a damn. Citing concerns that the electronic cigarette “might introduce nonusers to nicotine,” the agency has recently launched a campaign against the product, interfering actively with its importation and sale. Today, much of the property of electronic cigarette manufacturers is sitting locked up in some government warehouse instead of being delivered to its rightful owners.

Rather than leaving it up to individual Americans—smokers, scientists, doctors—to judge the value of electronic cigarettes, the FDA has chosen to deny smokers the opportunity to pursue this alternative.

Where does the government acquire the moral authority to do this? Such an authority does not exist in the founding documents of this country. It certainly did not exist in the spirit of freedom that animated the revolutionaries of 1776, and led to the creation of the freest and most prosperous nation on the globe.

The authority of the FDA is not a moral authority at all. It is the authority of the gun. It is by muscle and not by right that the FDA is forcing those who sell these products, and those who choose to buy them, to forgo the opportunity to pursue their happiness in the way they judge best.

When the statistics of smoking-related illnesses and deaths are published later this year, pause and wonder for a moment how many of them would not have occurred if the FDA had only left Americans free to make their own choices, instead of dictating which products they could and could not purchase. And pause and wonder about the innovation-stifling effects the FDA’s campaign will have on the nascent electronic cigarette industry. If even one American dies who otherwise would have lived, and it will likely be many more than that, the guilt of the government will be beyond repair.

Congress recently approved a new budget of staggering proportions. Weighing in at $3.6 trillion, the plan provides billions in allocations towards a national health plan, green energy, foreign aid, education, and countless other programs. The president has declared that his budget is "an economic blueprint for the future- a vision of America... that will lead to a real and lasting prosperity." 

Before breaking out in celebration, however, it would be prudent to consider: what’s the catch?  Will this flood of spending truly usher in a new era of prosperity, or will there perhaps be an even higher price to pay down the road?  

For example, wouldn't it be great if, as Obama promises, "... every single American has health care when they need it, that every senior has prescription drugs they can afford, and that no parents are going to bed at night worrying about how they'll afford medicine for a sick child"? But what if, in exchange for providing the nation with health care, the government required you to submit your waistline measurement on a regular basis, screened your menu for unhealthy items, and shut down your favorite restaurant for serving unapproved meals?  

Such a scenario might sound Orwellian, but it is already becoming a reality, both in the US and elsewhere. In Japan, government health officials force anyone whose waistline is bigger than the government-ordained size to undergo diet counseling. In Los Angeles, the City Council recently banned the establishment of fast food restaurants for the upcoming year. California has restricted restaurants from using oils, butters or other ingredients that the government deems too unhealthy.  What about my freedom, you ask?  You gave up your freedom when you asked the state to pay for your hospital bill – the government is in charge of your health now.

The Senate Republican Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell has declared that he is "...recommitted to putting [his] state and our nation on the road to clean energy independence." Doesn’t this sound like a noble vision for our environment and economy? But what if, in exchange for providing you with new “clean” energy, the government began to tell you how much you are allowed to drive per month, or how many lights you have on in your home?

This is already being tried around the world, including the U.S. Brazil rationed energy in 2001, for example, and is expected to do so again. The government forced companies to cut their power by 25% and residents by 20%. Those who used more than the government-ordained limit faced fines and had their power turned off for up to six days as punishment.  The California Energy Commission has proposed requiring thermostats in private homes that would allow government officials to remotely adjust household temperatures.  What about my freedom, you ask?  You gave up your freedom when you asked the state to fund your power grid – the government is now in charge of “blueprinting” your energy future.

The pattern we see emerging is clear. Every time a new welfare program is created or more money is spent on a public service, the government is necessarily given more authority over our lives. This is no coincidence: the government possesses one thing that private industry does not – the ability to enact its policies not through the consent of the customer, but by force. The government is thereby fundamentally different from a private health care provider or power company. Whereas the latter can only attempt to win your purchase through creative marketing and persuasion, the government uses force to make you behave as it deems best. Thus, when you vote for more government spending on services formerly provided by private companies and individuals, what you’re really asking for is more of the government’s coercive intrusion and paternalism.  

As the Obama administration embarks upon an unprecedented expansion of the welfare state, we must realize that we are paying not only with our tax dollars, but with our very freedom.

Photo by Tyrven

In the past months, Washington has used its pull over and over to force businessmen to buy into its programs. From cornering banks into accepting TARP money to firing GM’s CEO to insisting that AIG employees return their contractually guaranteed retention bonus—Washington has demanded and businessmen have acquiesced.

So it has been with Washington’s latest demand—that secured creditors surrender their property in favor of "the common good". Secured creditors are lenders who lend at a lower rate because they "secure" their loans by placing a lien on a tangible asset. If the loan is not repaid, they have the right to repossess the asset and recoup some of their loss. Their right to that property acts as an insurance that makes possible a cheaper loan. In bankruptcy, this translates into first claim on company assets—again, in return for the low rates associated with secured debt, secured creditors rely on the assurance that they will be at the top of the bankruptcy waterfall in the event of failure. Without that assurance, they wouldn't lend. Now the Obama administration is demanding that secured creditors of Chrysler voluntarily stab themselves in the back and relinquish these rights.

One businessman has finally said NO. Cliff Asness, hedge fund manager at AQR Capital Management, has declared in an open letter that he is "entitled to [his] voice and to speak it loudly." Despite intimidation from the Obama administration and the general public, he has refused to "intentionally 'sacrifice'" his clients' money without their permission.

A particularly good line from Asness’s letter:

"The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power."

He concludes: "I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now."

Bravo, Mr. Asness, Bravo indeed. If there were more men like you on Wall Street, perhaps the country would not be heading towards disaster. Washington’s blatant and systematic destruction of contract rights presumes that businessmen will continue to silently yield to outrage upon outrage. It presumes that businessmen will themselves keep running to Washington, clamoring for the government to violate someone else's contract rights before their own. Your letter challenges this presumption.

Ayn Rand argued in Atlas Shrugged that irrationality was powerless without the support and consent of the good. She called this the principle of the sanction of the victim. Her point was that it is virtue—the free, independent mind in action—that creates human values. The irrational, to flourish, must be parasitical on this good. Left to its own devices, Washington bureaucrats could not produce any of the wealth they are now self-righteously confiscating and redirecting.

Withdraw your support, Wall Street, as Mr. Asness has done, and reveal the thieves who declare themselves the dictators of the "common good" as the craven fools they truly are.

Photo illustration composed from photos by Ian Edwards and Emilie Eagan, and free for reuse.