Free markets and freedom of conscience go hand in hand

I was looking at the Auburn University newspaper online to see what they thought of Tommy Tuberville's firing from the head football coach position (correction, it appears that Tuberville stepped down to the surprise of the AD) and a I found an opinion piece concerning "right of conscience" rules, which allow medical workers to opt out of performing procedures they find morally objectionable.

Of course, the editorial staff thought these rules were a bad idea, and they use the following example:

Here is a hypothetical situation for you. You arrive at Outback Steakhouse with a desire for, you guessed it, a steak! You sit down, and as you tell the waiter you would like a 6 oz. ribeye, he interrupts you.

“I’m sorry, sir,” he says. “Our cook, Geoff, is a vegan, and he will not be cooking anything involving animal products tonight.”

You’re stunned, but you have to understand what you have just heard, so you inquire further.

“But you’re Outback STEAKhouse,” you say. “Steak is in your name. Well, could you at least tell us where we could get a decent steak around town?”

“No, sir,” he says. “Geoff is also acting as the manager tonight, and he has instructed the wait staff to only point our guests toward restaurants that also serve vegan items. Can I start you off with a Bloomin’ Onion, tonight? Nevermind, the batter uses eggs…”

To which I responded,

Your Outback scenario shows that you are completely missing one half of the argument. Outback would never hire a vegan cook. In the same way, hospitals and doctor's offices won't hire people whose beliefs get in the way of performing their job. Of course, for that to work, employers would need a little flexibility in who they hire, and that probably sounds a little too "free market" for you guys.

The editorial staff even allude to a free market solution, when they close with

If this rule becomes a reality, patients will have to do some major research before they select a doctor or pharmacist. But then again, the more open-minded doctors and pharmacists will make a killing.

Yes, a reality of the free market is that sometimes individuals may have to do a little bit more research to make an informed choice, an unfortunate side effect of having "choice" in the first place. And yes, some people will make more money than others, that's what happens when people provide something people want, that others don't. Granted, things get a little more complicated when it gets to the issue of medical emergencies and saving lives, so that's where legal action and medical boards get involved.

But again, I want to reiterate that for the free market to work, choice must be allowed in the customer/provider relationship AND the employer/employee relationship. Doug Bandow writes in the Foundation for Economic Education

According to the newspapers, pharmacists throughout the United States are refusing to fill prescriptions for the “morning-after” pill and other contraceptives because of religious objections. Fortunately,we can resolve this problem without getting into the birth-control or abortion controversies. In a free society, human relationships, including commercial relationships, must grow out of the consent of all the people involved. A forced sale is theft; forced service is slavery.
The owner of a drugstore, by virtue of the nature of private property, sets the rules. If customers don’t like them, they are free to go elsewhere.They can even shop
on the Internet. Similarly, if a pharmacist-employee with convictions opposed to the morning-after pill works for someone who thinks differently, he will have to find another job if he can’t work things out with his
boss.

It's not that we hate the poor...

Economic conservatives are criticized because of seemingly heartless opinions, for instance, the stance on the minimum wage. But I don't oppose the minimum wage simply because I hate poor people, or I don't care about the least of these... just the opposite.

The Political Calculations Blog writes

This chart confirms that for teenagers, those between the ages of 16 and 19 years old, all of the jobs that disappeared in 2007 were minimum wage jobs. In essence, a total of 94,000 hourly jobs disappeared for this age group overall. This figure is the net change of this age group losing some 118,000 minimum wage earning jobs and gaining some 24,000 jobs paying above this level.

This represents what we believe to be the effect of the higher minimum wage level increasing the barriers to entry for young people into the U.S. workforce. Since the minimum wage jobs that once were held by individuals in each age group have disappeared, total employment levels have declined as those who held them have been forced to pursue other activities.

Now consider this: The minimum wage was just reset on 24 July 2008 to $6.55 per hour, a 27.2% increase from where it was in early July 2007. Our best guess is that a lot of additional teenagers will be pursuing those other activities.

Meanwhile, the lack of employment opportunities for the least educated, least skilled and least experienced segment of the U.S. workforce will likely have costs far beyond the benefits gained by those who earn the higher minimum wage. The government might be able to make the minimum wage earning teenage worker disappear, but they didn't do anything to make the teenagers themselves disappear.

Now, with any economic research there are tons of variables, but the conclusions presented are intuitive, simply because of supply and demand. If something is not truly worth the price at which it is offered, we don't buy it. Why would an hourly worker be any different? Companies with inferior products price them lower to increase demand. Why wouldn't an unskilled laborer be the same? Why should an unskilled laborer not have the option to negotiate their wage without government interference? Is a job with a low wage worse than no job at all?

Many politicians realize that raising the minimum wage does no good, yet they support it to pay lip service to their constituents. Others think they have the companies in a bind. They know Safeway needs workers, so they think Safeway has no choice but to pay them the mandated wage. But Safeway can hire fewer workers, create more self checkout lines, or raise the prices of their goods, which has the most dramatic effect on the poor anyway.

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog.

The role of incentives

OSNews links to a blog entry titled "Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it". Even if you are not a software developer, the article is interesting because it explores the roles of incentives in the overall quality of a product. Open Source software is developed mainly by volunteers, as opposed to Microsoft or Apple products that are developed by paid programmers and cost money.

Open source software is a noble idea, and there are many useful tools out there. However, getting paid motivates programmers to focus on aspects of software that make it more usable for the average person. Now, Microsoft is not a great example of this, simply because it does have many features of a monopoly. It is the software that everybody has and every hates. I think if distributors of Linux would focus more on the commercial market - and even keep the software open source - the computing world overall would be better off. Even if you aren't into software development and tools, one could probably see how the overall quality of a product could improve if someone has financial incentive.

Why this conservative is against (some) right-to-work laws

Conservatives typically support right-to-work laws. On most issues I could be considered a conservative, albeit with some libertarian tendencies, and I'm a strong advocate of the free market. It is precisely this free market belief that motivates my opposition to (some) right to work laws.

Wikipedia defines right to work laws as those

...which prohibit agreements between trade unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or "fees" a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

Now, I'm not really a strong fan of unions. However, I also believe in the employer's freedom to hire who they want. Here is an important distinction: if the government requires people to join a union to work certain jobs, or requires certain industries to hire only union workers, I am strongly opposed to that. If the employer requires union membership as a condition of employment, that should be fully within their rights. That is, as long as that requirement was made clear before hiring. While the common definition of "right-to-work" means the employer cannot choose to hire union-only, I would not be surprised if some variants are meant to repeal state government guidelines. Maybe somebody with more knowledge of these laws could help me out on this.

The common argument for "right-to-work" laws it that people should not be "forced" to join a union in order to get a job. However, if this is a requirement of the employee and NOT the government, no one is really being "forced" into anything. In the same way, just because being a Christian may be a requirement to work at a certain church, that doesn't mean I'm being "forced" into Christianity.

Another important note is that this swings both ways. A company should have the right to hire union only workers, and they should have the right to not hire union workers. Freedom works both ways.

A random rant on taxes, welfare, the rich, etc...

Through my time blogging and just engaging in political thought in my spare time, I am beginning to wonder if arguing about what is "fair" concerning taxes is useless. After all, much of it has to do with subjective opinion. It seems fair to me that someone be able to pass on their inheritance to their children, whereas others believe that it is only fair that they only pass on half their inheritance to their children, and the rest go to the government (or more euphemistically, the people).

I wish I had the luxury of being a pure libertarian, then I could say that any income redistribution is immoral. By doing so, I could easily draw a line in the sand. However, I do believe in using taxes to help those who cannot help themselves. Maybe I'm too much of a softy, but I don't want to see people dying in the gutter. At the same time, I do not see the government as an agent of social change, and I do not think the majority of charity should be done through the arm of government. Like most conservatives, I believe welfare for able-bodied people should be temporary, but I think there can be exceptions for those severely handicapped.

But by having the aforementioned position, it is hard for me to draw a line in the sand in determining just how much we should be taxed. I suppose that is what democracy is for, to figure such things out. However, in our current system, it is not how much we decide "we" should be taxed, but how much other people should be taxed. Now, some of the rich vote to tax more of the rich, what liberals call the "responsible rich". And yes, the rich can afford to pay more. But, for me personally, I have issues voting to tax certain groups outside myself. I don't know if I have any firm philosophical footing to support a flat tax right now, but I do like the idea of everyone chipping in when there is a problem, not one group asking another group to chip in. That bothers me.

Concerning the rich "paying their fair share", let's put aside the philosophy for a second. I believe from an economics standpoint, it can do more harm than good. As JFK said, "An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget-just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits." (Hat tip to Glen) Even if people disagree on what the optimal rate is, we all know that, of course, it is not 100%.

Back to the philosophical side (which I said is probably useless in debate anyway), I personally don't believe people should have many guarantees. I do admit that in theory, I like the idea of universal healthcare. But I simply believe that it won't work, and I believe a host of other countries have demonstrated that it leads to care rationing.

I think we should separate the economic issues of the market and welfare. The market should be regulated to some extent concerning pollution and safety. But it seems like the left's biggest criticism of the market is its ability to provide for the poor. However, if I have to pick my battles, I would rather see a freer market with higher tax rates than a regulated market with lower tax rates. A freer market should produce more wealth anyway. If I was a progressive, I would allow for a free market, but simply tax people more. A loaf of bread costs what a loaf of bread costs. I would rather see the government tax the seller of the bread more than regulate what the loaf of bread costs. Not that I want to see extremely high taxes, but I think the economic right needs to fight the battle for the market, and let democracy sort out the tax rates. Maybe I'm saying something dangerous to economic liberty, but I think we should separate the two issues.

Finally, I prefer a measure of freedom when it comes to economics, as opposed to complete security. The left is correct in that we should not sacrifice civil liberties in our fight against terrorism. They see the importance of freedom with respect to security. The importance may not be that apparent to the right with regards to our physical security, but I think they do realize the importance when it comes to economics.

In summary, many people criticize the right for not caring about the poor. And I'll be honest, there are probably many who don't. But, as someone on the right, I still want to leave enough help so that people aren't starving. At the same time, I believe that charity is a more powerful force than government assistance, and we should still leave room for that. Also, I believe that taxing any group excessively can be counter-productive. I believe that economic liberty is intertwined with personal liberty.

When it comes to regulation, we should look at all sides of the story

I was watching a CBS News report about the poor in Mississippi. It spoke about a poor black girl who had problems receiving Medicare due to some bureaucratic red tape. Because of some new regulations, she had to fill out additional paperwork and have a face-to-face meeting 30 miles away, and she had no care.

Fair enough. No doubt the regulations were probably passed to ensure that people were not bilking the system, but every action has unintended consequences.

But let's say the story was slightly different. Let's say this person, or someone similar, was fortunate enough to have a little money saved up and was trying to start a business, like a manicure shop or a restaurant. And let's say, due to some new regulations, she had to fill out additional paperwork, or go to some class 30 miles away to get her license at least once a year.

For some reason, I don't imagine many media news outlets would report on such a story.

Regulations affect every area of our life, but why do we primarily hear reports about it when it comes to things such as getting food stamps or Medicare? Why don't we hear about the endless regulations that get in the way of people who are trying to make a living for themselves? Regulations don't just affect rich white men running large corporations; they affect the black women in Minnesota who simply want to make money braiding hair without having to pay $15,000 in tuition.

Here are my points.

1) Many people, including the media, tend to have a certain bias when it comes to regulations. Additional paperwork or any work at all when it comes to getting direct things from the government seem to get the most attention.

2) With regulation, there are multiple sides to the story. Like the red tape of Medicare that makes it harder for people to get treatment, red tape that is done in the interest of consumer protection makes it harder for the average person to start a business. The Institute for Justice covers such cases. With every law there can be good and bad consequences.

3) Regulation on the local or state level can make it too difficult for the poor to start businesses. State licensing and the like are usually passed by established, large corporations already in power that make it harder for new, smaller competitors to get on their feet. Eliminating some of these regulations should be something with which conservatives, libertarians, and liberals can all get on board.

For you computer nerds: Windows vs. Linux

I don't know how many of you out there use operating systems other than Microsoft Windows. For personal use, I use a Windows machine like most everyone else, but for work, I use Linux, since that is the platform on which our application runs.

It's interesting to compare the 2 systems because they seem to come from different cultures. The Windows environment is created by a large corporation in a proprietary format, whereas Linux is "one of the most prominent examples of free software and open source development; its underlying source code can be modified, used, and redistributed by anyone, freely."

I'm not a computer expert, but my smart computer friends tell me that Linux is more stable than Windows. That seems to be the case, as we can leave Linux running for days and weeks on end. Personally, I really like the Unix-ish command line interface, that makes it easier to move around in a file system, if I know what I'm doing. I also like the window management system better, as I can type on a window, even if it is partially covered by other windows, a major downfall of Windows.

The disadvantages is that, in many cases, you get what you pay for. With a Linux release, it's not uncommon to have parts of the OS that simply don't work. With SuSE 10.1, the update system was broken, along with several other bugs. Granted, they do have an Enterprise version that is supposed to be more tight. Windows is not free from bugs, but surface-level flaws are much more rare. Bugs found using some Linux versions would not make the first version of Windows software.

Also, Windows has been much easier for the common person to use. Programs internal and external to windows are installed with a few clicks of a mouse. Linux, however, is mostly designed by computer geeks for the computer geek. For many distributions, a Linux user needs to use the command line interface and deal with "tarballs" and "makefiles."

Some may look at the battle between Windows and Open Source as a microcosm of capitalism vs. say, socialism, but I don't know if the analogy is apt. Microsoft is, no doubt, an example of capitalism, but open source is not exactly a parallel to socialism, primarily because of its voluntary nature, although many advocate for open source to be the universal standard.

But perhaps, open source software may show why, in life, voluntary acts are better than coerced ones. I think open source software is great, but I would not want it to be the only thing out there. I would not want an environment void of any intellectual property or where the only software available was developed by unpaid programmers. But perhaps I am just attacking a strawman, as I am not completely familiar with all the objectives of the open source community. And maybe the lesson cannot be extrapolated so easily.

I can get on board with open source as long as the community respects the rights of other people to sell their software if they wish. If someone wants to offer their software for free, great, but don't feel like having a free operating system on your computer is a right. I suppose this matches with my life philosophy. I believe in generosity and not always being guided by a profit motive, but at the same time, we should not feel entitled to the work of others.

To me, open source software just shows that people can do creative work without being paid for it. Some people enjoy programming just like some enjoy building a table from scratch (and usually these two groups do not overlap). Like one must consider if they want a table a friend built or one from a store, they should consider operating systems.

By the way, here is an article comparing Ubuntu Linux to Windows Vista.

And yes, I also know that Macs exist, I just haven't used one enough to know anything about them.

Why you can't pick and choose cable channels

I've always wondered why cable companies don't offer individual channels to customers. I've never endorsed knee-jerk legislation attempts to make cable companies do so, but I always thought it was a market that could easily be exploited.

The Cato blog explains

The problem with this line of reasoning [that buying individual channels would be cheaper] is that almost none of the cost of providing cable service to you is dependent on the number of channels you take. In economics jargon, cable channels have close to zero marginal cost. Once the content has been produced and the coax has been laid, it costs little or nothing to give every customer access to every channel in the bundle rather than only certain channels. So if they stop sending you Nickelodeon, it doesn’t reduce the total cost of providing you with your service. So why would you expect a price break?

Indeed, there are lots and lots of examples of bundled products and services that no one in his or her right mind would demand be unbundled. For example, why am I forced to buy the sports section with the business section in my morning paper? Why am I forced to buy evening and weekend minutes with my cellular phone plan?

I didn't know much about how the cable infrastructure worked, but you would think that FCC chairman Kevin Martin would at least try to have a deeper understanding of this before he supports "a la carte" legislation.

A couple of things.

This shows that even if you trust a bureaucrat's intentions, you can't trust his/her competency.

But, maybe more importantly, even if it was cheaper to offer individual channels, the cable companies should be able to sell whatever products they want. As a free-marketer, I don't think I should forcefully set the terms of the agreement. If a Mexican food place opens, what sense does it make for me to demand what they have on their menu? Also, as I said before, if it was actually cheaper to offer individual channels, this would be much less of an issue, as this is a market people would exploit. Finally, I don't have the right to cable. It's as simple as that. If this was about utilities such as electricity or water, I would be more sympathetic to the customers' plight. But cable is not a necessity, so if people don't like how it is being sold, don't buy it.

Shouldn't Progressives Love Billionaires?

In my last post Michael commented"If what it takes to get such a society is that no one earns a billion dollars, fine. We don't need billionaires, but we do need basic life and human flourishing for all."

Here is my question. If you have a progressive tax system, isn't having a few billionaires a good thing?

I know that capitalism (or an economic system tilted towards capitalism) has many criticisms from liberals, such as destruction of the environment, worker conditions, substandard wages, etc... And maybe I am going after a strawman here, but it seems that liberals fear the massive accumulation of wealth, or they see it as unfair. However, if we have an economic system in which wealth accumulation is possible, yet it is taxed and given to government programs, isn't that better than a regulated economy in which less overall wealth is possible?

It seems that for something to be given away, whether through the government or private means, money must be earned. So isn't the existence of wealth a good thing in a progressive society?

Thoughts on capitalism

Many people detest capitalism because they claim greed is inherent in the system. After all, the motivation of each person is their own self-interest. However, do people not do the same in socialism? Yes, capitalism does allow for greed. People can accumulate large amounts of wealth and pursue the almighty dollar.

However, in a socialist/progressive society, people try to attain things, only through other means. Instead of attaining material goods through commerce, however, they do so through the arm of government. They vote for people who promise them more things. They vote to raise taxes on other people's earnings.

Greed can work in both systems. However, a greedy person in a capitalist society will fight to earn and keep more money. In a socialist system, a greedy person will fight to make more money, but they will try to do so through other people.

One may say that the goal of a progressive/socialist society is to only give people their basic needs, not unnecessary material goods that a capitalist society promises. But, I think the goodness of people is given way too much credit. People are not satisfied with the "basic needs" in any type of economy. I don't think 3 years paid maternity leave is a basic need. I don't think having a job where it is almost impossible to get fired is a basic need either.

I am personally not a fan of Adam Smith's, Milton Friedman's, or Ayn Rand's justification for capitalism. Their view is that everyone's self interest makes the world run smoothly. I don't see capitalism as a success because it is propelled on people's self-interests, I see it as so because it mitigates the harmful effects of people's self-interests. In a lawful capitalist society, people accumulate wealth through mutual transactions with other people. In a socialist/progressive society, people accumulate wealth through taxing other people and making others do things for them.

What do I mean by "Free Market"

I've done a post similar to this before, but I wanted to rehash some of my fundamental beliefs concerning the free market. I did a previous post called Foundations of a Free Market, but I wanted to state things in another way.

Basically, I believe that the economy should be based upon mutual exchanges between two individuals or parties. I think the price set should be discussed between those two people/groups, not regulated by a third party. That means that I believe wages and prices should be set between those two groups. I think that when wages and prices are regulated, it can hurt the weaker party as often as it hurts the stronger party. What if I cannot find a job for the minimum wage? Shouldn't I have the freedom to bargain for a lower wage if it is worth it to me? Why do we allow unpaid interns, but not interns making less than minimum wage?

Also, I don't think the person receiving the service should set the terms, but the person providing the product. For instance, it is unfair for me to demand that Apple provide their iTunes songs in any format I wish. It is there stuff. Who am I to say, "I want it like this." Apple doesn't even have to sell me anything. What if they didn't exist at all. Should I say that I am better off getting nothing from them, than getting something from them, but not in the format I like. The same goes for smoking bars and restaurants. The restaurant doesn't have to exist in the first place. Who am I to set the rules of their establishment? I'm not entitled to a non-smoking restaurant.

Furthermore, people should not be heavily restricted in being able to start a business. The government should not regulate the number of a particular business. For instance, if there are already plenty of insurance companies or taxi companies in a city, it is not the role of the city to say "No More!" Let the market determine how many of a business their should be.

Along with this, I don't think government should regulate excessively concerning the quality of certain companies. Now, this is a gray area. I can understand the government getting involved somewhat when safety or health is concerned, and that is an area in my mind that I am still trying to figure out. What I refer to is more quality apart from the safety aspect. In short, I don't think a professional should have to be licensed by the state or city, unless the license only includes issues such as safety and health. I don't think someone should have to go through extensive training to hold a job, as long as it is understood that they won't kill anyone. I believe the quality aspect will mostly be controlled by the market.

Oh yeah, and I do not believe in business subsidies, except for emergency cases (destruction of crops, airline closures due to terrorist threats.)

I would like to revisit the issue of negotiation of prices/wages. There are two reasonable criticisms I would expect from anyone of any persuasion.
1) Some people have much more power than others when it comes to negotiations. Corporations are a glaring example.
2) People may not receive their basic needs with a free market.

Concerning criticism 1. Yes, some have more power than others. But I do not believe this power balance is stagnant. People can attain more bargaining power as they go, primarily through work experience, and through education. A free market rewards those who work hard. Those who are just starting out have little bargaining power, but those who work over time gain bargaining power in their wages. I think it is just that one's wages match their accomplishments, education, and ingenuity.

Concerning criticism 2, I think this is an area for other institutions to get involved. I would prefer private charity, but remember, I don't call for the abolition of welfare. I prefer welfare to help those who help themselves. But if I had my choice, I would prefer a larger welfare system over a more regulated market. I think a less regulated market helps prices, so less welfare would be needed. Also, I think it makes sense philosophically. Things cost what they cost, and people's work is what it is worth. No amount of regulation will change that. I would rather someone receive a little financial help to buy a house, than regulate the price of the house. I would rather welfare give someone a little push, than making him work for a wage that is higher than what his current skills are worth.

There are other issues, no doubt. For instance, the morality of what can be sold, i.e. adult movies, drugs, etc... Also, another huge issue is the environment. But when I refer to the importance of a free market, I mostly refer to the negotiation of prices/wages, the freedom of someone to start a business, and the customer not dictating the terms of the negotiation.

Free Competition Threatens the Rich

Libertarianism and economic conservatism have often been criticized because many of their proponents tend to be more rich and successful, and that they use that political philosophy just to keep themselves on top. That is probably true in many cases. Neal Boortzeven claims that seeing the amount of money deducted from his paycheck motivated him towards conservatism, then ultimately, libertarianism.

However, many times those who are successful claim to support free markets, but will actually use the avenue of government to work in their favor. There are numerous stories of executives lobbying for subsidies for their business, in the interest of the "common good." FM radio companies, using the FCC, tried to block the Satellite Radio stations from coming in and competing.

Another avenue in which businesses work is through the avenue of occupational licensing. To the extent that we should regulate business is another topic within itself, but the point is, many companies will convince legislatures to more stringently regulate businesses, in order to make it more difficult for competitors to enter the marketplace. Such legislation can make it easier for a business to maintain a monopoly. Since that business may have been around awhile, it has the capital accumulated to follow whatever new regulations take place, while the cost burdens the little guy coming in. I believe such regulations can cause the scenario that liberals fear most, in which "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

So, many of the rich will act to constrain markets in order to hurt the poor.

But could some of these people be trying to act for the common good? Maybe. But many of those in power are the ones trying to push the new legislation through. I'm just not that trusting. Also, the fact that some of these regulations hurt the poor somewhat must also be weighed against the necessity of such regulations. Again, that leads to the debate about how much regulation is needed. But does one really need a license to be an auctioneer, a hair-braider, or a horse-teeth filer? How about a psychic? I would like to see what their certification test looks like. (Sorry, I'm not going to do a google search for psychic licensing, but I have heard it somewhere).

Again, even if some regulations are necessary, in excess, they can hinder opportunities for the poor. This seems to be anathema for the American ideal of any political stripe. Conservatives and liberals alike believe that America is supposed to be the land of opportunity.

A couple of the links above point to the Institute for Justice, an organization that sues on behalf of citizens, usually those pursuing an occupation that is laden with licensing laws. IJ is fighting for a free market, but not just for the wealthy, but for the poor as well.

I know there are many things to consider when dealing with the market and regulation, and one of those considerations should be how easy it is for the lower and middle class to make a living for themselves. A land of opportunity is advantageous for the poor, and is something that many of the rich do not want.

Oil Company Watch

It's time to check out what Exxon Mobil is doing with their money. Neal Boortz says

The Associated Press is reporting that Exxon Mobil's second quarter profits totaled $10.36 billion. That's the second largest quarterly profit ever recorded by any publicly traded U.S. company.

OK .. get ready for the screams. It's just a matter of hours before some demagogues in Congress start yelling again for a windfall profits tax. Across the country we're going to hear screams of anguish from economic ignoramuses who couldn't tell you the difference from a profit and a profit margin.

Nowhere in the article can you find Exxon Mobil's profit margin for the quarter. You can, though, find the numbers you can crunch to reach that figure. Total revenues for Exxon Mobil during the quarter were $99.03 billion. Run a little division problem and you come up with a 10.46% profit margin. Not bad at all, but not the best out there either. Most pharmaceutical and banking companies earned a higher profit margin.

The amount of profit earned is directly tied to the price of the product you are selling, and the market for that profit. All these higher profits mean is that the cost of Exxon Mobil's products (primarily petroleum-based products) has gone up along with demand.

By the way ,,, during the quarter Exxon spent nearly $5 billion of this profit on capital projects and exploration for new sources of oil, and another $7,9 billion was sent to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. Belinda is one of those shareholders, so perhaps you can blame here for your high gas prices. Besides Belinda, we have some of teacher's union pension funds out there who invest heavily in Exxon Mobil. These dividends, which came from the Exxon profits, will be spent to cover pension checks to retired teachers. Now that's pretty nasty, isn't it! How DARE these teachers receive pension checks funded by investments in a successful corporation like Exxon Mobil when the government could be getting that money thorough a windfall profits tax?

Capitalism does not just benefit the rich. Yes, white-haired old men are getting millions of dollars in salary and stocks, but they get paid to make the company money. When the company makes money, the average Joe or Jane makes money too.

A kinder, gentler libertarianism

Now, I am not a full-blown libertarian, but I often take a libertarian approach when it comes to government programs and the economy. As mentioned in a previous post I echoed agreement with Arnold Kling from Cato that "If I had to give up a little bit of freedom in order to see a meaningful reduction in poverty, I would do so. My problem with government is that I see it doing harm on both counts", so I would say I do not believe in the abolition of welfare.

But the point of this post is not to discuss politics themselves, but the arguments that libertarians often use when arguing their point of view when it comes to welfare and the free market, especially when their target of persuasion is political liberals. I support most of these ideas that libertarians argue when it comes to the market and welfare, although maybe not to the same extent.

Libertarians often use the argument that it is wrong for the government to use force to redistribute money from some people to the other. Some even argue that all taxation is theft. They typically focus on the morality of one person being "robbed" so that the money goes towards someone else. Libertarians often use Randian terms such as "the barrel of a gun" to describe how government redistributes money.

Whether this viewpoint is right or wrong is not the point. I simply don't believe this is an effective argument against the welfare state. Liberals, for instance, are well aware that government uses force, but sees helping the poor as a justification for doing so. Also, when making any argument, I don't think the most effective means is talking about my rights, or that I shouldn't have to do this or that. Some may even see this argument as selfish argument, which some libertarians may even agree, unapologetically. Liberals (or even conservatives or centrists for that matter), simply believe that the good caused by a government involved in economic affairs is better than the libertarian ideal of self-ownership.

These are what I think are better arguments in favor of a more libertarian ideal when it comes to welfare and economics. I won't go too in depth of each argument, my purpose here is not to persuade, simply point out what I think are effective arguments.

1. An extensive welfare state hurts the poor more than it helps them.
Some libertarians argue that welfare produces a state of perpetual dependence on the government. Government welfare can produce perverse incentives, in which people are better off not working. Many claim that this dependence passes on through several generations. Good Source: Dr. Mary Ruwart

2. Private charity does the job better than government welfare.
The Acton Institute is a good source for these types of arguments. Acton and other similar institutions argue that voluntary help is much more powerful than welfare. Organizations such as Red Cross and the Salvation Army can help someone face to face and help with needs beyond money, rather than simply writing a check. The church is an institution that can minister to people's spiritual needs while helping their physical ones. Voluntary charity is better for the recipient and the giver. On the recipients side, they are less likely to see the help as an entitlement. On the givers side, they give out of willingness and compassion, rather than something they have to do.

Now, here is the thing. I think most would agree that private charity is better than welfare, but they see a need for much of both. I think there are valid arguments that the more welfare there is, the more harm to private charity. For one, welfare is less efficient when it comes to actual dollars sent to those who need it. So, when one has to spend more money on welfare, it leaves less money to charity, which would be more productive.

3. America as the land of opportunity.
I think many Americans admire their country because it is a land of opportunity. There exists the idea here that one can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make a good living for themselves. An extensive welfare state can harm this, in which one exchanges economic freedom for supposed economic security.

Again, I am not against all welfare as many libertarians are, just a large welfare state. However, I think the same arguments can work for either.