www.defendersofcapitalism.com blogs

Three Cheers for Tim Cook!

michael — Tue, 21 May 2013 22:01:07 +0000

If you believe that America has big problems because our culture no longer recognizes rights, encourages innovation or celebrates success – then you gotta be a little encouraged by Apple’s CEO. If you are looking for some spine amongst the producers of the world to get involved in the battle for our culture, Mr. Cook showed a hint of what we really need. Cook was unapologetic in front of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations about Apple’s use of the tax code to reduce its tax burden as much as possible for shareholders.

Like many successful corporations, Apple keeps some of its earnings overseas to avoid paying taxes in the US. There’s been a drumbeat amongst lawmakers saying that these greedy capitalists should “repatriate” their cash so that it can be taxed here. Today, Mr. Cook stood up to these blowhard hypocrites.

Cook not only detailed the many and varied investments and job creation Apple is responsible for within the U.S. but also pointed to the "extraordinary" amount of corporate income taxes it pays—$6 billion in 2012. Even more importantly, he called for reform and a single digit corporate income tax rate, which would take America down from having the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world.

Ok, so we’re a long way from Hank Rearden’s trial speech in Atlas Shrugged:

“…I work for nothing but my own profit - which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to the m nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own…”

But this is a start – when we have the CEO of one of the most innovative and valuable companies in the world challenge the assumptions behind confiscatory taxes and the labyrinth IRS code, especially given the recent scandal of that agency blatantly being used as a political tool, it’s a good sign. Now, if only the Cooks of the world would use Ayn Rand’s help in addressing the looters and Senators:

“I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish - but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life.”

We have a long battle ahead of us to educate (mostly the producers) that we don’t need to continue sanctioning such cannibalism as we’ve seen over the past 100 years but we don’t have that much time. Tim Cook’s testimony hopefully opened the door for more courageous acts on the part of leaders everywhere to speak the truth about who they are working for and why.

All Progress Starts with the Truth

michael — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:18:37 +0000

We can't get anywhere unless we identify the truth and Helen Raleigh nails it in this article. I especially like her use of the Frederick Douglas quote: “The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous."

Douglass was truly an American hero and I'll write a post someday about how much of a defender of capitalism he was. Look up Self-Made Men by him and you'll get a flavor of how he might respond to Obama's "you didn't build that" view of the world.

"Illegal" immigrants and Nuremburg

michael — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:42:47 +0000

by Harry Binswanger
(posted with permission from HBL: www.hblist.com

Other than (most) HBLers, virtually everyone regards “illegal” immigration as dishonorable, if not contemptible. There is a stain of dishonor here, but it brands the illegalizers. Making free, peaceful travel illegal is a grave violation of rights, the rights of immigrants and of the Americans who would trade with, learn from, and befriend them.

Given that laws restricting immigration are dead wrong, what are we to think of those who break these laws? Well, the “illegals” broke them because they value America. They broke them in order to live a free, better, richer life. And, the vast majority of cases, obeying anti-immigration law would mean never getting to live here. It's a life sentence.

Breaking this law to build a better life is courageous and admirable. There's no force involved, just avoidance of those who would initiate force.

An “illegal” immigrant is, in principle, like a Jew in Nazi Germany who refused to wear the yellow star. Yes, I grant you that ours is not an illegitimate, barbarous dictatorship like the Nazi regime, and in the name of objectivity, there is a certain deference due to legality and lawfulness as such. But not at the price of spending one's life in Senegal, Haiti, or even Greece, instead of America. There is no moral requirement to martyr oneself to any form of obedience to others—neither to their values nor to their disgraceful, rights-violating legislation.

It is wrong to wield private force; it is wrong to take the law into one's own hand. But these are not involved in illegal immigration.

The principle established at the Nuremburg war-crimes trials was that a monstrous act cannot be excused by saying that one was merely obeying the law, “just following orders.” Basic morality trumps the merely legal. The corollary is that one cannot be condemned for disobeying a monstrous law on the grounds that “those are the rules,” “the nation decided, so just follow orders.” A monstrous law should neither be enforced nor obeyed. It must be repealed.

It is not enough to give “illegals” amnesty. These long-oppressed individuals need also an official apology from our government.

Free Speech goes with Free Markets

michael — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 02:03:18 +0000

It's interesting to see a sort of a slow but growing alarm on the part of both sides of the political aisle over President Obama signing HR 347 which is purportedly to correct and simplify the language of an earlier law that makes restrictions on free speech or protests around certain government buildings or grounds.

It gives much wider latitude for the Secret Service or law enforcement to make a judgment call about potential “threats” to the president or other elected officials and it allows these officials to request and set up "No Free Speech Zones", insulating them from protests. The law’s supporters are saying it’s only designed to make sure we don’t have some hair brained protester causing safety problems. The detractors see an obvious impingement on free speech and the continuation of an ominous trend toward stifling any political dissent.

What's healthy is that objections against the law are coming from both the left and the right. It's good when citizens of a free country put aside their superficial differences and recognize a real threat. Our economic freedoms have been gradually eroded for the last century but we all know that we have the ability to change things by persuading others through our words....and now, more recently and in various forms, we see direct and indirect threats (from so-called hate speech laws and political correctness to campaign finance laws) to our ability to speak our mind - our First Amendment Rights.

No matter your view on other policies, it's truly an American ideology that almost instinctively fights back when someone says to shut the hell up.

We're a ways off from having a critical mass of people who get that a threat to any human freedom is ultimately a threat to all human freedom. To those who think that capitalism is just an economic system where we only talk about "the efficient distribution of goods, competition, etc." without understanding that we must have the political freedoms protected as well, I say check your premises.

A Better Movie: “A Better Life”

Michael Williams — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:00:00 +0000

I want to highly recommend a movie: "A Better Life". Anyone who fights for freedom should see it. It's a simple, yet profound story and even if you're not pro-capitalism but have any interest in immigration issues, child rearing, or the future of this country, you'll want to see it and discuss with people you respect.

Plot spoilers to follow.

It's about an illegal immigrant (Carlos) raising his teenage son in the East Los Angeles barrio. Typical for someone who's made it across the border illegally, he's not well educated and has little money. Also typical for someone who views the world honestly, he knows that he has to work hard to support himself, respects other people’s property, enjoys his accomplishments, and has a benevolent view of his fellow man.

On the other hand, his foul mouthed son (Luis), currently attending a virtual prison/gang breeding ground known as high school in the area, places no such value on industriousness and looks down upon his father's work as a landscape laborer. While doing his best to encourage his boy to make good choices, Carlos is a patient and solid role model. In a heroic risk to improve their lot, Carlos takes the entrepreneurial plunge again (you have to count anyone risking everything for a better life by crossing the Mexican/U.S. Border as entrepreneurial) when he borrows money from his sister to buy out his employer's truck, tools and customer list. Carlos’ character is really challenged when the truck and tools are stolen by another illegal, illustrating the trapped nature of their existence since he cannot go to the law. It’s painful but inspirational to see the slow and sure maturation of Luis because of the behavioral example his father sets. Throughout their disappointment and struggle, the father never doubts himself - in America - to make his life (and his son's) better through hard work.

The writing is quite good and the understated acting by Demián Bichir (Carlos) makes the movie. Many viewers might have a hard time separating the human story from the obvious political implications and I don’t think you should. “A Better Life” may not change your mind about the immigration debate but it will make you think about the topic with better context and appreciation.

Bring on the Competition

Michael Williams — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:00:00 +0000

Are you competitive? Of course you are. So am I.

I remember hot summer days, strutting onto the tennis court with my brothers and dad. Each of us slipped into our routine: twirling racquets, checking the net, stretching, sizing each other up, talking noise about a thunderous serve or someone’s weak backhand or who won last. Then we do battle—pretty evenly matched so all the more fun, though mom couldn’t always tell. After the shots were made and the sweating and cussing ended, there was a winner; I wanted to beat these guys at their best.

But, c’mon, competition isn’t primarily about beating someone else. I can thrash my nine-year-old on the court, yet this would be pathetic—like some Will Farrell comedy bit. Beating someone else is not necessarily the end of all human competition, but isn’t it amazing how confused our educators and government are about how and why we compete?

Life is about living. It’s about accomplishment. The glory of “I did it!” comes way before and above “I beat you.” In tennis or any sport, yes, ultimately, it’s about sweet victory, but the achievement of many other values comes first: fitness, agility, stroke mechanics, mental toughness, strategy, and many more.

Good competition helps bring this out, but we know that to achieve anything, we must first bring it on ourselves. This is true in any human endeavor whether it’s sports, the arts, business, politics, or even romance. This is why we revere great and dignified champions. We gladly pay to watch a Martina Navratilova swing her racquet or a Michael Jordan dunk a basketball or a Yo-Yo Ma play the cello because they have accomplished so many private victories, countless hours of dedicated love—a love of their craft, a love of living that inspires and moves us.

Being human means the capacity for rational thought and passion, which means the ability to create values that support our life. The values that support life are limitless really, but before anyone played the cello or dunked a ball, someone first created basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. Unless we create them or create ways of finding them, we starve and freeze. None of these things is given to us nor is any method of gaining them except our capacity to think.

That’s the key. We don’t compete for limited natural resources like animals do. We don’t scrap over a dead carcass like a pack of wolves. Even our brutish ancestors couldn’t compete that way.

Instead, they had to learn to use their minds, and it’s no different today except that we’re the beneficiaries of centuries of thinking, learning, innovating, collaborating, producing—or at least we can be. We’ve been preceded by intellectual and creative geniuses who’ve occasionally arrived on the scene to discover and produce better ideas, methods, and products that catapult us into a whole new world of expanded values that support an even better human life.

So competition is actually a consequence of some individual somewhere creating a value. If there is no value, there is no competition. Without human thought and action, there are no values—none a human would want, anyway. Even the contemplation of a sunrise is made possible by human achievement. Appreciation of nature’s beauty is fairly recent—unheard of before time-saving inventions. We each become, to the degree of our own ability and interests, creators and traders of value.

Unbelievably, there are still convoluted socioeconomic theories that evade these basic facts about human nature. Many economists preach a barbaric view: that wealth already exists, so you compete by ganging up and seizing whatever you can get by force. Euphemisms like social justice ignore the fact that goods and services must first be produced before they can be distributed or redistributed. It is socialism, so thoroughly accepted in the culture, which characterizes human relationships as dog-eat-dog. Given this view, they want to be part of the biggest pack of dogs.

And most teachers spread this crippling disease of egalitarianism, the idea that we should have equal outcomes. When we don’t allow failure, we deprive people of the most valuable life skill: learning from mistakes and feedback. Think of the classrooms where everyone gets an A or ball fields where they don’t keep score or homes of helicopter parents where disappointment isn’t an option; pain is to be avoided at all costs. Think of the cynicism bred by an education establishment that indoctrinates kids into believing that competition is evil and that learning consists of someone else giving you a high grade.

Unfortunately, most of our political leaders are at best confused about competition, and many of them covet being head snarling dog. When we hear Obama tossing up a word salad like “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It’s the post office that’s always having problems,” while arguing for government-run healthcare, claiming that such coercion will “bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies [sic] into our healthcare system”--it’s clear that he has no clue about the nature and
role of competition.

Perhaps worse are Republicans, so-called defenders of the free market who chant incessantly for more incentives—handouts for their cronies or their own version of social engineering. Actual capitalism, a market free from coercion or fraud, has all the incentives you need or want. The idea of forced competition is an immoral contradiction. Having Bush say “I have abandoned my free-market principles to save the free market” is as juvenile as thrashing my nine-year-old on the court and calling it competition.

The callow myth of the cut-throat capitalist is perpetuated by those who want to control you. “People cannot live freely together without lying, cheating, and backstabbing,” the statists claim, “so they need to be ruled.” Ruled by whom? By them? So they can decide what competition means—the urgency to acquire political power so they won’t have to compete or produce?

We take for granted the wonderful results of competition. Everywhere people are free, they want to achieve and the culture won’t stand for complacency—it breeds innovation, which is required for any improvement. We see excellence in business where consumers get more, better quality, lower costs, and more alternatives; the most efficient and innovative businesses are rewarded with higher profits that either get reinvested in even better ideas or consumed in joy. We see actual diversity in both products and ideas. Contrary to the myth, with intense competition, we see humanity, benevolence, and caring. And the freedom to achieve and compete allows individuals to

pursue their passions.

So bring on more competition. Bring on a new generation of leaders who acknowledge and celebrate the beauty of competition, since it ultimately derives from an individual’s love of their life. Bring on new entrepreneurs whose vision won’t be stifled by bumbling bureaucrats. Bring on new citizens who pledge allegiance not just to the flag, but to the idea of freedom. Bring it on!

Another Chance at Hope? The Gradual Self-Education of the American Citizen

Michael Williams — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:00:00 +0000

Is there time for education to work?

It’s being called a historic election because of the grassroots influence of the Tea Party. Commentators have struggled to define this movement but all agree it impacted the outcome. Some say the Tea Party was the cause of the Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives. Others contend it caused the Republicans to not pick up more seats in the Senate. They’re both right; but more importantly, the Tea Party has given us a chance to rediscover what it means to be a citizen of the greatest country in history. It’s given us a chance at genuine hope.

Despite being demonized by the mainstream media and establishment politicians, the Tea Party movement is the honest, gut-level response of many Americans. Ordinary people are now cringing at the corruption, demagoguery, and incompetence of Washington. While it wasn’t created by anyone in the major parties, Republicans—who often pay lip service to “smaller government”—jumped on the bandwagon.

Americans not usually involved in politics saw the polar opposite of smaller government. Exponential spending, debt growth, and the quasi-nationalization of several industries got their attention. And in the spirit of those brethren from 1773, they were moved to action. They have taken it upon themselves to learn about the political process and how government power is used today—and to begin wielding it themselves.

The edification has just begun, as evidenced by terms like “it’s halftime” or the “end of the beginning.” It may take many election cycles to get on the path to more freedom. It’s a self-education because they’re suspicious of traditional media, politicians, the major parties, the way issues have been framed, and even their own civics instruction.

These people are now actually reading the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers.

But what exactly have these awakened citizens learned? They’ve learned that much of what passes as law these days is something their legislators have not read, is often self-contradictory, and resembles nothing close to constitutional government. They’ve learned that most current representatives are not accountable to their constituents. Witness the number of congressmen who, once they saw citizen’s disgust with bailouts and cram-downs, shut their town hall meetings.

Lawmakers finally learned the electorate does not want Obamacare and resents the sleazy way in which it became law. If there was a consistent theme, it was that if you were in a close election and you voted for the healthcare overhaul, you were going to lose. Some powerful Democrats who were aligned with this legislation lost their seats.

They’ve also learned money doesn’t buy elections—at least, money spent explicitly on the campaigns. Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Linda McMahon collectively spent hundreds of millions of their own money only to go down against officeholders who’ve long doled out tax dollars and promises to win favor with voters.

Another key lesson is that for “Tea Party candidates,” the more pro-capitalism they were, the better they did. Several Republicans, especially in high profile Senate races, made the mistake of thinking that the Tea Party and independents were in line with their socially conservative agenda. But they often found themselves losing to bumbling Democrats.

The public naturally refocuses on economic issues during tough times. However, candidates who think this movement is only about pocketbooks would do well to count the Atlas Shruggedreferences and Gadsden flags, not only at the rallies but more broadly throughout the culture. The emerging realization is that wealth redistribution is not only impractical and colossally wasteful, but also immoral. Voters are looking for pro-freedom candidates who recognize their individual rights to their minds, their bodies, and their pocketbooks.

Campaigns all across the country featured free-market candidates, surprising incumbents who’ve milked protectionism and the support of big labor. Notably, anti-immigration candidates who had general appeal for the Tea Party did poorly as well, underscoring the fact that this election was about freedom, not fear. The American voter is beginning to realize that mutual exchange happens when both sides of the trade agree. Having the coercive power of government decide how, when, and at what price such trades occur only destroys jobs, wealth, and general prosperity.

There are several lessons the newly energized citizen has yet to grasp. The most important one is only now coming into focus: the fundamental role of government. It’s being hinted at, but when Tea Partiers say they want smaller government, they don’t agree on how small or even what that means. As a nation, we’re still evading the fact that we continue to want and expect handouts for ourselves but believe that every other constituency needs to suck it up. The entitlement mentality is awful and something we need to do away with—until it comes to “what I’m entitled to.”

Part of that disconnect is because Americans are just barely beginning to understand how massive and intrusive their government has become. But the deeper issue that must be learned is that force is anti-freedom, that using democratic institutions and pressuring our government to take from others what we have not earned is a recipe for social cannibalism and the end of America as we know it. The Tea Party movement is just getting started on the lesson of how far we’ve strayed from our constitutional republic and the actual moral foundations that support it.

Time? Yes, there’s time but barely and for only one kind of tea party.

This article was originally published in and is reprinted here with permission from Liberty Ink Journal (www.libertyinkjournal.com).

How to be a Capitalist

Michael Williams — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 03:14:50 +0000

How to be a capitalist—are you kidding? Nobody wants to be a capitalist. You want a target on your forehead that says “I’m a greedy bastard who will lie, cheat and steal to get the money”? Want all your friends and family to despise you? Why would you want to destroy the environment, eliminate jobs, hurt the poor, make inferior products and brainwash everyone into watching lowbrow sitcoms and beer commercials?

You say, “No, that’s not what I want. I want to be creative and productive and pursue my own happiness. I want to take care of those I love and be free to enjoy my life and all that it has to offer.”

I have news for you: you already are a capitalist—you were born one. In one sense, every individual in history was born a capitalist.

This is why capitalism, wherever it is tried and to whatever degree it is tried, succeeds. If you measure success in terms of creativity, innovation, productivity, genuine caring for others and in every possible measure of human happiness, capitalism succeeds because it is congruent with human nature. It’s only been in the last few hundred years that a political/economic system recognized this fact and began to protect your right to pursue these things. Of course, that political system was the constitutional republic of the United States.

Isn’t a capitalist someone who has actual capital, someone who invests money in a business for profits? Well, the word capital comes from the Latin capitalis or “of the head”. You see, the root of all money-making enterprises is really the ideas and will to act on them. The root of all financial and physical capital is intellectual and emotional capital. We are born as “wanters” or “valuers”. We are born wanting to stay alive and to live well; to learn and grow and experience. Wanting doesn’t make it so without thinking and acting and the desire to live is where it starts.

As a born capitalist, you are also an owner. You start out believing, correctly, that your life is yours and that you’re here for yourself. It’s not until everyone else tells you otherwise that you believe that you should sacrifice the things that are important to you.

We say capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital and we’re talking about the means of production and distribution—the land, factories, technology, transport systems, and financing that makes it all possible. But we forget that private ownership starts with you owning your own mind, your own body and the products of your efforts.

So the question should be, “How to be a better Capitalist”. Now this could mean: a) you understand that the demonization of capitalists is completely unjust and you feel no guilt about living your life and pursuing your values but you want to get rich(er)—you want more money or b) you want to be a better advocate for capitalism, for the freedom of all people to pursue their own happiness, and for the strengthening of the institutions that protect that freedom.

We could phrase this second meaning something like “How to be an Effective Defender of Capitalism” or even “How to Explain Capitalism to Liberals”. But that’s a whole other article…

In the meantime, let’s go back to the first: you want more money. Well, I say all progress starts with the truth. Being ok and guilt-free about wanting to earn more money is that start. You also get that everyone else wants more money; maybe not as much as you or maybe more, and maybe they won’t be as honest about it but they do. The key thing here is that they have the same right to keep and pursue their happiness and money as you do. And even more insightful: for anyone to give up their money to you, you must realize that it’s got to be a mutual trade—no force involve—and you have to create value.

This is what a capitalist does—creates surplus value and voluntary trade. If you want to create massively more value in the world, then you become an entrepreneur and take the risks necessary to see, sell and execute on a vision. If not, that’s ok. If you’re interested in creating some more value for yourself and your loved ones, you sell your ability to work—with your mind or hands or both—to an entrepreneur or investor.

Either way, you already are a capitalist—now start acting like one!

This article was originally published in and is reprinted here with permission from Liberty Ink Journal (www.libertyinkjournal.com).

Avatar…..or Marlon Brando, Pocahontas and Thee

Michael Williams — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 02:27:06 +0000

I just watched the Oscars and, thankfully, Avatar did not win Best Picture. It did however win, deservedly so, the Best Visual Effects award. Anyone who has seen it knows the job James Cameron and his crew did in creating a marvelous visual feast. Anyone who understands capitalism and the history of humanity will also know and lament the incredible movie making skills for such tired, old anti-civilization and anti-technology propaganda. The guy who accepted the award said, “Avatar’s a film about learning to see the world in new ways”. But really it’s a film about learning to make old myths about our world more visually interesting. (Plot spoilers follow)

In his song, Pocahontas, Neil Young wants to sleep with the historical figure to find out what she really thinks of the white man. Of course, Pocahontas was the famous Indian who actually saw the value of the white man’s civilization, even to the extent that she saved Captain John Smith at Jamestown. Despite the history of this brave and admirable woman, Hollywood has continued to distort and twist the story, much like they do with other “noble savage” tales. Dances with Wolves, The Last of the Mohicans or maybe even Little Big Man are examples. Entertaining movies? Yes. But history lessons, valuable social commentary, or inspirational art? Hardly. Perpetuating the myths about the evils of capitalism? Exhaustingly.

Young and Brando (who refused to accept his own Oscar but sent an Indian woman to read a speech about the plight of Native Americans and Wounded Knee) maybe do a service by exposing the silly way in which Hollywood treated Indians in the old westerns. But for any good they accomplish, their views are much more destructive to the broader culture and especially today’s Native Americans because they celebrate mysticism over reason, nature over technology, and tribalism (collectivism) over the individual. Why especially Native Americans? Because, along with other minorities whose supposed leaders preserve ethnic pride to keep power, they suffer the most from the irrational and vicious demonization of Western Civilization and Capitalism.

It is the idea that an individual has rights, including property rights, that liberates us - no matter what race, ethnicity, gender or religious views. This central idea of individual rights is the achievement of Western Civilization no matter how slow it takes to realize it, no matter how inconsistently it’s been manifested. While the old movie depictions of Native Americans as murdering marauders might be a bit of a caricature, the idea of them being pure, spiritually wise and happier than modern man is downright falsehood. For more on this topic read Tom Bowden’s “The Enemies of Christopher Columbus”.

So why don’t we see more movies that use such skill and technological brilliance in exploring the individual – the sovereign, independent, joyous individual? Well, it’s a cultural thing, a philosophical thing, and this is where the Thee part comes in. You and I are part of a culture that loves our rights, loves our freedoms, loves our technology, loves our scientific discoveries, and loves our leisure time/entertainment (only made possible by freedom, science and technology) and yet….we feel guilty about all of these things. Why? Because of the Ph-word. We aren’t philosophical and we’re too busy enjoying our lives to understand and protect the ideas that shape our culture. So we have this ongoing battle, a battle that’s being lost by default. It’s only by adopting a more rational culture that can explain and defend itself from bad ideas, that we’ll see a blossoming of art that will celebrate our achievements and our humanity.