Another Black Friday

Once there was a day called Black Friday. It was meant to launch the holiday shopping season, and was known to start as early as 4 or 5 in the morning on the day after Thanksgiving. Yet that, it seems, was not good enough. We have reached the point where the sales are encroaching so far into Thanksgiving itself that there are stores opening as early as 3 or 5PM Thursday afternoon. We are now faced with Black Thursday.

There is something seriously wrong with this picture, something which speaks to a serious ill in American society. Why do we need these sales? Why do people think they have they right to them? And before all the rabid libertarian free marketers go livid about it (no one makes them do it, what about freedom?) let's ask you two things: aren't some folks (if not most involved, quite frankly) being made to do things?, and, isn't their freedom thus being sacrificed?

It is hard to imagine that the bulk of sales and support staff at stores would rather be working than at home with their families and friends on a major holiday. The same can be said of those working arenas for sporting events as well, or even at television stations and entertainment establishments. Why do we think we have the right to expect those people to have to work for our leisure?

This isn't capitalism. It's consumerism, and it's the worst example of bacchanalia. It is the time of year when we least like free markets, and perhaps the best time to remind those who do preach them that economics aren't everything. Simple, unfettered economics may well infringe on someone's freedom as well as any government attempt to stifle a reasoned liberty. Yet there is a difference. There's at least a small chance that, with a bit of discipline at the voting booth door, we might actually stop government. Is there any way we might stop the Invisible Hand?

Anything which does not practice a decent amount self examination and a reasonable self discipline will become a devil. The free market is no different. Yet it does create quite the hypocrites among its defenders, doesn't it? They express a disdain for coercion. Yet they sure don't mind the coercion which the markets force upon people.

That strikes us as violence against the person as hateful as any government encroachment upon the person. But the free marketers won't see it. They have their own god attending to their business. And it is not constrained by care for humanity.

Are Free Market Choices all that Important?

Is choice important? To hear many people speak, it is of the utmost importance. Look at all the options which the market gives us; compare that to the options Soviet citizens had back in the day. We can go into stores and buy all kinds of clothes, food, and recreational toys. Isn't that just great?

Well, yes, it is. And no, it's not.

To be sure, some choices matter a whole lot more than others. If you're thinking of using your free will option of grand theft, we encourage you vehemently not to give in to it. But in day to day things, the sorts of things which we are not saying are wrong in themselves, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, the places we frequent, how important is choice, really?

We like what we like and so long as what we like is moral, we wonder whether it's worth the quibble. Yet we see so many people trying so many new things so much of the time that we can't help but ask, what are they looking for? What meaning is there to eating wings a third, fourth, or fiftieth style? To wearing the latest fashion? To sipping the newest brew or watching the current smash hit movie or TV show? Why all this apparent fascination with doing new, and this really seems to translate only into different, things?

What are people looking for that they can't be satisfied with what they have or is already readily available? Why do we live in a society which tolerates, nay, encourages, such consumerism? As a rule, the latest fad or fashion simply cannot be all that spectacular, really. What are people seeking?

We think they seek meaning. Long term, eternal meaning in what they might say or do or in how they act. In an increasingly relativistic world, a world where choice is in truth impotent, many folks still want, still need, things of value, things which really stand for something. So 'things' and 'events' and 'experiences' naturally become substitutes for real meaning. When the big choices don't matter, the little ones will fill the gap however feebly they are able. Being feeble attempts at meaning, they must proliferate, because they are gone as fast as they emerge.

The question is does the latest thing actually make us into anything of value. We don't believe it, of necessity, does. We think most relativists know that too. And it eats them alive. As a result, in these modern times, where a soul should be are only buffalo wings.

What Libertarians Really Are

Have you ever noticed that libertarian and liberal both begin with the same five letters? Is it a coincidence, or not?

There are indeed folks who have begun to call themselves 'liberaltarians'. It is as though libertarians are seeing the light.

Somewhat, anyway. The precise nature of the change in heart isn't really important. The fact is that libertarians are a bit of a schizophrenic bunch: liberal on social issues while conservative on fiscal matters. It is fair to ask if you can have it both ways and maintain any philosophic consistency.

Can one really be fiscally responsible in public policy while essentially arguing that social responsibility is a radically different question? Why do we have the freedom to do almost anything we want personally (provided it does not violate that vague and rather self-serving platitude: so long as it doesn't harm anyone else) yet have no such similar freedom if a bureaucrat or politician? Indeed, how can one reasonably argue that financial discipline and personal discipline do not go hand in hand? If you are no good at the one it is doubtful you can be particularly effective at the other.

In short, libertarians are essentially liberals who happen to like fiscal discipline. Yet such is like getting blood from the proverbial turnip. If folks are not personally disciplined they are not likely to be publicly disciplined. After all, we reap what we sow. Sow freedom, reap freedom, with all the errors that must grow from that field. But sow justice, the idea that some things are really right and others really wrong on their own merit, and we improve society by having bettered ourselves.

The Free Market isn't Everything

We conservatives like the free market; that declaration ought to surprise no one. But we also know that it is not and never will be truly free. Why is that?

Human imperfection, for starters. We aren't perfect, and it is silly to believe that a perfect system can come out of less than perfect people. Every human construct will be flawed and there's no getting around that. Markets, being human constructs, will not always lead to the right or best result. Of course, we think that free markets are the best there is at getting beyond error. Yet that doesn't mean they always will. As one of chief arguments against government interference in the economy is that too much is going on for governments to efficiently regulate, it applies as well that in free markets too many people and too many decisions are involved for every single effort to work out well. Yes, markets will organize themselves to a certain degree. But not exactly right and not necessarily in everyone's best interest in every single instance.

Then there's that pesky fact that not every economy in the world is free. True, that is not the fault of free market economics. Yet is another reflection on that pesky idea that people aren't perfect. Simply telling folks that they need freer markets won't lead to them. Government interference alone will see to that, and the simple assertion that open markets are better won't convince everyone that they are. It may be honest disagreement, stupidity, power, or just plain obstinacy which prevents accepting the free market rationale. The markets will never overcome all such obstacles. As such, completely free markets will never exist. There's no point to pretending they will. There will always be interference in them; about the best we will ever have is to limit that through the political process the best we can.

Now we come to those pesky social issues which drive the more rabid free market enthusiasts mad. Not every human trade ought to be in the open market. An easy example is slavery, but it goes beyond that. Prostitution comes to mind, and of course the entire abortion industry is simply wrong. What we're leading up is this: merely because people could do something doesn't mean that they should. Some activities must be banned simply because they're so wrong that an enlightened society must not tolerate them. We can argue where the line should be drawn: that there is a line is another question. There is, and we must find (or at least get as close as we can) and adhere to any legitimate market parameters which exist.

Finally, and this comes directly from our third point, free markets are not the end all be all of human existence. Right and wrong are; doing what's right and avoiding what's wrong the best we can should be our goal. Even the concept of free markets itself recognizes this. Proponents essentially say that markets ought to be free because justice demands it. Yet once we say that, we are effectively arguing not for free markets but for justice. It appears that free markets are a subset, albeit a very important subset, of justice. That also makes it appear that justice can make demands of markets, and that markets not only cannot but should not be totally free.

The freest market possible market is the best market because it allows for the most possible good for the most people. Yet it would still be flawed, it would still commit error, and we need to realize that if we are ever to improve upon it.

Markets are coercive too

Our libertarian friends make a big deal about how laws are coercive. Some go so far as to assert they do 'violence' against people, whatever that means, and as such are at least arguably wrong.

Maybe so, maybe no. It seems reasonable to allow that government when acting within its proper sphere must be allowed that strength. Still, the coercive ability of government certainly is indeed powerful and as such must be limited. But as the typical libertarian also demands freedom (whatever they mean by that) and free markets, we find ourselves asking, isn't freedom, aren't the markets, coercive too? Cannot people acting freely nonetheless be doing violence to others through whatever coercive measures may be at their disposal?

When a large corporate structure makes its employees work on what are holidays for most of the populace, isn't it being coercive? When a large corporate structure leans on its vendors for better prices and service, isn't it being coercive (and arguably violent, to use the libertarian catchphrase)? Why aren't such 'violences', which most certainly infringe on the freedom of others, as wrong as government action?

Perhaps because those involved in private endeavors realize what they're up against and accept the cost. That appears fair enough, so far as it goes. Yet how far does it really go? If you need your job but would like the time off with your family and friends, you are at least, again, arguably, having a violence done against you when made to work when most others are enjoying days off. If you have no realistic choice but to take the job you've got or are offered, isn't that still a demand against your freedom and free will? If Large Corporate Structure leans on your company or you employer's company to give a better deal or else, isn't violence being done to you and them? Why is that less of an affront to human dignity that a law?

Don't misunderstand our point: we would far prefer freer markets and freer people than we have in America today, and freer markets would surely give people greater choices in where they work and what they buy. We are simply not impressed with the violence argument with regard to government action. The question isn't whether government actions are coercive but whether they are right. So long as they are right, issues of freedom are superfluous. But more, if freedom is the real point of libertarianism then the movement ought to be a bit more concerned with a decided lack of real choice on the part of many people much of the time, and realize that often they are at the mercy of forces if not as powerful as government, still very strong and still to some degree oppressive. That was part of the point of Pope Francis's recent encyclical. Threats to freedom and dignity are not all at the hands of a congress or parliament.

The Pope Didn't Say It

The media and the uniformed voter are having a field day: Pope Francis has condemned capitalism! Except, as with many other things he is supposed to have said, he did nothing of the sort.

His latest encyclical, Evangelli Gaudium, does not condemn capitalism in any way, shape, or form, nor does it speak ill of the free market. He does not speak of 'unfettered capitalism' as a 'new tyranny'. Those are terms which the media and the Catholic and religious left have put into his mouth. You can be a Catholic in good conscience as well as a capitalist; why does the left want the Pope's views seen otherwise?

Obviously because they are trying to make what they want of the Church because the Catholic Church as an institution is the biggest obstruction to government action. They're trying to shame the Christian right into doing things which cannot be supported. Not only is that unmitigated gall, it is rank hypocrisy. The left wants the Church involved in government where it believes there should be state action. But check your religious values at the voting booth door all you against abortion, thank you.

The Pope's actual intent is really rather simple: to remind us that all human constructs will be flawed because each and every human being lacks perfection. As such, even capitalism and the free markets are not, cannot, and never will be perfect. We must be aware of those facts, and ready to act against error when the market errs, as it will.

His words are not cause for alarm on the part of the conservative religious nor a rallying cry for the activists of the religious left. They are the words of a servant reminding all who will listen of their obligations towards themselves and the world. Nothing more.

And nothing less. Our obligations are great and our weaknesses many. We must not forget either side of that equation.

It isn't all about the Economy

Once there was a day called Black Friday. It was meant to launch the holiday shopping season, and was known to start as early as 4 or 5 in the morning on the day after Thanksgiving. Yet that, it seems, was not good enough. We have reached the point where the sales are encroaching so far into Thanksgiving itself that there are stores opening as early as 5PM Thursday afternoon. We are now faced with Black Thursday.

There is something seriously wrong with this picture, something which speaks to a serious ill in American society. Why do we need these sales? Why do people think they have they right to them? And before all the rabid libertarian free marketers go livid about it (no one makes them do it, what about freedom?) answer two questions: aren't some folks being forced to do things, and, isn't their freedom then being sacrificed?

It is hard to imagine that the bulk of sales and support staff at stores would rather be working than at home with their families and friends on a major holiday. The same can be said of those working arenas for sporting events as well, or even at television stations and entertainment establishments. Why do we think we have the right to expect those people to have to work for our leisure?

This isn't capitalism. It's consumerism, and it's the worst example of bacchanalia. It is the time of year when we least like free markets, and perhaps the best time to remind those who do that economics aren't everything. Simple, unfettered economics may well infringe on someone's freedom as well as any government attempt to stifle a reasoned liberty. Yet there is a difference. There's at least a small chance that, with a bit of discipline at the voting booth door, we might actually stop government. Is there any way we might stop the Invisible Hand?

And we have yet to address the question of how society seems okay excising religion from itself while employing religious holidays just the same for its own nefarious purposes. But we'll save that for another time.

The Right to Work

Union supporters in Michigan are determined that our state not become another right to work state. They took the Capitol in Lansing by storm yesterday to make their point. Such is not unexpected. Unions play to the grandstand, to the lowest common denominator. But we wonder what their real problem is with right to work laws.

Well, we don't, really. Unions lose their clout if they can't make people join them.

They don't seem very willing to answer certain questions. Questions such as, 'If unions are so good for workers, why must workers be compelled to join them?' Or, 'If unions are so good, why isn't it obvious that all workers would benefit from them?' Or, 'If this is all about the rights and dignity of the person, why not go all the way and let each person decide the matter for themselves?'

We fully realize that are difficulties involved in what would amount to mixed shops. Who negotiates for the non-union workforce within them? If the non-union employees get the same benefits as the unionized, ought not the unions be compensated?

We're not sure. If someone didn't ask you to speak for them yet gets similar pay and benefits, well, what of it? Did the union get them their job or give them their skills? This may at times be the case, but only after the union was in the position to grant such privileges. We know that the Ironworkers and the Electricians offer training programs sponsored by their unions, and, to be fair, that these programs are very good. Yet what if they hadn't been there to begin with? If someone got their job on their own, using their own skills and own wherewithal, what would they owe to a union?

Perhaps some workers will be taken unfair advantage of by their employers. No doubt this will and has at times happened; yet no doubt also that at times the union will take advantage of its members as well. That point strikes us as a moral wash. If you're to raise a boogeyman solely for the sake of raising him, then you must grant that he might turn either way. He might harm those he is presumed to protect as much as anything else. He may be that fabled wolf in sheep's clothing.

Then we have the matter of why ought the majority rule in the workplace? Why ought fifty percent plus one have the right to make everyone else do what they wish done? That's all democracy in general means, let alone in the particular cases such as union shops. Why ought Bob Smith join a union simply because John Jones think he should?

And there's the rub. Why must any given worker join a union simply because a majority, even a decided majority within one plant or one industry, thinks he should? That's nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. It is, at the risk of hyperbole, the Divine Right of Kings under another guise. We rule, you follow, and don't ask questions.

To be sure, we risk the tyranny of the minority should we go the other way. Why ought the minority hold the majority back? Certainly there are times when this is the case. We cannot have viable nations should the minority vote hold a true and absolute veto over all things faced by the body politic. But the minority, in the case of unionization anyway, is nothing like what we find on a national level. Only on the national level are we dealing with a nation as a whole, on issues of general consequence. In the cases of simple human employment, we are dealing with persons directly. We are dealing with issues of who can work where, and why.

That is the trump card. When we think of who should work where and why, we are in perhaps the most exact sense dealing with individual rights. Why should anyone be excluded from competition in a given workforce merely because the guild which presumes (and we must stress the term presumes) to speak for him claims the authority, on its own authority, to speak for the person?

It's Not All About What Folks Will Buy

I am a free market enthusiast through and through, but I do believe that the capitalists (particularly the more libertarian ones) do need to keep one thing in mind: something is not moral merely because there is a market for it.

Nothing wrong with making money, of course. As a rule. Yet there are ways of making money which are morally abhorrent. The whole sex trade, to be sure, or products which are seriously and significantly offensive. No one ought to see Calvin urinating on a Ford symbol, for example. That people will buy this sort of thing is not the point; nor is the point that human freedom may call for grudging toleration of such things. The ultimate point must be that the act or product must be moral in and of itself in order to be moral in the marketplace.

I am not saying that the government should become involved in regulating what are admittedly often only juvenile paraphernalia. Still, it would nice if the markets would be a bit more self regulating and eschew such garbage.

To rephrase an old saw, I have come to the conclusion that capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the other economic systems. It is a sobering thought.

On Capitalism

I am a free market enthusiast through and through, but I do believe that the capitalists (particularly the more libertarian ones) do need to keep one thing in mind: something is not moral merely because there is a market for it.

What brings this up is a link posted on a blog which I frequent. The link prompted folks to a site where you could buy Obama and/or McCain condoms. It was done for a joke, I'm sure, but as the condoms are actually out there it is equally certain they were produced in order to make money.

Nothing wrong with making money, of course. As a rule. Yet there are ways of making money which are morally abhorrent. The whole sex trade, to be sure, or products which are seriously and significantly offensive. No one ought to see Calvin urinating on a Ford symbol, for example. That people will buy this sort of thing is not the point; nor is the point that human freedom may call for grudging toleration of such things. The ultimate point must be that the act or product must be moral in and of itself in order to be moral in the free market.

I am not saying that the government should become involved in regulating what are admittedly often only juvenile paraphernalia (prostitution and the like are another matter). Still, it would nice if the markets would be a bit more self regulating and eschew such garbage.

To rephrase an old saw, I have come to the conclusion that capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the other economic systems. It is a sobering thought.