Owning Currency Is Proof of SERVING Our Fellow Man

Morality of Free Markets

 

Dr. Richard Ebeling, professor of economics at The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, and my longtime friend and colleague, has written an important article, “Business Ethics and Morality of the Marketplace,” appearing in the American Institute for Economic Research. Its importance and timeliness is enhanced by so many of America’s youth, led by academic hacks, having fallen prey to the siren song of socialism.

In a key section of his article, Ebeling lays out what he calls the ethical principles of free markets. He says: “The hallmark of a truly free market is that all associations and relationships are based on voluntary agreement and mutual consent. Another way of saying this is that in the free market society, people are morally and legally viewed as sovereign individuals possessing rights to their life, liberty, and honestly acquired property, who may not be coerced into any transaction that they do not consider being to their personal betterment and advantage.”

Ebeling says that the rules of a free market are simple and easy to understand: “You don’t kill, you don’t steal, and you don’t cheat through fraud or misrepresentation. You can only improve your own position by improving the circumstances of others. Your talents, abilities, and efforts must all be focused on one thing: what will others take in trade from you for the revenues you want to earn as the source of your own income and profits?”

For many people, profit has become a dirty word and as such has generated slogans such as “people before profits.” Many believe the pursuit of profits is the source of mankind’s troubles. However, it’s often the absence of profit motivation that’s the true villain. For example, contrast the number of complaints heard about profit-oriented establishments such as computer stores, supermarkets and clothing stores to the complaints that one hears about nonprofit establishments such as the U.S. Post Office, the public education system and departments of motor vehicles. Computer stores, supermarkets and clothing stores face competition and must satisfy customers to earn profits and stay in business. Postal workers, public teachers and department of motor vehicles employees depend on politicians and coercion to get their pay. They stay in business whether customers are satisfied with their services or not.

In a free market society, income is neither taken nor distributed. Income is earned by serving one’s fellow man. Say I mow your lawn. When I’m finished, you pay me $50. Then, I go to my grocer and demand, “Give me two pounds of sirloin and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced.” In effect, the grocer asks: “Williams, what did you do to deserve a claim on what your fellow man produced?” I say, “I served him.” The grocer says, “Prove it.” That’s when I pull out the $50. We might think of dollars as “certificates of performance,” proof of serving our fellow man.

Free markets are morally superior to other economic systems. To have a claim on what my fellow man produces, I’m forced to serve him. Contrast that requirement to government handouts, where a politician says to me: “You don’t have to get out in that hot sun to mow your fellow man’s lawn. Vote for me and I’ll take what your fellow man produces and give it to you.”

Ebeling says that those deserving condemnation are those who use government coercion to gain at the expense of others. There are thousands of such examples: government subsidies at taxpayers’ expense, paying farmers not to grow crops or guaranteeing them a minimum price paid for through tax dollars and higher prices for consumers, regulations that limit entry into various professions and occupations, regulations that limit consumer choice, and corporate handouts and bailouts.

In a word or so, our protest should not be against capitalism. People should protest crony capitalism, where people use the political arena to buy government favors. If millennials and others want to wage war against government favors and crony capitalism, I’m with them 100%. But I’m all too afraid that anti-capitalists just want their share of the government loot.

From LRC, here.

D.J. Trump Is NOT ‘the Hill to Die On…’

NOT AT OUR TABLE

Trump has managed to dictate the conversation for the rest of the world

Rabbi YY Jacobson’s candid, reflective piece on his public role at the fundraiser hosted by the Orthodox community for the current president highlighted the deep divisions that exist within our own community. The letters it generated quivered with similar passion. There is no middle-ground, it seems, on this topic, no one indifferent to Mr. Trump and what he means — or doesn’t mean — to the Orthodox world.

I’m not one to propose a solution to this problem, or any problem that doesn’t involve the question of who finished the can of Pringles meant for the kids’ snack. Early on in my marriage, when my wife started asking me hilchos Shabbos questions, I mastered the art of the thoughtful “you have to know,” respectful of the question and questioner without committing to an answer.

So I cannot tell you if Trump is the Great Defender or the epitome of immorality. But I can share a story.

A few weeks ago, a kiruv-minded friend in Montreal asked if we could host secular college students for a Shabbos seudah. We never had the opportunity before, and my family greeted it with enthusiasm.

I made sure to arrive home right after shul, skipping the usual schmooze after davening. My daughters didn’t engage in intense negotiations over whose turn it was to set the table, and my sons were kind enough to not fall asleep on the couch. (I also upped my game, but that’s not for me to share. Let one of my kids write a column if they want to share my secrets.)

It was a beautiful seudah, with my family enjoying the articulate, sincere young men around their table.

Motzaei Shabbos, my wife got a text message from one of the women involved in working with these students. “Thanks for having the boys, the food was delicious,” she wrote.

The unspoken message was clear. The food was delicious, but we’d done something wrong. We’d blown it some other way.

My wife asked where we’d erred, and the devoted woman assured her that it was fine. Okay, maybe there was one little thing, just a tiny detail, really.

“Your husband spoke nicely about Trump,” she said, “and that’s very offensive to liberal-minded college students. Don’t worry, we were able to calm them down.”

That was the story, and it left me very sad.

It was sad because aside from discussing Trump, other things happened at that seudah.

We made Kiddush. We sang zemiros. We said divrei Torah.

But these students searching for truth heard only about Trump. They missed the power of Kiddush, missed noticing the way a frum couple speaks to each other, didn’t perceive the unique dynamic of children who sit around a table and connect as a family, week after week.

I had blown it by bringing Trump to the Shabbos table.

I feel like many of us have fallen into the same Trump trap as the rest of America, forced to take one side or another. Gifted diplomats and seasoned politicians who’ve spent decades playing both sides and managing to make every audience believe they were with them have now been branded: with or against.

But we’re not politicians, so why go there at all? We all believe the same things, more or less. We all believe HaKadosh Baruch Hu put the man in power. We also believe that the president’s ethics, conduct, and speech are problematic.

Continue reading…

From Mishpacha, here.