A Dating Satire: Love Gov

A very funny and educational video series from our good friends over at the Independent Institute -- Jim


Hi Jim,

This 5-part video series depicts the federal government as an overbearing boyfriend—Scott “Gov” Govinsky—who foists his “good intentions” on a hapless, idealistic college student, Alexis.  Each episode follows Alexis’s relationship with “Gov” as his intrusions wreak comic havoc on her life, professionally, financially, and socially. Alexis’s loyal friend Libby tries to help her see “Gov” for what he really is—a menace. But will Alexis come to her senses in time? Tune in to find out!

We believe that Love Gov is a funny and compelling way to help anyone understand the federal government’s expanding reach into our lives. It’s a lighthearted approach to reach audiences on a personal level and inspire them to learn more and take action.

Best regards,

David

------
David J. TherouxFounder and President
Independent Institute

Letter to Dispatch

Ohio legislators believe Julia Lease's desire to fly a flag trumps the contract she voluntarily signed ("Ohio legislators want to protect flying the Stars and Stripes").  In fact, those busybodies want to "prevent landlords and homeowner associations from restricting the display of the Ohio flag, the American flag and military service banners."

So, in the shadow of the yet waving banner of freedom, these Republican politicians want to abrogate one more property right.

Isn't this the antithesis of the ethos behind the Revolution: the rights of the citizen over an ever-encroaching government?

And isn't it the moral obligation of the state to protect the right of property, not to annul contracts to benefit one over another?

Seems our state legislators have no issue with repeating "a long train of abuses and usurpations."

The Bias of The Dispatch

Dear Editor:

Your bias is showing.

Reporter, Jessica Wehrman, opens her article, "War on Science," with this claim, "Among scientists, questions about climate change and childhood vaccinations have long been settled." Yet, later in the article she notes a survey which claims only 87 percent of scientists accept the notion that climate change is caused mostly by human activity.

So, what is it: the implied 100 percent claim attributed to the reporter in the opening statement or the 87 percent claim arising from a survey -- a survey that itself has been challenged as overstating acceptance?

Newspapers are supposed to report the news -- the facts. So how did the editors allow a reporter's bias to lead off an article? Could it be a reflection of editorial bias as well? Hmmm.

Uncle Sam empties the barn

A post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

Uncle Sam empties the barn

Jim Fedako

The nature of man being what it is, the desire for fun and leisure is limitless. After a hard week of working and saving, Friday night is enough reason to open the barn door for music and celebration.

Farmer Bob woke Monday to face another week of reaping that which he had sown. He knows the routine: out to the fields in the morning for a long day of labor. Each evening, he returns to his barn and tosses the day's bales of hay, one after the other, onto an ever-growing pile in the back. Bob recognizes that he has to store - to save - this hay so that he has something to exchange at the Saturday farmers market throughout the year. In addition, he recognizes that he has to set aside some bales to feed his animals next week and throughout the long, cold winter.

After completing this task, Bob locks the barn door and drags his exhausted body toward home and kitchen. During the season, his routine is usually the same. But this week had a little twist.

Unbeknownst to Bob, his wife invited her Uncle Sam to visit. Now, Uncle Sam is a real layabout. Sure, he is fun, always ready for a hearty laugh, yet he never works a job. At family reunions and get-togethers, Uncle Sam alludes to "all that money my wife left me." But folks who knew his wife never heard of any family wealth or riches.

For the price of meals and a bed, Uncle Sam entertains relatives for a week at a time, moving from house to house, and city of city, arranging events that become the talk for years. Now it was Bob's turn to host the party. Yet, somehow, Bob sensed something was not so.

Given the challenges of running a business, Bob relies on his entrepreneurial calculations to keep his family fed and the finances of his farm in order. So, throughout his work week, Bob mentally tallies bales of hay. There are the 100 he unloads into the barn each evening - his nominal savings. And then there are the five bales that succumb to pests and mold during the week. So, working five days per week, Bob has an effective savings of 495 bales per week - the 500 reaped less the 5 lost.

At the end of each week, Bob splits his weekly product between the 50 bales for next week's feed, the 300 he sets aside as long-term savings - for exchange and feed throughout the winter, and the remaining 145 he exchanges at the market each Saturday for current goods, services, loans, etc.

As the season is 10 weeks old, Bob has already stored 3,000 bales in the barn - a great savings to be sure.

At the start of the week, Bob had confidence in his future. But he soon experienced a nagging concern over that layabout planning the Friday shindig.

Each day, Bob labored while Uncle Sam relaxed on the porch, iced tea in one hand, phone in the other, planning the big event. Bob simply could not figure how Uncle Sam was going to pay the final bill. A concern that disturbed Bob's usually fitful sleep.

Friday evening arrives and Bob is exhausted and just a little annoyed - guests are arriving in droves. After unloading fresh bales of hay, Bob turns to lock the barn door. But there stands Uncle Sam, quickly reaching out his hand. "Bob, leave the door open. We need the space to store stuff for the party," Uncle Sam says with a coy smile. Against better judgment, Bob complies. He leaves the door wide open, wipes his forehead, and heads toward his warm meal.

We can guess the ending. The party is the event of the year. As expected, in the morning the yard is a mess and the barn is empty save a few bales littered here and there. Uncle Sam is still around, seated at the breakfast table, looking tired but happy. Bob is irate, "Sam, how could you do that? It's all gone; my savings, my future."

Uncle Sam is unshaken. "Look, I used your hay to stimulate the local economy -- it was a real boom, wasn't it? And don't worry, your barn will soon burst with hay once the multiplier takes over. Trust me."

"Multiplier?" Bob shakes his head. He knows the hard work involved in the production process. And Bob knows that it is only hard work that leads to savings and a future.

While Uncle Sam reaches for seconds, Bob quickly downs a second cup of coffee and heads to the fields. He has a lot of work to do.

The question remains: During the week of Uncle Sam's visit, what was Bob's rate savings? Is it based on the 500 bales he reaped but did not directly consume? Is it based on the 495 bales that survived pests and mold? What about the 300 set aside for the winter? How about the 195 to be exchanged at the market for current goods, services, and loans? Or, is his rate of savings based on the 3,000 odd bales that are no longer in the barn due to thate

Briggs and the Owl: a refutation of atheism

Briggs and the Owl: a refutation of atheism

"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings and takes flight when the shades of night are falling." Hegel

Or, as explained by Wikipedia, “[P]hilosophy comes to understand a historical condition just as it passes away. Philosophy cannot be prescriptive because it understands only in hindsight.”

So, poor Briggs, just like the atheists he counters, his owl has flown and he does not even recognize it. You see, Marx closed the epoch of atheism some 170 years ago. Yet Briggs and the atheists fight on, not recognizing that understanding came with the passing away. So the continued fight is pointless, indeed.

According to Marx, in a letter to Engels, “Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning,  for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. “ [emphasis in the original]

Setting aside for now the reference to socialism, Marx is unequivocally stating that atheism requires God for its own existence. So what is atheism other than a negation God? Nothing. It cannot even explain the genesis of man or his relationship to nature.

As summarized by C.L.R James, the letter to Engels continues:

“To a hypothetical person who asked him [Marx}: ‘Who has produced the first man and nature in general?’ Marx replies: ‘I can only answer. Your question is the product of abstraction. Ask yourself how you arrive at this question. Ask yourself whether your question does not occur from a point of view which I cannot answer because it is an absurd one. Ask yourself whether that series exists as such for reasonable thought. Whenever you ask about the creation of nature and man, you abstract yourself from man and nature. You presuppose that you don’t exist and yet you demand that I prove you exist. I now say to you: Abandon your abstraction and you will give up your question. Or if you hold fast to your abstraction, accept the consequences. Whenever you think of man and nature as non-existent, regard yourself as non-existent, since you are natural and human. Think not, ask me not, for as soon as you think and ask, your abstraction from the existence of nature and man makes no sense.’”

That is the cosmology you are fighting, Briggs. Atheism is so early nineteenth century; quaint, yet atavistic. Like it or not, we are in the epoch of socialism. According to Marx:

“But since for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labour, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis. Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice.” [emphasis in the original]

So, it’s not turtles all the way down. In our epoch, it is nature and labor all the way down.

As a Christian and believer in an inerrant Bible, I, of course, will have none of this. Atheism is simply one manifestation of rebellion against God: one that assumes God from the beginning and is therefore meaningless.

However, rebellion is rebellion. Really, there is nothing new here. Sure, the lines of attack change over time, but it is also rebellion all the way down.

So, Briggs, take instruction from Marx and recognize the close of the epoch of overt rebellion – atheism. The real battle is concealed rebellion, such as that which Marx outlined above, where rebellion takes the form of a modern Tower of Babel – the appeal to the state to construct a new Eden for the new socialist man.

Atheism, your owl has flown.

Forgotten at the Door

An article of mine published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Mises.org). Relevant to any school district - including Olentangy - that is considering a tax levy. Don't forget those you will harm!

Forgotten at the Door
By Jim Fedako

"There is, in fact, only one solution: the state, the government, the laws must not in any way concern themselves with schooling or education. Public funds must not be used for such purposes. The rearing and instruction of youth must be left entirely to parents and to private associations and institutions." – Ludwig von Mises

I met William Graham Sumner's Forgotten Man — actually forgotten woman in this instance — while shopping at a local supermarket a couple of months ago. With her eighty year-old legs steadily supporting stiff knees and tired feet, this woman is cheerful and ready to share a story or a laugh as she greets shoppers entering the store. This openness endears her to customers who know her by name and smile when they see her. Though her tales and goodhearted fun remain with shoppers for a long time afterwards, she is sadly forgotten by those who live to tax and spend.

There is theory, and then there is reality. To those who adhere to the Austrian School of economics, theory and reality are the same. Yet to many, the separation between theory and reality is the gulf that drowns in anonymity those such as this eighty-year-old woman.

You see, the forgetful ones — the officeholders, bureaucrats, and rent-seekers — have no concern for this woman. Sure, they pay lip service to their beloved concept of community, but they are only concerned with the community of tax recipients; the taxpayers be damned.

The Austrian School, on the other hand, recognizes individuals — not averages, aggregates, or some other convenient statistical or rhetorical tool — just the individual acting at the margin. In the Austrian School, there is no such notion as a typical community member. There are simply individuals going about their own business, utilizing means to satisfy personal ends, all within some arbitrary lines on a map: the collectivist's revered political boundaries.

The Austrians readily recognize our forgotten woman. She is not some faceless automaton, some Economic Woman. She is real, so real that we will give her a name: Edith.

Now, Edith truly lives at the margin. She buried her husband of forty-some years over a decade ago. Since that time, she has struggled. Money is tight and, despite what the Feds says, inflation is running high. However, the cost of consumer goods is only one of her worries. Edith also has to find the means to pay rising property taxes; taxes that are rising at a local rate of almost three times the reported consumer price index. So, she works.

Edith does not want much; she simply wants to live out her days in the house where she and her husband raised their family. Who could possibly desire to put this woman out of house and home? Well, the forgetful ones of course.

You see, in this instance, the forgetful ones want to spend more money on failed public education. There are the locally elected officials who cheer on the efforts of the bureaucrats — the school administrators who live to conceive of new ways to spend money on programs destined for failure. And then there are the hoards of rent-seekers who want others — such as their neighbors — to share the cost of personal expenses, all in the name of the public good.

The forgetful ones base their means on the theory of aggregates and averages. They note the reported average federal adjusted gross income in the area and claim that the community is wealthy. Therefore, they state, the typical resident can afford another $700 or $800 in property tax.

But the average homeowner is a nonexistent myth: a chimera. There is no average, or typical, resident. There are the forgetful ones, plus, among others, you, me, and our dear friend Edith. And, she is certainly not average. To those who know her, Edith is something more. Yet, she cannot afford an extra $100 per year, let alone another $700 or so.

The forgetful ones ignore her plight. To most of them, her suffering does not exist. To others, her situation is a problem that has to be rationalized away. Maybe — so the line of thought goes — Edith should move to another home in a more remote area, an area with lower taxes.

Certainly, it is sad that a long-term resident must leave, but the taxes are for the kids. And, with the kids being the next generation, some eggs have to be cracked.

Whether one chooses to ignore Edith outright, or to rationalize her away, the line of reasoning is the same: the collective decides who wins and who loses. Or, more aptly, who receives, and who pays. It's this line of reasoning that is just about the only thing taught in public schools: the hammer of government creates the community that the majority of voters desires.

Students learn that might makes rights. Well, of course, it's never taught in such harsh terms. Students learn that the community (through might) decides issues of property, liberty, and freedom. This, they learn, is the American ideal.

The schools, through their unionized workforce, teach that unrestrained democracy is wonderful. The ideals of our Founding Fathers are from a time and place that no longer exists. Students can, and should, dream of anything, and attempt to have government implement it by force. Whether it’s recycling, carbon offsets, or additional coerced funding for schools, it's the vote of the majority that makes any dream ethical.

So, the schools rally their constituents — their rent-seekers — in order to influence likely voters to support the new tax. And, the schools, again through their constituents, create the impression that those who do not support the waste that is public education are not true community members — that they do not care about kids.

But Edith does care about kids. She raised three of her own, and she now enjoys regular additions of grandchildren to her growing family. She simply wants to keep her house, which leaves poor Edith in quite a fix.

Not to worry, the occasional forgetful one will finally admit Edith's existence. He will recognize her by name and take on her cause. His solution: property tax relief for seniors. And, what a solution it is! Now we can have our public school cake and eat it too. And, we can eat it without remorse or regret.

Sounds reasonable, with the exception of that ever-so-annoying Austrian concept: the margin.

Property tax relief for Edith moves the burden of taxation to a smaller pool of homeowners. While Edith is no longer the one at the margin, now it is Henry deciding whether the new tax will drive him from house and home. Theory meets reality, and the margin exposes the lie that is the average.

OK, so what do we do? How do we solve this whole mess? How do we address education within the reality of the margin? The answer is quite simple: privatize education. Remove government from the minds of our youth. Recognize the wisdom of Mises and let parents — as consumers — decide what is best for their children. For some, religious schools, for others secular schools, and for many, such as myself, homeschooling.

In all cases, the market will generate systems of education that solve the wants of individuals. Allow theory and reality to come together so that Edith keeps her home, as does Henry, and we all get to keep more money in our wallets; money that will fund the education of the next generation.

Voting with Our Feet? Local Government "Services" and the Supposed Tiebout Effect

"It's not you choosing the mix of service and tax rate, it's the school system, or other governmental entity, making the choice for you."
Jim Fedako

Since Paul Samuelson defined the term some fifty odd years ago, public goods has entered the popular lexicon and become an established belief. From the simple technical definition as a good that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, thus subject to free riders, and therefore can only be produced by government or through governmental action, public goods now encompass almost any good that a statist desires, whether neo-con or liberal. To question the concept of public goods is to attack mom and apple pie.

In 1956 Charles Tiebout extended the concept of public goods to the local level and created a model of a pseudo market for local government services (police, fire, schools, parks, etc.) whereby individuals sort themselves in such a manner that their preferences for government services match the services provided by the local government where they chose to reside. And just like Samuelson's public goods, Tiebout's local public goods plays a major role in how taxpayers view government expenditures.

The Tiebout Effect, the sorting of services and taxpayers, is supposed to provide a market solution that leads to a Pareto-Optimal equilibrium, guiding local governments toward providing only those services and quality of services that their respective residents want at a price they are willing to pay. Residents who don't like the mix of service, quality, and tax rate, "vote with their feet" and move to areas that better provide a mix that meets their preference rank. As residents either plant "for sale" signs and purchase homes elsewhere, or as prospective residents build new homes or buy existing homes, local governments recognize these activities as signals to either increase or reduce their service levels, depending on the perceived desires of the voting majority of community.

On the surface, the Tiebout model makes for a great justification for devolving a centralized government that can't provide for preference differentiation into many smaller local ones that can market themselves to individuals. Local governments are able to be as lean and mean as any private sector firm, at least according to Tiebout's model. But models are not reality.

Decentralized governments do compete with regard to tax incentives and public financing when trying to entice businesses to move into their area. But governments do not compete with each other by offering services in the same manner as entrepreneurs in the market place.

The easiest way to dispense with Tiebout is to recognize that the Austrian School has demolished the concept of public goods. Public goods simply do not exist. Sorry mom and apple pie. I am not going to address this here since there are many excellent articles and papers on the fallacy of public goods in general available at Mises.org .

The Rothbardian argument that a majority of voters does not speak for everyone also dispels the belief that the mix of so-called public goods, and local public goods, is a reflection of anyone's preference rank. No market in any sense exists where the majority plus one of those who chose to vote dictate the expenditures - through taxation - of all other. This is not a market, it as a coerced redistribution of wealth. Those in the voting majority simply become the net tax consumers while all others become the net taxpayers.

Despite the Austrian refutation, mainstream economists still cling to the public goods fallacy. In particular, many papers are written that cite the Tiebout Effect, especially in reference to local public schools and property values. Economist use Tiebout models in attempt to show that individuals voting with their feet drive improved school performance and increase property values.

While it may be true that individuals on initial draw seek communities that best match their preference mix of services and tax rate, individual preferences change as does the local government's mix of services and tax rate. Since the taxpayer is unable to simply move without incurring expense and the local government is a area-wide monopoly, local governments are under no pressure to satisfy changing preferences [1]. Entrepreneurs in the market, on the other hand, must quickly respond to any change in preference or suffer financial loss or ruin. Governments as monopolies are immune to such market pressures.

For sake of argument, let's agree that there is such a beast as public goods and that government is the entity most capable of supplying such services. The question I want to address is: Does the concept of local public goods provide a market that is driven to efficiency through the movements and sorting of individuals?

Like the often used example of the frog that blissfully allows itself to be boiled if the water temperature is slowing increased from lukewarm to boiling, taxpayers can also be boiled under rising tax rates simply because the marginal cost of moving exceeds the marginal cost of almost any new property tax. This has a piecemeal effect as taxes are increased every so often but each new step in tax rate does not warrant a move. Slowly the tax rate brings the homeowner to the boiling point, boiling under the collar anyway.

People tend to fall on the sword of collectivism and believe that a community is based on homogenous preferences. Nothing could be farther from the truth. School districts like to create the ideal-type resident and then assign attributes. Districts say that, "Our residents want program x." Does their community -- an aggregation of individual acting residents -- really want program x offered at the local schools? No, some parents want program x offered because they would rather not pay the full cost themselves but favor having their neighbors forced to split the bill. Districts like having program x simply because they now have a dependent constituency that will support additional tax increases.

Assume that you are offended by this machination of democracy or recognize yourself to be a net taxpayer for someone else's wants, what do you do? Is moving to another school district that has a better mix of service and tax rate the efficient and rational response. Not usually since the likely closing costs, moving expenses, and other real estate fees, drain about 10% off of the paper value of a house. The cost, real and assumed, to the owner of a $250,000 house is close to $25,000 with each move. It becomes obvious that it make sense to let the tax temperature rise just a few more degrees, even though the boiling point is rapidly approaching.

What about improved efficiency and performance of the local public school system due to the Tiebout Effect? From a market standpoint, the consumer must be able to operate in an free, unhampered market in order to guide the economy. The public school market is neither. Given that my singular vote has no impact on a tax levy and that I can't simply cross district lines without incurring a large cost, I am captured by the school market. If I am a regular at Burger King and the service or price changes in a manner I do not like, I can easily cross the street to McDonald's, Wendy's, etc., without having to bear any additional cost. In fact, the managers of the other restaurants will welcome me with open arms. There is no system of local public goods ready to serve me in the manner of the fast food market since I can't really "vote with my feet." The school system recognizes this and therefore sees no need for improvements in services relative to costs.

Oh, sure there are studies that show the occasional Tiebout Effect in the housing market, but here are also many studies showing no effect whatsoever. Certainly acting individuals sort themselves on any matter in question, but we can never know what the true reason for the sorting is. When econometricians use models that are based on the idea-type community member and then make assumptions about preference rankings, they are operating without a solid epistemology.

The above analysis shows that no free market for supposed public goods exists, local and otherwise. But if you require empirical data, just look around. Have you ever seen school districts, or any other local political entity, embrace improvements in order to capture a better market share? What you will see is school districts spin any change in outcome, whether positive or negative, as improved academic performance, and any additional cost as improved service. You will also see school districts claim that the school market is such that any reduction in funding or salaries will hurt student outcomes even though government expenditures and quality outcomes are inversely related.

School districts do not fear rising costs the same as the local businessman. Districts show no concern when their tax rates begin to exceed neighboring districts, in fact they will sell their need for operating levies on the basis that they spend less then neighboring districts -- cost equal service.

Imagine if McDonalds refused to acknowledge the hamburger price at Wendy's across the street. Imagine if consumers of computers could be led to believe that quality cannot go up even as prices go down. That would make for a strange market, but it is the market for supposed local public goods.

In addition, as Rothbard showed, taxation reduces the value of the item taxed. There you have it, schools don't improve, but taxes rise and potential property values fall.

A Tiebout Effect? Local public goods? No, you have been convinced by the fallacies and captured like the soon-to-be-boiled frog. It's not you choosing the mix of service and tax rate, it's the school system, or other governmental entity, making the choice for you.

Note:

[1] Due to government being an area-wide monopoly, school districts, and individual schools for that matter, typically cannot be switched without a move. This creates an issue that is not a concern where area-wide monopolies do not exist, namely the issue of switching suppliers requiring the selling of one's home. I can switch between McDonalds and Burger King as often as I like and not incur moving expenses. If McDonalds was granted an area-wide monopoly which forced me to buy Big Macs based on my current address, I would end up in the same situation as that with public schools. Unlike the standard neoclassical transaction cost, the cost of moving is the result of a government-imposed monopoly. End the area-wide monopoly and the moving cost issue disappears.

Jim Fedako

Tax Burden -- Letter to Editor Unpublished

Dear Dispatch:

It is important for readers to keep in mind that the state's local tax-effort index is more political than factual (”Affluent districts pay less in school taxes by this count”).

The original index – developed by the Ohio Department of Taxation – was simple: divide the amount of district local revenue by the total amount of income earned by its residents. So, if on average, residents paid 2% of their income in local school taxes, the index for the district was 2.

If another district had an index of 4, it was obvious its residents paid twice the percentage of their income to their local schools. This allowed for objective comparisons between districts.

That all changed during the Strickland administration. The Ohio Department of Education took the index and made it political. Once the revised formula is resolved to its mathematical equation, it becomes apparent that the local tax-effort index is now heavily weighted against wealthier districts.

If a district's medium income is twice that of another district, the residents in the first district are expected to pay an amount equal to four times the amount paid by the second district. This is due to the squaring effect of the new formula.

You can apply the calculation to individual taxpayers, as well. Based on the formula, if one taxpayer makes (say) five times that of another, the first taxpayer is expected to pay an amount equal to 25 times that of the second. So, should the second taxpayer be paying $2,000 to his local district, the first taxpayer is expected to pay $50,0000 of his income to his. 

Talk about a subjective index. And talk about the politics of redistribution gone mad. 

The economist and Nobel laureate, Ronald Coase, is quoted as saying, "If you torture data long enough, it will confess." 

The Department of Education certainly tortured its data long enough to confessed to its political agenda.

Unpublished letter re. Jack Hanna

Submitted to the Columbus Dispatch:

Dear Editor:

 

Are both The Dispatch and Jack Hanna serious ("Hanna's outrage is on the mark," Thursday, Feb. 13, 2014)? Have they never seen giraffes rock themselves into oblivion at the Columbus Zoo while pacing the same footsteps, day in and day out? And what about the trail of blood that leads from the wilds to the cages. Jack, what isn't "abominable" about that?

 

Sincerely,

 

Jim Fedako

Guess what? Another unpublished letter

Submitted to the Columbus Dispatch:


Dear Editor:

In her column, "What if more women ruled the world," Georgie Anne Geyer wonders whether more female presidents and prime ministers would make a difference relative to our current situation. FA Hayek, Nobel laureate in economics, answered that question 70 years ago in his seminal work, "Road to Serfdom."  

Gender is neither the issue nor the solution. It is the essence of government that the worst rise to the top. This is true since it is they are the ones with the greatest desire to seek the means to control others. 

If our lot is to improve, the size and reach of government must be reduced. For when that happens, we will only be harassed by petty tyrants, with little resources to truly burden us with their every decree and edict. 

Sincerely,

Jim Fedako

Third Unpublished Letter

Submitted to the Columbus Dispatch:


Dear Editor:

In his recent column, ("Sometimes values don't align with the real world," Dispatch, Sunday) Jonah Goldberg reiterated the core tenet he and his fellow neocons share with their collectivist brethren on the left: government is the moral agent.

 

Goldberg defends the firebombing of Dresden during the final death throes of Nazi Germany as a moral act, even though the intended target was the civilian population and converging refugees. His argument is simple, yet specious: government deemed it necessary to win the war. To Goldberg, government is the moral agent of final appeal. So, by the government deeming the action necessary, it is necessarily moral. No objections allowed.

 

This is the very same argument used by all governments: when their actions are necessary, they are moral. However, when that argument was used by the Nazis after the war, it was correctly rejected out of hand.

 

Though Goldberg claims few would call the attack on Dresden murder, he must know that because it, and similar firebombings, the Allies at the Nuremberg Trials did not hold the Nazis responsible for their air raids against civilians targets. Why? They did not want to provide the Nazis with a means to call similar actions of the Allies into question. 

 

Despite what Goldberg believes: an action is not necessary, nor is it moral, simply because government claims it is. That is true regardless of the government making the claim.

Sincerely,

Jim Fedako

Another Unpublished Letter to the Editor

Submitted to the Columbus Dispatch:



Dear Editor:

According to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute ("Minimum wage to increase by 15 cents," Dec. 27, 2014), an increase in the minimum wage will lead to an increase in consumer spending. But, how is that going to happen?

If I must pay more for goods and services, I will buy less. That is an economic law. It cannot be the case that I can pay more and purchase the same amount at every register.

Some businesses will win, while others will lose. And in those losing businesses, jobs will be lost. 

In the end, the consumer will have less goods at the end of the day and more folks will be unemployed. 

It is true that some workers will benefit by the increase, but most of their nominal benefit will be wiped out by rising prices.

Is this really "a terrific thing for workers and the economy"? 

Sincerely,

Jim Fedako

Unpublished Letter to the Editor

Submitted to the Columbus Dispatch:


Dear Editor:

It's the New Year and Cal Thomas ("If it's not careful, America could be nearing the end of the road," January 1, 2015) already fears he may not be able to shout, "Hail Caesar," throughout 2015.

Thomas should be lamenting the passage of the Republic a hundred or so years ago, not an end to an empire. Yet he argues for increased militarization and interventions, since only that can save us from, what he terms, our "age of decadence."

In the end, Thomas dreams of a larger US empire, Spartanesque in style, with a Roman sense of grandeur. 

However, if strengthening the empire is the direction for 2015, we should all expect a bloody year.

So I ask Thomas, "How many of my sons and daughters need to die to satisfy your love for an empire?"

Sincerely,

Jim Fedako

Talk by David J. Theroux

Here is interesting and informative post from David J. Theroux, founder and president, C. S. Lewis Society of California. It is his keynote talk at the first annual conference of Christians for Liberty, that was held at St. Edwards University in San Antonio, TX, August 2, 2014?

"C.S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvlRL0u_fBs