I believe in charity. I believe that helping those who truly cannot help themselves benefits everyone involved, donor and recipient.

I do not, however, believe in legally mandated charity, and for many reasons.

For one thing, it’s too easy. Ideally, real charity should involve face-to-face contact between donor and recipient. Each person involved in the transaction should be able to get a good look at the other, to see the need and the compassion, and to see the effect the exchange has on the other. Alternatively, a private and volunteer organization whose judgment and screening process we trust can distribute our donations to good effect.

But when our donations are wrested from us by law and redistributed without our input, it becomes way too easy to believe we’ve done our share with no cost to us except money.

My main objection to coerced charity, however, is that when I choose to (or am forced to) donate money or food or clothing to someone in need, I have the right, even the responsibility, to check and see whether the recipient is a scam artist. I want to have a say in who receives my charitable donations. I want to be able to question the people who are divvying up the money I give. I want to find out what the criteria are for receiving help. I want to be sure that the recipients of my dollars are, first of all, making the best use of their own resources before they ask for mine. I want to know if they’re working at all, and just need some help at the end of the month, or refusing to work. Or maybe unable to work. I want to be able to withhold my contributions from any agency that seems careless or overly lax in doling out my gifts, and give it instead to another group whose policies I agree with.

Do I have the right to that information? Darn tootin’ I do.

I know someone who is really struggling right now. There is illness in her family, minimal support from other family members, not enough money, confrontations with insurance providers, more than one job (which leaves even less time for the other obligations), and her own health is not the best.

I mentioned to a mutual friend that maybe some of us could help her out. There are a number of things we could do, but money seems to be the overwhelming lack, and many of the other problems could be eased with just a little more cash.

The mutual friend spent several minutes telling me why that wouldn’t be a good idea. She had a lot of information that I didn’t know about – wasted opportunities, unnecessary alienation of other family members, wasted resources, lack of understanding of basic information about social services, and a host of other stories that made it pretty clear that the person I wanted to help had brought a lot of her troubles on herself. It was new information for me, and my mind’s (and heart’s) jury is still out on the subject.

And that brings us to what I found so astonishing about the conversation I had with the mutual friend: The person who chose not to help a close acquaintance because she knew that the person in need was not making good decisions and could therefore do more to help herself — this same person predictably and consistently advocates legislation to raise taxes to increase social programs to funnel money to virtually anyone who asks for help.

And I’m pretty sure our needy friend would qualify for those same social programs if she applied.

My liberal friend is willing to pay higher taxes to fund government programs that take away from her the right to direct her charitable contributions, yet insists on exercising that right when presented with the opportunity to help someone close.

I, on the other hand, am willing to help a friend who would probably not be entitled to help from the more stringent private charitable organizations I advocate.

Does all this mean anything?

Honestly, I don’t know.

KsSmallBiz.com, March 14, 2007

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Once there were three very young men. Early in their lives, each of them knew what was important to him.

RichMan valued money, and from middle school on he worked hard to accumulate wealth. Even when he was in school, he always worked two jobs, and never spent any more than was absolutely necessary. He finished college, went on to earn an MBA, and founded a successful business. He never married, since a wife and children can be expensive. He became very wealthy.

FamilyMan knew early in his life that a large family was what he wanted. He married right out of high school, and he and his wife started having children right away. Since he had to support his growing family, he didn’t go to college. He worked hard at his job to provide the best life he could for his wife and children. He spent almost all his leisure time surrounded by the family he loved so much.

GoodTimesMan just wanted to party. He dropped out of high school to have more time to spend with his friends. He worked odd jobs, which suited him just fine – it gave him enough money to live, barely, but left him with more time to do the things he really wanted to do.

Forty years after middle school, each man had a mid-life crisis. They all took a close look at the lives they had created for themselves.

RichMan looked at his stock portfolio and said to himself, “Well, I got what I always wanted. I’m unbelievably wealthy, but I can see now that some of my choices were not in my own best interest. I never had much fun because I was always too busy working to spend time with friends. I have no one to share my wealth with, and sometimes I’m lonely. But I can see that I am where I am because of the choices I’ve made.”

FamilyMan looked at his wife and at the children and grandchildren playing in the yard of his modest home and said to himself, “Well, I got what I always wanted. I have a large and loving family, and, for the most part, we’re happy. I can see that it might have been better if I had waited to get married until I was out of college. We would have had more money, and I would have had a little time to party with my friends. But I can see that I am where I am because of the choices I’ve made.”

GoodTimesMan looked at his shabby apartment and said to himself, “Wow, what a ride! I sure did have some fun! I guess I wish I had finished school and had a real job, so that I’d have something put away for my old age. And a family would have been nice. But I can see that I am where I am because of the choices I’ve made.”

About that same time, Society was taking a close look at the three men, and didn’t like what it saw. So Society called the three men together and set them down at a table.

“The three of you have made some unfortunate choices,” said Society, “and I’m going to relieve all of you of having to live with the consequences. You each have something that the other two want, and I’m going to even things out a bit.

“GoodTimesMan, you are required to share some of the fun you had earlier in your life with RichMan and FamilyMan.”

“How can I do that?” asked GoodTimesMan. “My good times are only memories. I can’t transfer my memories into their heads.”

“Hmm. I guess you’re right,” said Society. “Never mind.”

Turning to FamilyMan, Society said, “FamilyMan, neither of these other two ever had a family, and children would make their lives much richer. You are required to give one or two of your children to each of them.”

“Absolutely not!” cried FamilyMan. “These are human beings we’re talking about here. Humans cannot be given away!”

“I see your point,” said Society, “and you’re right. Never mind.”

“RichMan,” said Society, “these other two men’s lives would be much better if they had more money. You are required to give some of your money to them.”

“That’s not fair!” cried RichMan. “It’s what I spend my whole life earning! I gave up good times and a family for it! How can you take it away and give me nothing in return?”

“That’s too bad,” said Society. “I am going to forcibly take a large chunk of your wealth away for redistribution to these others.”

And so it did.

KsSmallBiz.com, June 15, 2005

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Welcome back, kid. It’s good to see you.

How did your interviews go? Some good, some not so good? That sounds about right.

You know, I got to thinking about some of the things we talked about last week, and I realized that we mostly talked about getting a job in a business. Another option you have is to go to work for the government. I know a lot of people who think that’s a pretty good deal. And heaven knows there are a lot of people around here who have made that choice. But before you make that decision, I want you to think about something.

Remember we talked earlier about how businesses in a free market create wealth that enriches the lives of everyone? Well, government has exactly the opposite effect; government sucks wealth out of the economy.

When you get your job in a business, everything you do will be directed at producing a product or a service faster, better, more efficiently that someone else can do it. Maybe you’ll even invent a new product, or a service that has never been seen before. The effect of tens of millions of people producing and improving and competing and inventing is to create an astonishing number of quality goods and life-enriching services at the lowest possible prices. And all those businesses exchanging money for products and services to produce more commodities that will be exchanged for more money – well, that’s how this nation achieved one of the highest standards of living the world has ever known.

But government is a different matter altogether. Sometimes we forget that every single person who works for the government is paid entirely from taxes. There is no other source of income for them. And every service and product that the government buys is paid for with taxpayer money. It’s one thing for a business to provide a product that a customer is willing to pay for, and use the resulting income to pay the workers who made it. It’s another thing entirely to pay government workers with money taken in taxes from citizens who don’t really get much in return.

Let me say that another way. When a willing buyer and a willing seller exchange money for goods and services, the effect is to enrich everyone involved in the transaction. When the government takes taxes away from people, pays government employees with part of it and gives the rest to someone else – when there is taking instead of exchanging — the effect is to destroy wealth rather than to create it.

In a robust and thriving economy, with a tiny government, the effect is negligible. But when the economy is in trouble, when there is already a large and growing percentage of the population on the government payroll – well, I just hope you make another choice.

So let’s talk a little more about you and the job you’re going to get. Last week we talked about getting the job. Now let’s talk about keeping the job, and maybe even getting promoted.

Remember how I told you that nobody owes you a job, that it’s your responsibility to make yourself the best possible candidate for the position you want? That doesn’t stop after you’re hired. Your employer is still looking for the person who will make her company better and better, and that should be you. If you make sure your new employer is glad she hired you, you will not only keep your job, but you will be the one she thinks of first when promotions become available.

And, if the time comes when you want to make a career change, you will be glad you did the best you could for this company.

So…

Show up. Every day. On time. Ready for work.

Do you want to impress your new boss? When you refer to the company, say “we.” Not “you” or “they.” “We.” Talk and think and work like the success of the entire company depends on your job alone.

Learn to distinguish between being sick and just not feeling the best you’ve ever felt. Learn to distinguish what is a real family emergency and what is not. An employee who is sick or has a family emergency, predictably, twice a week – well, just remember that there are plenty of people out there looking for a job who are more dependable than that.

Try not to think of your boss as the enemy. Believe it or not, with few exceptions, he’s not out to get you. He’s not trying to exploit you or make your life miserable. What he’s trying to do, as we discussed last week, is make the company better and more efficient. If you make it clear that those are your goals, too, your boss will see that you know the two of you are on the same team.

Draw a clear line between what belongs to you and what belongs to the company you work for, and do not step over that line. Don’t take office supplies home unless you will use them to do work for the company. Don’t run your personal mail through the postage meter. Don’t use the copier for making personal copies unless you know for a fact that company policy allows it.

And let’s be clear about this: The time that the company pays you for belongs to the company. Don’t steal that, either.

I’ve got a good feeling about your prospects this week, kid. Go get ‘em!

KsSmallBiz.com, February 15, 2006

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | 2 Comments »

I was having more fun than you might think by looking at this.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | 2 Comments »

A few days ago I was asked if I find it depressing to belong to a political party that just doesn’t have a chance of winning the election.  The person who asked, of course, was talking about the presidential race.  Libertarians do, in fact, win a number of local positions, and even an occasional state-wide seat, but I knew exactly what she meant.

The question brought me up short, because I had never thought of it that way.  Discouraging sometimes, yes.  Libertarians are really good at sitting around discussing theory.  Heck, so am I.  We LOVE to tell each other over and over all the things that are wrong with the way things are being done, and how it would be done differently if we were in charge, as we should be.  But sometimes we’re not so good at gathering signatures and handing out literature and running for office and speaking up at City Council meetings and protesting eminent domain abuse.  Me neither.  And, yes, sometimes I do get discouraged trying to motivate the people in my little local group to actually do something.  There have been a number of people who came to a meeting or two, then never returned after they were asked to be treasurer or greet new people at the next meeting.  I feel bad about that.

But depressing?  No.

The best analogy I can come up with is this:  I think I feel about this movement the same way the early Christian churches must have felt.  Yes, we’re a tiny group facing overwhelmingly large opposition.  Yes, a big portion of the society we live in thinks we’re strange at best, dangerous at worst.  Yes, there are rampant distortions of our message out there, and they harm our cause.

But.  We’re.  Just.  So.  Darn.  Sure.  We’re.  Right.  Giving up is not an option.

Okay, I admit my life is not in danger because of my political beliefs.  (Probably.)  And nobody has accused me of killing babies or of being a cannibal, as I understand was the case for Christians in first century Rome.

I also admit the early Christian churches were convinced that the end of the world was imminent, so they were not particularly concerned with a message that would resonate through the ages.  The Libertarian message, by contrast, will be more obviously right AFTER the collapse of the economic world as we know it.

So, am I depressed?  No.  I’m doing something I believe is worthwhile, something I see as hopeful and helpful to everyone out there.  I don’t know whether I will see the results, but I will always know that I fought for something, and that I stood for something.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | 1 Comment »

By popular demand:

As a delegate to the Libertarian National Convention, one of my obligations was to take part in the by-laws and platform debates.

As someone who enjoys writing, I am profoundly concerned with the details of our language.  And I understand how nuances can affect the responses of people exposed to what has been written. 

However.

I don’t know how the other parties handle this part of their management, and I don’t much care.  There were obviously people there at mine who thrive on debating (and debating and debating) the precise wording of every sentence.  And I would not for the world take away from them the right to have a say in the matter.  I admit to not being present for the entire debate on every word.

~~~~~

Speaking of being absent from some of the main activity, there was a constant stream of breakout sessions available.  The official business of the convention was held in a large ballroom where the delegations were seated.  Adjacent to that was another and equally large room containing booths rented by vendors, candidates, and other organizations.  Around the edges of THAT room were smaller meeting rooms where the delegates could attend hour-long seminars on such topics as “Introduction to Economics for Libertarians,” “Bordering on Chaos” (about immigration), “Campus Organizing,” and “How Almost Any Libertarian Who is Reasonably Presentable Can Get Into Public Office.”  I attended several, and found them very helpful.

I’m hoping that in 2010 Kansas has enough delegates that I can go as an alternate and attend more breakout sessions without guilt.

~~~~~

I was an alternate on the Credentials Committee.  As such I did not attend their meetings, but I could work at the desk.  I now have a t-shirt identifying me as a volunteer, with the convention logo on the back.  On the front it says “The One Who Must be Obeyed.”

Anyone familiar with Rumpole of the Bailey will enjoy that even more.

~~~~~

At their booth, The Advocates for Self Government were selling a large button saying “Courtesy and Respect for Everyone Here.”  I brought back a handful, and gave them to attendees at the Libertarians of Northeast Kansas meeting last night.  I wore mine to work yesterday.

I plan to wear it lots of places.

~~~~~

I have to go to work now.  More gibberish later.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | 1 Comment »

I am freshly returned from the Libertarian National Convention in Denver.

For a day and a half I have been trying to collect my thoughts so that I could write something coherent.  I have been unsuccessful. 

Analyses of the convention and the decisions made there have been presented earlier and better than I could do, and by many (many, many) people more adept at and more interested in political intricacies than I am.  So for now, I will just give you a few of my observations and opinions, and relate a couple of interesting stories.

Did we make the right decision in nominating Bob Barr?  For this election cycle, I think we did.  Some Libertarians are dreadfully unhappy, of course, and I understand that.  Me, too, a little bit.

One of the phrases I heard a lot at the convention was “perfect storm.”  There is little doubt that record numbers of American voters are fed up with both of the major parties, and this is a real opportunity for Libertarians to have an impact like never before.  Nominating a candidate with broader appeal than the more fundamentalists is almost certainly the way to do that.

It still hurts my heart a little.

I hope many of you watched the debate on Saturday night.  The candidates were intelligent, articulate, courteous.  I have never been prouder to be a Libertarian.

Mike Gravel did way better than I thought he would.  Listening to the talk around me, I heard very little support for him.  But he was 4th on the first ballot, and lasted four rounds.  I can’t account for that.

Michael Jingozian did something unexpected and, in my opinion, touching.  He was nominated, the nomination was seconded, he made his speech, and he and his group left the stage.  He then immediately came back to the microphone and nominated the next candidate.  For that, I gave him my vote on the first ballot.

The delegations were seated in order by the percentage increase in the LP membership in that state in the two years since the last convention.  Kansas was 4th, and we were seated front row, far right as you faced the stage.  Hooray for us!

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | 4 Comments »

I seldom remember my dreams, but I had a doozy of a nightmare last night.  I dreamt the Libertarian candidate for president actually got elected, then proceeded to raise taxes, escalate the war, increase the power of the federal Department of Education, and make the IRS regulations more incomprehensible.

I have been having a spirited online conversation with a young friend over whether it is more important to nominate Libertarian candidates who adhere to strict Libertarian principles, or who are more moderate and can appeal to a broader range of voters.

This young friend has also suggested I write about my criteria for deciding whom I will vote for at the upcoming Libertarian National Convention.

I lay the responsibility for my nightmare squarely at his feet.

The fact is, I don’t know whom I will vote for yet.  No, really, I don’t.

I admit I will be looking carefully at how the candidates present themselves.  As shallow as that looks to me even as I type it, I know I don’t have to apologize for it.  I suspect that’s what a large percentage of the American voters do, and presentation is just background for any serious candidate.  So I will be looking for a presidential candidate who looks, well, presidential.

Fundamentalist Libertarians running for office have sometimes had the bad sense to conduct their campaigns along the lines of, “Let me tell you how wrong your views are and why mine are right.  And let me start out with the Libertarian principles you disagree with the most.”  That is fatal to any campaign.

So I guess I’ll be looking for a candidate who will approach the voters with, “Let me show you how Libertarian ideals will help you and your family, how an LP president will help make your life safer and more prosperous.  Here’s how the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Terror, the War on Crime have failed the American people, and here’s the LP approach instead.”

There is one area in which I will expect my candidate to be a fundamentalist — the Constitution.  I will expect anyone I vote for to be willing to veto any legislation that pushes us any further away from the Constitution than we already are.  I don’t expect to eliminate the federal Department of Education next February, but I would expect an LP president not to let it get any bigger.

I don’t want my nightmare to become reality.

I don’t know whom I will vote for yet.  No, really, I don’t.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

This is a slightly edited version of a letter I sent to my pastor on February 6, 2007.

~~~~~

Dr. Sherry Triggs, Pastor
Central Congregational Church
1248 SW Buchanan
Topeka KS 66604

Dear Sherry:

Congratulations on being chosen to give a talk on “Kansas Minimum Wage 101” at the Legislative Event for Advocacy in Faith later this month.

I know that you approach this issue from a different viewpoint from mine, and I was gratified when we talked last Sunday to know that you are actively seeking input from many perspectives. Thank you for the opportunity to present mine.

I understand that the faith-based approach to wage issues is often centered on the plight of those people who struggle with low wages, and this sometimes leads to the perception that employers are greedy, uncaring people, intent on exploiting the people who depend on them for a living. The answer, from that perspective, is to use the power of government to keep them in line and require them to be nicer people.

But the fact is that anyone smart enough to run a business is well aware that businesses get the best workers when they offer the best jobs, the best wages, the best working conditions, and the best benefit packages they can possibly afford. When businesses compete for customers it produces the best products and services; when employers compete for workers it produces the best jobs. No governmental interference is necessary for that to happen — the free market ensures it.

I know the people who advocate for a legislatively-mandated minimum wage or a hike in the wage already imposed will cite statistics claiming to prove that a minimum wage hike does not contribute to inflation or unemployment. Studies and statistics are kind of like experts at a trial: You can always find two or three to say anything you want, and both sides seem obligated to produce some.

Anyone who has earned a paycheck for more than a year or two knows that what you earn doesn’t matter – it’s what you earn in relation to what things cost that matters. And when the legislature forces businesses to increase their expenses, prices will go up. There is just no other way for most businesses to comply with a raise in the state-mandated minimum wage but to raise their prices. And when prices at the discount department store go up, the increased wages of the workers at the fast-food restaurant across the parking lot just don’t buy as much.

And prices also go up for the workers who were making a little more than minimum wage, and who did NOT get a raise.

The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration released a study in September 2005 indicating that the smallest businesses in this country – those with fewer than 20 employees — on average must spend $7,647 per year per employee to comply with federal regulations. Some of the regulations are reasonable, and many of them are not.

So consider a hypothetical small business with 10 minimum-wage employees. This tiny firm is already spending some $76,500 per year to comply with oppressive governmental regulations. If the minimum wage is raised by 50 cents an hour, it will create another $10,000 in yearly expenses for this little business (10 employees x 2000 hours per year x $0.50 per hour).

I can guarantee you that will push some marginally-profitable small businesses out of the market. And it will keep many others from ever getting started in the first place.

According to the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council’s “Small Business Survival Index 2006,” Kansas ranks 35th in the nation in policies that are friendly toward and encourage small businesses. Personal and corporate income tax rates, capital gains taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, death taxes, unemployment taxes, health care regulations, and taxes on utilities all combine to determine whether businesses can thrive and keep adding good jobs to the economy, or fall by the wayside.

So what would I recommend instead? How can faith-based organizations act on their very appropriate concerns for those who are struggling to pay their bills without punishing the small businesses which provide 50 percent or more of the employment in this country?

A good start might be to start working with the legislature to ease some of the unreasonable regulations imposed on businesses. When the costs of compliance are lessened, businesses will be able to pay their employees more without raising their prices.

Another approach is to help low-income workers qualify for better-paying jobs. As Dr. Ted Kane pointed out in a web memo published in October 2005 by the Heritage Foundation, “…the poorest of the poor are kept out of the labor market when the price of low-skilled labor is set artificially high through minimum wages. A minimum wage of $6 an hour makes it illegal for a single mother to work for $5 an hour, even if she wants to.” But if the churches help that single mother to improve her job skills, everyone benefits – worker, business, and the economy in general.

Would either one of these approaches be harder than mindlessly lobbying the legislature for a minimum wage hike? You bet they would. But taking the easy way out – advocating for laws that hurt small businesses and, in the long run, do not really help low-skilled workers – is not worthy of a caring community.

Thanks again for the opportunity to give an opinion.

My best wishes for a rewarding experience at the LEAF event.

Sharon

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »