Voice For Liberty

Tag: Freedom

  • Myth: Markets only work when an infinite number of people with perfect information trade undifferentiated commodities

    When thinking about the difference between government action and action taken by free people trading voluntarily in markets, we find that many myths abound. Tom G. Palmer has written an important paper that confronts these myths about markets. The fifth myth — Markets Only Work When an Infinite Number of People With Perfect Information Trade Undifferentiated Commodities — and Palmer’s refutation is below. The complete series of myths and responses is at Twenty Myths about Markets.

    Palmer is editor of the recent book The Morality of Capitalism. He will be in Overland Park and Wichita in May speaking on the moral case for capitalism. For more information and to register for these events see The Morality of Capitalism.

    Myth: Markets Only Work When an Infinite Number of People With Perfect Information Trade Undifferentiated Commodities

    Myth: Market efficiency, in which output is maximized and profits are minimized, requires that no one is a price setter, that is, that no buyer or seller, by entering or exiting the market, will affect the price. In a perfectly competitive market, no individual buyer or seller can have any impact on prices. Products are all homogenous and information about products and prices is costless. But real markets are not perfectly competitive, which is why government is required to step in and correct things.

    Tom G. Palmer: Abstract models of economic interaction can be useful, but when normatively loaded terms such as “perfect” are added to theoretical abstractions, a great deal of harm can be done. If a certain condition of the market is define as “perfect” competition, then anything else is “imperfect” and needs to be improved, presumably by some agency outside of the market. In fact, “perfect” competition is simply a mental model, from which we can deduce certain interesting facts, such as the role of profits in directing resources (when they’re higher than average, competitors will shift resources to increase supply, undercut prices, and reduce profits) and the role of uncertainty in determining the demand to hold cash (since if information were costless, everyone would invest all their money and arrange it to be cashed out just at the moment that they needed to make investments, from which we can conclude that the existence of cash is a feature of a lack of information). “Perfect” competition is no guide to how to improve markets; it’s a poorly chosen term for a mental model of market processes that abstracts from real world conditions of competition.

    For the state to be the agency that would move markets to such “perfection,” we would expect that it, too, would be the product of “perfect” democratic policies, in which infinite numbers of voters and candidates have no individual impact on policies, all policies are homogenous, and information about the costs and benefits of policies is costless. That is manifestly never the case.

    The scientific method of choosing among policy options requires that choices be made from among actually available options. Both political choice and market choice are “imperfect” in all the ways specified above, so choice should be made on the basis of a comparison of real — not “perfect”– market processes and political processes. Real markets generate a plethora of ways of providing information and generating mutually beneficial cooperation among market participants. Markets provide the framework for people to discover information, including forms of cooperation.

    Advertising, credit bureaus, reputation, commodity exchanges, stock exchanges, certification boards, and many other institutions arise within markets to serve the goal of facilitating mutually beneficial cooperation. Rather than discarding markets because they aren’t perfect, we should look for more ways to use the market to improve the imperfect state of human welfare.

    Finally, competition is better understood, not as a state of the market, but as a process of rivalrous behavior. When entrepreneurs are free to enter the market to compete with others and customers are free to choose from among producers, the rivalry among producers for the custom of customers leads to behavior favorable to those customers.

  • Myth: Markets depend on perfect information, requiring government regulation to make information available

    When thinking about the difference between government action and action taken by free people trading freely in markets, we find that many myths abound. Tom G. Palmer has written an important paper that confronts these myths about markets. The fourth myth — Markets Depend on Perfect Information, Requiring Government Regulation to Make Information Available — and Palmer’s refutation is below. The complete series of myths and responses is at Twenty Myths about Markets.

    Palmer is editor of the recent book The Morality of Capitalism. He will be in Overland Park and Wichita in May speaking on the moral case for capitalism. For more information and to register for these events see The Morality of Capitalism.

    Myth: Markets Depend on Perfect Information, Requiring Government Regulation to Make Information Available

    Myth: For markets to be efficient, all market participants have to be fully informed of the costs of their actions. If some have more information than others, such asymmetries will lead to inefficient and unjust outcomes. Government has to intervene to provide the information that markets lack and to create outcomes that are both efficient and just.

    Tom G. Palmer: Information, like every other thing we want, is always costly, that is, we have to give something up to get more of it. Information is itself a product that is exchanged on markets; for examples, we buy books that contain information because we value the information in the book more than we value what we give up for it. Markets do not require for their operation perfect information, any more than democracies do. The assumption that information is costly to market participants but costless to political participants is unrealistic in extremely destructive ways. Neither politicians nor voters have perfect information. Significantly, politicians and voters have less incentive to acquire the right amount of information than do market participants, because they aren’t spending their own money. For example, when spending money from the public purse, politicians don’t have the incentive to be as careful or to acquire as much information aspeople do when they are spending their own money.

    A common argument for state intervention rests on the informational asymmetries between consumers and providers of specialized services. Doctors are almost always more knowledgeable about medical matters than are patients, for example; that’s why we go to doctors, rather than just curing ourselves. Because of that, it is alleged that consumers have no way of knowing which doctors are more competent, or whether they are getting the right treatment, or whether they are paying too much. Licensing by the state may then be proposed as the answer; by issuing a license, it is sometimes said, people are assured that the doctor will be qualified, competent, and upright. The evidence from studies of licensure, of medicine and of other professions, however, shows quite the opposite. Whereas markets tend to generate gradations of certification, licensing is binary; you are licensed, or you are not. Moreover, it’s common in licensed professions that the license is revoked if the licensed professional engages in “unprofessional conduct,” which is usually defined as including advertising! But advertising is one of the means that markets have evolved to provide information– about the availability of products and services, about relative qualities, and about prices. Licensure is not the solution to cases of informational asymmetry; it is the cause.

  • Myth: Reliance on markets leads to monopoly

    When thinking about the difference between government action and action taken by free people trading freely in markets, many myths abound. Tom G. Palmer has written an important paper that confronts these myths about markets. The third myth — Reliance on Markets Leads to Monopoly — and Palmer’s refutation is below. The complete series of myths and responses is at Twenty Myths about Markets.

    Palmer is editor of the recent book The Morality of Capitalism. He will be in Overland Park and Wichita in May speaking on the moral case for capitalism. For more information and to register for these events see The Morality of Capitalism.

    Myth: Reliance on markets leads to monopoly

    Myth: Without government intervention, reliance on free markets would lead to a few big firms selling everything. Markets naturally create monopolies, as marginal producers are squeezed out by firms that seek nothing but their own profits, whereas governments are motivated to seek the public interest and will act to restrain monopolies.

    Tom G. Palmer: Governments can — and all too often do — give monopolies to favored individuals or groups; that is, they prohibit others from entering the market and competing for the custom of customers. That’s what a monopoly means. The monopoly may be granted to a government agency itself (as in the monopolized postal services in many countries) or it may be granted to a favored firm, family, or person.

    Do free markets promote monopolization? There’s little or no good reason to think so and many reasons to think not. Free markets rest on the freedom of persons to enter the market, to exit the market, and to buy from or sell to whomever they please. If firms in markets with freedom of entry make above average profits, those profits attract rivals to compete those profits away. Some of the literature of economics offers descriptions of hypothetical situations in which certain market conditions could lead to persistent “rents,” that is, income in excess of opportunity cost, defined as what the resources could earn in other uses. But concrete examples are extremely hard to find, other than relatively uninteresting cases such as ownership of unique resources (for example, a painting by Rembrandt). In contrast, the historical record is simply full of examples of governments granting special privileges to their supporters.

    Freedom to enter the market and freedom to choose from whom to buy promote consumer interests by eroding those temporary rents that the first to offer a good or service may enjoy. In contrast, endowing governments with power to determine who may or may not provide goods and services creates the monopolies — the actual, historically observed monopolies — that are harmful to consumers and that restrain the productive forces of mankind on which human betterment rests. If markets routinely led to monopolies, we would not expect to see so many people going to government to grant them monopolies at the expense of their less powerful competitors and customers. They could get their monopolies through the market, instead.

    It’s always worth remembering that government itself seeks to exercise a monopoly; it’s a classic defining characteristic of a government that it exercises a monopoly on the exercise of force in a given geographic area. Why should we expect such a monopoly to be more friendly to competition than the market itself, which is defined by the freedom to compete?

  • Myth: Markets promote greed and selfishness

    When thinking about the difference between government action and action taken by free people trading freely in markets, many myths abound. Tom G. Palmer has written an important paper that confronts these myths about markets. The second myth — Markets Promote Greed and Selfishness — and Palmer’s refutation is below. The complete series of myths and responses is at Twenty Myths about Markets.

    Palmer is editor of the recent book The Morality of Capitalism. He will be in Overland Park and Wichita in May speaking on the moral case for capitalism. For more information and to register for these events see The Morality of Capitalism.

    Myth: Markets promote greed and selfishness

    Myth: People in markets are just trying to find the lowest prices or make the highest profits. As such, they’re motivated only by greed and selfishness, not by concern for others.

    Tom G. Palmer: Markets neither promote nor dampen selfishness or greed. They make it possible for the most altruistic, as well as the most selfish, to advance their purposes in peace. Those who dedicate their lives to helping others use markets to advance their purposes, no less than those whose goal is to increase their store of wealth. Some of the latter even accumulate wealth for the purpose of increasing their ability to help others. George Soros and Bill Gates are examples of the latter; they earn huge amounts of money, at least partly in order to increase their ability to help others through their vast charitable activities.

    A Mother Teresa wants to use the wealth available to her to feed, clothe, and comfort the greatest number of people. Markets allow her to find the lowest prices for blankets, for food, and for medicines to care for those who need her assistance. Markets allow the creation of wealth that can be used to help the unfortunate and facilitate the charitable to maximize their ability to help others. Markets make possible the charity of the charitable.

    A common mistake is to identify the purposes of people with their “self-interest,” which is then in turn confused with “selfishness.” The purposes of people in the market are indeed purposes of selves, but as selves with purposes we are also concerned about the interests and well being of others — our family members, our friends, our neighbors, and even total strangers whom we will never meet. And as noted above, markets help to condition people to consider the needs of others, including total strangers.

    As has often been pointed out, the deepest foundation of human society is not love or even friendship. Love and friendship are the fruits of mutual benefit through cooperation, whether in small or in large groups. Without such mutual benefit, society would simply be impossible. Without the possibility of mutual benefit, Tom’s good would be June’s bad, and vice versa, and they could never be cooperators, never be colleagues, never be friends. Cooperation is tremendously enhanced by markets, which allow cooperation even among those who are not personally known to each other, who don’t share the same religion or language, and who may never meet. The existence of potential gains from trade and the facilitation of trade by well-defined and legally secure property rights make possible charity among strangers, and love and friendship across borders.

  • Myth: Markets are immoral or amoral

    When thinking about the difference between government action and action taken by free people trading freely in markets, many myths abound. Tom G. Palmer has written an important paper that confronts these myths about markets. The first myth and Palmer’s refutation is below. The complete series of myths and responses is at Twenty Myths about Markets.

    Palmer is editor of the recent book The Morality of Capitalism. He will be in Overland Park and Wichita in May speaking on the moral case for capitalism. For more information and to register for these events see The Morality of Capitalism.

    Myth: Markets are immoral or amoral

    Myth: Markets make people think only about the calculation of advantage, pure and simple. There’s no morality in market exchange, no commitment to what makes us distinct as humans: our ability to think not only about what’s advantageous to us, but about what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral.

    Tom G. Palmer: A more false claim would be hard to imagine. For there to be exchange there has to be respect for justice. People who exchange differ from people who merely take; exchangers show respect for the rightful claims of other people. The reason that people engage in exchange in the first place is that they want what others have but are constrained by morality and law from simply taking it. An exchange is a change from one allocation of resources to another; that means that any exchange is measured against a baseline, such that if no exchange takes place, the parties keep what they already have. The framework for exchange requires a sound foundation in justice. Without such moral and legal foundations, there can be no exchange.

    Markets are not merely founded on respect for justice, however. They are also founded on the ability of humans to take into account, not only their own desires, but the desires of others, to put themselves in the places of others. A restaurateur who didn’t care what his diners wanted would not be in business long. If the guests are made sick by the food, they won’t come back. If the food fails to please them, they won’t come back. He will be out of business. Markets provide incentives for participants to put themselves in the position of others, to consider what their desires are, and to try to see things as they see them.

    Markets are the alternative to violence. Markets make us social. Markets remind us that other people matter, too.

  • For Koch critics, facts aren’t part of the equation

    A Saturday op-ed in the Lawrence Journal-World begins with: “What is it, or why is it, that the name Koch, particularly here in Lawrence and Kansas, seems to trigger such angry, passionate and negative responses from a certain segment of the community, particularly among some at Kansas University?”

    It’s a good question. When people insert themselves into politics, there will be debate and criticism. I don’t think Charles and David Koch expect a free pass. But some of the online comments written in reaction to this op-ed show, however, that facts and reason won’t stand in the way of those who use demonization of Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, principals of Wichita-based Koch Industries, to advance their political agendas.

    Simons’ op-ed is generally accurate in its depiction of Charles and David Koch, although the company says Koch has not contributed to FreedomWorks, as is reported. But the reader comments — that’s where things really go off the mark.

    Here’s a comment that is representative of many: “They would use their wealth to suppress innovation and competition. It’s another case of ‘I’ve got mine, and I want to make sure you don’t get yours.’ Why don’t they set up a loan company to encourage small businesses? Why don’t they hire more workers and give their present workers more benefits? Instead they want to buy the government, so they can control things instead of empowering others.”

    As to suppressing innovation and competition: For decades the Kochs have supported free markets and competition through capitalism, which are the engines of innovation, not barriers. Last year Charles Koch, in the Wall Street Journal, strongly advocated for capitalism over cronyism. On the relationship between government and business, he wrote that too many business firms have practiced “crony capitalism”: lobbying for special favors, subsidies, and regulations to keep competitors — who may be more efficient — out of the way.

    While it’s more difficult than practicing cronyism, competing in open markets assures that firms that efficiently provide goods and services that consumers demand are the companies that thrive, Koch added. It is these efficient firms that raise our standard of living. When politically-favored firms are propped up and bailed out, our economy is weakened: “Subsidizing inefficient jobs is costly, wastes resources, and weakens our economy.”

    In the introduction to The Morality of Capitalism, Tom G. Palmer explains further how genuine capitalism is a system of innovation and creativity:

    The term ‘capitalism’ refers not just to markets for the exchange of goods and services, which have existed since time immemorial, but to the system of innovation, wealth creation, and social change that has brought to billions of people prosperity that was unimaginable to earlier generations of human beings. Capitalism refers to a legal, social, economic, and cultural system that embraces equality of rights and ‘careers open to talent’ and that energizes decentralized innovation and processes of trial and error. … Capitalist culture celebrates the entrepreneur, the scientist, the risk-taker, the innovator, the creator. … Far from being an amoral arena for the clash of interests, as capitalism is often portrayed by those who seek to undermine or destroy it, capitalist interaction is highly structured by ethical norms and rules. Indeed, capitalism rests on a rejection of the ethics of loot and grab. … Capitalism puts human creativity to the service of humanity by respecting and encouraging entrepreneurial innovation, that elusive factor that explains the difference between the way we live now and how generation after generation after generation of our ancestors lived prior to the nineteenth century.

    The charge of “I’ve got mine, and I want to make sure you don’t get yours” is often leveled against the wealthy, and for some, that may drive their policies. It’s important to know, though, that the policies of economic freedom that the Kochs have promoted are more important to poor people than the wealthy. A glance at the Economic Freedom of the World reports confirms what history has taught us: Countries with market-based and free, or relatively free, economies become wealthy. Poor countries generally do not have market-based economies and therefore little economic freedom, although the ruling class usually lives well.

    There is concern that economic freedom is on the decline in America, and that our future is threatened by this.

    When the writer asks “Why don’t they set up a loan company to encourage small businesses?” I wold refer them to Koch Ventures and Koch Genesis, two companies that do this.

    Finally — for this writer — comes the allegation that Charles and David Koch want to buy government “so they can control things instead of empowering others.” This charge is not supported by facts and what the Kochs have actually done for decades. Institutions founded or supported by the Kochs such as Cato Institute, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation are dedicated to limited government and personal liberty. This, along with their support of capitalism — which, as Palmer explained above, leads to freedom, creativity, and individual empowerment for everyone.

    Another comment contained “In their ‘ideal’ libertarian world they could do what they want and pollute whenever they want.” This is yet another ridiculous charge.

    A statement on the KochFacts website states “recent critics have also claimed that Koch is one of the nation’s top 10 polluters. This study confuses pollution with permitted emissions, which are carefully regulated by the U.S. EPA and other agencies. The index labels as ‘polluters’ Ford Motor, General Motors, GE, Pfizer, Eastman Kodak, Sony, Honeywell, Berkshire Hathaway, Kimberly Clark, Anheuser Busch and Goodyear — corporations, like Koch companies, with significant manufacturing in the U.S. Emissions, a necessary by-product of manufacturing, are strictly monitored and legally permitted by federal, state and local governments.”

    Wait a minute: Didn’t the federal government take over General Motors? And GE and Berkshire Hathaway: Aren’t those run by personal friends of Barack Obama?

    The reality is that if we want the things these companies make for us, we must accept some emissions — pollution, if you will. The good news, however, is that manufacturing has become much more efficient with regards to emissions, and Koch Industries companies have lead the way. One report from the company illustrates such progress: “Over the last three years, Koch Carbon has spent $10 million to enhance environmental performance, including $5 million for dust abatement at one of its petroleum coke handling facilities. These investments have paid off. In 2008, Koch Carbon’s reportable emissions were 6.5 percent less than in 2000, while throughput increased 10.4 percent.”

    Even when Koch Industries does not agree with the need for specific regulations, the company, nonetheless, complies. Writing about an increase in regulation in the 2007 book The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company, Charles Koch explained the importance of regulatory compliance: “This reality required is to make a cultural change. We needed to be uncompromising, to expect 100 percent of our employees to comply 100 percent of the time with complex and ever-changing government mandates. Striving to comply with every law does not mean agreeing with every law. But, even when faced with laws we think are counter-productive, we must first comply. Only then, from a credible position, can we enter into a dialogue with regulatory agencies to determine alternatives that are more beneficial. If these efforts fail, we can then join with others in using education and/or political efforts to change the law.”

    Koch companies have taken leadership roles in environmental compliance, explains another KochFacts page: “In 2000, EPA recognized Koch Petroleum Group for being ‘the first petroleum company to step forward’ to reach a comprehensive Clean Air Act agreement involving EPA and state regulatory agencies in Minnesota and Texas. Despite fundamental policy disagreements, then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner acknowledged Koch’s cooperation. She characterized the agreement as ‘innovative and comprehensive’ and praised the ‘unprecedented cooperation’ of Koch in stepping forward ahead of its industry peers.” Browner was no friend of industry, and had a “record as a strict enforcer of environmental laws during the Clinton years,” according to the New York Times.

    These types of facts are not relevant to many of those who left comments to the Journal-World piece. To the political left, the facts must not be allowed get in the way of a useful political narrative.

    Koch Industries and Koch brothers are assets to state

    By Dolph C. Simons, Jr., Lawrence Journal-World.

    What is it, or why is it, that the name Koch, particularly here in Lawrence and Kansas, seems to trigger such angry, passionate and negative responses from a certain segment of the community, particularly among some at Kansas University?

    … The answer to the question at the beginning of this column is that the Kochs are conservatives, some would say “ultra conservatives.” They support organizations such as the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. Their critics have been quick to try to fault them for supposedly funneling money to the tea party movement. Some say the brothers have given more than $100 million to these conservative organizations.

    Charles and David Koch have been the lightning rods for liberal, anti-conservative forces in this country, and it is that likely liberal-leaning faculty members and administrators at KU, as well as at many other universities, have been critical of the Kochs in order to keep peace with their staffs.

    The sad, phony or hard-to-understand part of this situation is that the two Koch brothers attribute the success of their family-owned business to the guiding principles espoused by their market-based management philosophy.

    … Charles and David Koch have championed limited government, economic freedom and personal liberty and they have challenged excessive government spending. Their financial giving efforts — political and charitable, both personal and through their company and foundations — all have been lawful.

    This being the case, it would seem KU officials, as well as other state officials, should be trying to work with Koch Industries, Charles and David Koch and their foundations on ways to benefit the university and the state. They should be trying to embrace the Kochs rather than acting as if they were pariahs.

    Continue reading at Koch Industries and Koch brothers are assets to state.

  • Kansas may again resort to government art

    Kansas may be ready to restore some state funding for the arts. But for reasons economic, human, and artistic, we ought to keep Kansas government out of art. Kansas should allow people themselves to decide how to spend their own money on what they think is important to them. To implement government funding of art is to override the freedom of individual choice with political and bureaucratic decisions.

    It’s puzzling as to why artists — generally a group of independent minds and free spirits — would want to reintroduce government control over the funding of their craft. Perhaps it springs from the prevailing attitude taught in our (government controlled and funded) schools and universities that government is a force for accomplishing good. While government does some good things for us, when government expands too much — like deciding which artists to spend someone else’s money on — it overreaches and tamps down individual freedom and liberty.

    The economic case for government art funding

    Supporters of government art funding make the case that government-funded art is good for business and the economy. They have an impressive-looking study titled Arts & Economic Prosperity III: The Economic Impact of the Nonprofit Arts and Culture Industry in the State of Kansas, which makes the case that “communities that invest in the arts reap the additional benefit of jobs, economic growth, and a quality of life that positions those communities to compete in our 21st century creative economy.”

    This report, however, is full of the same problems that fill most other reports of similar type. As an example, the report concludes that the return on dollars spent on the arts is “a spectacular 7-to-1 return on investment that would even thrill Wall Street veterans.” It hardly merits mention that there aren’t legitimate investments that generate this type of return in any short time frame. If these returns were in fact true and valid, we should invest more — not less — in the arts. But as we shall see, these returns are not valid in any meaningful economic sense.

    Where do these fabulous returns come from? Here’s a passage from the report that government art spending promoters rely on:

    A theater company purchases a gallon of paint from the local hardware store for $20, generating the direct economic impact of the expenditure. The hardware store then uses a portion of the aforementioned $20 to pay the sales clerk’s salary; the sales clerk respends some of the money for groceries; the grocery store uses some of the money to pay its cashier; the cashier then spends some for the utility bill; and so on. The subsequent rounds of spending are the indirect economic impacts.

    Thus, the initial expenditure by the theater company was followed by four additional rounds of spending (by the hardware store, sales clerk, grocery store, and the cashier). The effect of the theater company’s initial expenditure is the direct economic impact. The subsequent rounds of spending are all of the indirect impacts. The total impact is the sum of the direct and indirect impacts.

    The fabulous returns erroneously attributed to spending on the arts derive from this chain of spending starting at the hardware store. But there’s a problem with this reasoning: Most spending induces the same rush of economic activity. What the authors of this study fail to disclose — and what government art supporters fail to see — is that anyone who buys a gallon of paint for any reason sets off the same chain of spending. There is no difference — except that a homeowner buying paint is doing so voluntarily, while an arts organization using taxpayer-supplied money to buy the paint is using someone else’s money. Money, we might add, that is taken through the government’s power to tax.

    The study also pumps up the return on government spending on arts by noting all the other spending that arts patrons do on things like dinner before and desert after arts events. But if people kept their own money instead of being taxed to support the arts, they would spend this money, perhaps on restaurant meals, too. Most importantly, people would spend their own money on the things they value — not on what someone else values.

    This report — like most of its type that attempt to justify and promote government “investment” — focuses only on the benefits without considering secondary consequences, how these benefits are paid for, and what people would do if left to their own devices. The report, however, seems to make sense in promoting taxation and government spending on arts. This is characteristic of many arguments for government spending, as explained by Henry Hazlitt, in his masterful book Economics in One Lesson:

    While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

    It is, as Hazlitt terms it, “the special pleading of selfish interests” that drives much of the desire for government spending on the arts. Government-funded arts advocates promote their case with these economic fallacies.

    The human and artistic case

    Besides the economic aspect of government funding of arts, there’s the artistic issue. There are very important reasons to keep government away from art. Lawrence W. Reed wrote in What’s Wrong with Government Funding of the Arts? of the harm of turning over responsibility to the government for things we value and find worthwhile:

    I can think of an endless list of desirable, enriching things in life, of which very few carry an automatic tag that says, “Must be provided by taxes and politicians.” Such things include good books, nice lawns, nutritious food, and smiling faces. A rich culture consists, as you know, of so many good things that have nothing to do with government, and thank God they don’t. We should seek to nurture those things privately and voluntarily because “private” and “voluntary” are key indicators that people are awake to them and believe in them. The surest way I know to sap the vitality of almost any worthwhile endeavor is to send a message that says, “You can slack off of that; the government will now do it.” That sort of “flight from responsibility,” frankly, is at the source of many societal ills today: many people don’t take care of their parents in their old age because a federal program will do it; others have abandoned their children because until recent welfare reforms, they’d get a bigger check if they did.

    The boosters of government arts funding in Kansas make the case that arts are important. Therefore, they say, government must be involved.

    But actually, the opposite is true. The more important to our culture we believe the arts to be, the stronger the case for getting government out of its funding. Here’s why. In a statement opposing the elimination of the Kansas Arts Commission, former executive director Llewellyn Crain explained that “The Kansas Arts Commission provides valuable seed money that leverages private funds …”

    This “seed money” effect is precisely why government should not be funding arts. David Boaz explains:

    Defenders of arts funding seem blithely unaware of this danger when they praise the role of the national endowments as an imprimatur or seal of approval on artists and arts groups. Jane Alexander says, “The Federal role is small but very vital. We are a stimulus for leveraging state, local and private money. We are a linchpin for the puzzle of arts funding, a remarkably efficient way of stimulating private money.” Drama critic Robert Brustein asks, “How could the [National Endowment for the Arts] be ‘privatized’ and still retain its purpose as a funding agency functioning as a stamp of approval for deserving art?” … I suggest that that is just the kind of power no government in a free society should have.

    We give up a lot when we turn over this power to government bureaucrats and arts commission cronies. Again I turn to David Boaz, who in his book The Politics of Freedom: Taking on The Left, The Right and Threats to Our Liberties wrote this in a chapter titled “The Separation of Art and State”:

    It is precisely because art has power, because it deals with basic human truths, that it must be kept separate from government. Government, as I noted earlier, involves the organization of coercion. In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.

    Government funding of anything involves government control. That insight, of course, is part of our folk wisdom: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” “Who takes the king’s shilling sings the king’s song.”

    A few years ago Rhonda Holman of the Wichita Eagle wrote an editorial (City can be proud of its arts work, July 15, 2008 Wichita Eagle) which started with the stirring invocation “The arts fire the mind and feed the heart.” I hoped that she was going to call for less government involvement in the arts, thinking that she would argue that anything so important to man’s nature should not be placed in the hands of government.

    But she described the City of Wichita’s commitment to permanent spending on arts as “a bold and even brave investment in quality of life.” It appears that even the yearnings of our hearts and minds are subject to government bureaucratic management.

    “Government art.” Is this not a sterling example of an oxymoron? Must government weasel its way into every aspect of our lives? Governor Brownback and the Kansas legislature can do the human spirit and the people of Kansas a favor by opposing government funding of the arts.

  • Who has the economic power?

    Though there is often much focus on the richest private individuals in the United States, the U.S. Congress actually has far more economic power.

    In this video, economist Robert Lawson compares the economic power of the 535 most wealthy private citizens with the spending power of the 535 members of Congress. You might be surprised by what you find out.

    As Congress continues to spend and government continues to increase in size, our economic freedom will continue to decrease. And as our economic freedom decreases, our economic opportunities and quality of life are threatened.

  • ‘Occupy Koch town’ ignores the facts

    By Melissa Cohlmia. A version of this appeared in the Wichita Eagle.

    I’ve lived in Wichita nearly all my life and know what a welcoming community this is. But with protesters arriving here this week to “speak out” against my employer, Koch Industries, it’s unlikely the red carpet will be rolled out for them given their unfounded attacks and nasty resentment of this company.

    The protesters are occupying “Koch Town” because, in their own words, they want to tell our shareholders, “No Keystone XL Pipeline.” If that is their goal, the protesters have the wrong address, like so many who perpetuate the false claim that Koch is behind the Keystone XL Pipeline project. For the record, one more time, we are not.

    Protesting Koch means protesting the livelihoods of 2,700 Kansans and 50,000 Americans who are employed by Koch companies. In these tough economic times, these jobs have provided our employees financial security during the recession and ensuing painful, slow recovery. Koch companies employ tens of thousands in manufacturing products Americans want and need — things like fiber for carpeting, clothing and air bags; building and consumer products; and petroleum-based products and building-block chemicals that make our lives better and provide much-needed energy. These are the kinds of jobs that create a robust manufacturing sector, which America needs in order to stay competitive.

    Protesting Koch also means protesting the many ways Koch companies and our employees contribute to the community. As the protesters visit our city, we invite them to take notice of the Koch Orangutan Exhibit at the Sedgwick County Zoo or the Koch Habitat Hall at Great Plains Nature Center. If they prefer something less wild, they can visit the Koch Aquatic Center at the YMCA. Or if they want to see something more creative, they could spend time at the Koch Family Sculpture Garden at the Wichita Center for the Arts. Maybe they could bowl a few frames for the Koch-sponsored “Bowl for Kids’ Sake” event to benefit Big Brothers Big Sisters.

    I am proud to work for Koch. As director of corporate communication, I’ve read and heard much about this company and its shareholders that is dishonest, distorted and derogatory. And while we continue to try to bat down the falsehoods, as quickly as we quash one, another rears its ugly head. As Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

    I ran my own small business and experienced the ups and downs that come with breaking out on my own. I met demands from customers, made profit, and put it toward my family and the causes I believed in. When I decided to join Koch, it was in part because of the values of this company – honesty, integrity, respect, a focus on real value creation. I saw that I could participate in an enterprise that was hard at work improving people’s lives on a larger scale. Since coming to Koch, I have never been asked to veer from these values.

    So, protesters, as you visit Wichita, you’ll notice we’re friendly, patriotic, and proud of our work ethic and community spirit. We won’t shout back unless it’s at a basketball game at Wichita State’s Charles Koch Arena. And we’re proud of Koch Industries and our fellow employees because this company makes a positive difference in our lives and our community.

    Melissa Cohlmia is director of corporate communication for Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC and a Wichitan.