Voice For Liberty

Tag: Liberty

  • 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 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.

  • If government ordered your lunch, would you get what you want?

    Speaking on government making decisions for us, Professor Antony Davies of Duquesne University concludes “Even if it’s benevolent, it fails because it lacks the necessary information to make those decision correctly.”

    The motivation of government officials coupled with their lack of information: These are two reasons why we need to remove as much decision-making as possible from the public sphere. Yet we see the rush to do the opposite. From federal government officials making health care decisions to local officials deciding when, how, and where economic development should take place, the benevolence and knowledge of these officials must be questioned.

    Some believe that if we only had more altruistic leaders or smarter politicians and bureaucrats, all would be well. But there is simply no way that government can replace the collective wisdom of free people voluntarily trading in free markets, their activities coordinated by something so simple as a price system left free from government interference.

    This is the essence of economic freedom as defined at EconomicFreedom.org, the producer of this video. “Economic freedom is the key to greater opportunity and an improved quality of life. It’s the freedom to choose how to produce, sell, and use your own resources, while respecting others’ rights to do the same. … Economic freedom is the key to greater opportunity and an improved quality of life. … While a simple concept, economic freedom is an engine that drives prosperity in the world and is the difference between why some societies thrive while others do not.”

  • ‘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.

  • On Charles and David Koch, Obama channels Nixon

    “Richard Nixon maintained an ‘enemies list’ that singled out private citizens for investigation and abuse by agencies of government, including the Internal Revenue Service. When that was revealed, the press and public were outraged. That conduct will forever remain one of the indelible stains on Nixon’s presidency and legacy.”

    Now President Barack Obama is running the same type of campaign against Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, who are principals of Wichita-based Koch Industries.

    This is the conclusion of Theodore B. Olson, former solicitor general of the United States. He presently represents Koch Industries. His op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal (Obama’s Enemies List) lays out the harmful effects of the president’s campaign against Charles and David Koch.

    Olson calls for all Americans to respond and oppose the president’s actions, writing “Whoever may be the victim of such abuse of governmental authority, the press and public almost invariably unify with indignation against it. If a journalist, labor-union leader or community organizer on the left can be targeted today, an academic or business person on the right can be the target tomorrow. If we fail to stand up against oppression from one direction, we abdicate the moral authority to challenge it when it comes from another.”

    Why is Obama so opposed to Charles and David Koch? For one thing, they run a successful business that provides over 50,000 private-sector jobs. For some reason, that goes against the president’s grain. He’d rather have 50,000 government jobs, or at least jobs in corporations that cower in response to his bullying tactics. The Kochs, thankfully, don’t.

    Another reason must be the unwavering support for the causes of economic freedom, free markets, and limited government that Charles and David Koch have advocated for over four decades. See Charles G. Koch: Why Koch Industries is speaking out.

    Obama’s Enemies List

    David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, choreographed from the very top.
    By Theodore B. Olson

    How would you feel if aides to the president of the United States singled you out by name for attack, and if you were featured prominently in the president’s re-election campaign as an enemy of the people?

    What would you do if the White House engaged in derogatory speculative innuendo about the integrity of your tax returns? Suppose also that the president’s surrogates and allies in the media regularly attacked you, sullied your reputation and questioned your integrity. On top of all of that, what if a leading member of the president’s party in Congress demanded your appearance before a congressional committee this week so that you could be interrogated about the Keystone XL oil pipeline project in which you have repeatedly — and accurately — stated that you have no involvement?

    Consider that all this is happening because you have been selected as an attractive political punching bag by the president’s re-election team. This is precisely what has happened to Charles and David Koch, even though they are private citizens, and neither is a candidate for the president’s or anyone else’s office.

    Continue reading at The Wall Street Journal (subscription not required).

  • Modern-day students and attitudes towards government

    Recently Economics Professor Jack Chambless of Valencia College in Orlando asked his college students to write an essay “explaining their definition of the American Dream and what they expected the federal government to do to help them achieve their version of this dream.”

    The results are shocking, to say the least. Here’s what Chambless explained during an appearance on Fox New Channel (video here or below).

    “About 10% of the students said they wanted the government to leave them alone and not tax them too much and let them regulate their own lives. But over 80% of the students said that the American dream to them meant a house, and a job, and plenty of money for retirement and vacations and things like this. When it came to the part about the federal government, eight out of ten students said they wanted free health care, they wanted the government to pay for their tuition, they wanted the government to pay for the down payment on their house, they expected the government to ‘give them a job.’ Many of them said they wanted the government to tax wealthier individuals so that they would have an opportunity to have a better life.”

    On his website, Chambless wrote: “One student who thought her American Dream could be best achieved with more government regulations went so far as to say, ‘We all know that there are many bad side effects when regulations take place, but as human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts, and so we need government to control those who don’t care about others. It makes sense that our freedom is reduced every day with the new regulations.’”

    Chambless blames the public schools, in large part, for failing to teach principles of the right to “life, liberty, and property,” but also that the government doesn’t have the responsibility for providing that.

    Chambless also said that 44 percent of Americans are receiving some form of government benefit, as compared to 29 percent in the early 1980s.