“So there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests, “Oh, everybody should get the same amount”. The problem with that is not everybody is starting from the same place. So if we are all getting the same amount, but you started out back there, and I started out over here, we can get the same amount, but you’re going to be that far back behind me”

“It’s about giving people the resources and support they need so that everyone can be on equal footing and compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.”

Thomas Sowell’s video entitled “Thomas Sowell on Kamala Harris’ Communist Video” which premiered Wednesday on his Youtube channel, is comprised of segments from TV appearences in which he dismantles the idea that central planning can guarantee equal outcomes for all people.

“If you can’t get equality among people born to the same parents and born under the same roof, why in the world would you think you are going to get it among people who have had such different histories and cultures around the world?”

“This is any number of one factor explanations as to why everyone doesn’t have the same outcome. One hundred years ago, it was genetics; at other times and places, it was exploitation. But again, these are ideas which sound plausible, but when you do research, you discover that everywhere you turn there are 1,000 reasons why people don’t turn out the same. It goes right down to the family.”

The world-famous economist’s video has gone viral with 267,531 views and around 18K likes since its premiere on Wednesday.

Image: screen capture Thomas Sowell YouTube

The post Thomas Sowell’s Viral Video Dismantles Biden/Harris Communist Cartoon appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

However, their seemingly inevitable ascendency as the most powerful nation on the planet is not simply a matter of diplomacy and military firepower. It is beyond normal foreign policy constraints. Neither the use of the brute strength of the American military to protect ourselves and our allies nor implementation of the economic catastrophe that is protectionism are sufficient tactics to guarantee political freedom and sustainable economic conditions. Politicking and appeasement are poor strategies to curb the crisis of the next quarter century. Only a resolve to develop a stronger production system in the United States can bolster a state capable of competing with China. 

China employs a system of state capitalism, which is similar to that of market socialism. In effect, the markets of China are meant to experience competition despite the factors of production being controlled and allocated via the CCP. This allows them to simultaneously destroy any sense of personal and civil rights (most notably in the case of the Uyghur Muslims) while participating in international trade at exorbitantly low costs. After all, keeping lower labor standards and the potential to force workers to participate allows for production that is considerably stronger than that of competitors.

The Chinese regime manipulates essentially all national companies, particularly the largest ones. This allows the state to limit regulation intrastate that culminates in cheaper products for the world’s consumption. If a company can avoid the cost of obtaining capital, land, and then avoid the need for better working conditions, the price goods produced can be sold at is dropped precipitously, prohibiting even competition with firms outside the United States.

Economic progress in China, largely dating back to the Nixon presidency, has directly correlated to China’s rise in geopolitical influence. This is without even mentioning the outsourcing by non-Chinese companies for lower production cost, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the prized possession of most international corporations—the Chinese consumer market.

The economic strength without possibility of domestic dissent itself poses a threat; considering the enormous capacity for physical confrontation and victory by the Chinese military, Chinese strength is daunting. Only the United States, India, or the EU could combat the hegemony of Chinese economic prowess, and militarily, the only country capable of stunting Chinese expansion is the United States. Without question, a real cause for retaliation or at least action, has presented itself across the Pacific Ocean. 

Knowing this, the American populous, and therefore its politicians, must ask how to oppose this threat. There are those—particularly the neoconservative or interventionist types—who would argue for a more advanced and aggressive presence in the South China Sea, Japan, and other vulnerable areas to defend those nations and stifle Chinese imperialism. This claim, however, misses a key issue.

Having greater military involvement in some sort of an intimidation mentality does defend our allies from extended influence to a certain extent, but this is only a short term fix. China is a nation on the upswing despite COVID-19 struggles. If preventive action is not taken, it is only a matter of time before they exceed the point where another country can effectively oppose them without resorting to bartering.

Xi Jinping and his party are pursuing long term strategies, so why would they risk their future chance at dominance by caving to a line drawn in the sand? Action needs to be taken. A large percentage of the world’s developed countries are subsidized by Chinese production, large quantities of debt, and sometimes contractual agreements. This an unsustainable reality. Furthermore, protectionism as a means of opposition is not a true option.

Protectionism is largely unnecessary unless it goes to its logical conclusion with sanctions, which are used primarily for countries that are potential threats for physical warfare. The only way we are to effectively solve this dilemma is to provide competition in geopolitics that is not on the decline but rather experiencing growth. Only one country can take the brunt of this endeavor: The United States of America. 

A solution could be quite simple and must be taken on the home front. The United States must once again establish itself as the premier home for business and innovation. Opening our markets, and slashing corporate tax rates and the capital gains tax could aid investment and prevent capital flight.

Regulations must be reduced. Immigration to fill the labor market must be allowed through constitutional means. Debt to China must be paid off. A culture of respect and mutual agreement between consumers, workers, and firms must be cultivated. The imagination of the American economy must be released.

The federal and state governments have an obligation to free the United States economy for our protection and posterity. 

Jack Moore is from Montgomery, Alabama and plans to study Economics and Political Science at the University of Chicago this autumn. Follow him on Twitter @MooreJlm122013

The post The Chinese Threat: A Solution appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

I remember reading this story as part of a unit in Public School in the 3rd Grade. In fact, there was an in-class potluck based on the theme of this book to celebrate the unit.

Granted, that’s all I really remembered of it. The story had never stuck in my mind like the story of The Little Red Hen so vividly did, which teaches very simply and effectively that one should not expect a reward without contribution. That you are not entitled to the fruits of another’s labor. 

For all intents and purposes, The Little Red Hen is an Economics book, and a great one to plant the seeds of Capitalism into children.

When my son was old enough to start learning how to read, we stumbled across a box set of 20 small children’s paperback books that we had. Great for beginning readers. They were small books about manners, cooperation, being kind, etc. Books like Twinkle Twinkle Little Star and The Lion and the Mouse. In that set was Stone Soup.

Finding that book instantly brought back memories of that elementary classroom lunch, eating soup made from the ingredients that parent volunteers brought in. As far as the story went though, I didn’t really recollect it. I remembered that people pooled their ingredients together to make that pot of soup. I had long forgotten how that circumstance arrived, or even what the point of the stone was.

I was shocked as we read that book together. In fact, I threw it out directly afterward. After all, the means to the end is the true moral of the story, from which any supposed virtue would derive from.

The moral of this story is to use deception to acquire other people’s resources without contributing anything of value yourself. It’s the polar opposite of The Little Red Hen.

A traveling vagabond begs village people for food, who don’t have much of their own. He tricks the people into believing that his magic stone will make the best soup they’ve ever had, so long as they all contribute the little that they had.

They all contributed what they had, and made a large pot of soup that they all shared, including the vagabond, who contributed nothing but trickery. The vagabond is the story’s primary beneficiary. The story centers around him, and at the end as he’s leaving the village, he keeps the stone so he can do it again in the next village.

The story attempts to paint a Happily Ever After picture, while ignoring the glaring problem that the vagabond was leaving a village that had just depleted its entire food supply. It attempts to paint a rosey picture through his deceptive direction, all while he contributed nothing. He’s also going to do it again—and leave another village without resources.

That’s the moral of Stone Soup.

Trickery is not cooperation, and is nothing to be celebrated. In direct contrast, The Little Red Hen teaches the rewards of cooperation and productivity. It also likewise teaches the consequences of not being productive, and the disappointment of expecting the fruits of someone else’s labor. No bread.

Throw away Stone Soup. It’s Marxist propaganda that celebrates envy and entitlement to any length necessary, and pans away from the logical conclusion before it strikes. Your children should be reading The Little Red Hen.

The post Be Careful What You Read to Your Children appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Worry not, as not only will the toilet paper be back on shelves before you can finish saying “from each according to their ability”, but each will be able to meet their own needs and then some. This is because on top of supply lines still well in effect, there are countless examples of private business taking this crisis in stride and rising to the occasion.

Here are six examples of different businesses or industries working to adapt to the coronavirus threat:

#1: Comcast Expanded Free Wifi Services

In the wake of COVID-19 hitting America, closures are commonplace, from restaurants to sports gatherings to schools, especially. It’s no surprise that the internet is extremely important to academia as many colleges cancel classroom meetings and online alternatives become the norm. Given such a predicament, it’s no surprise that Comcast has decided to give its wifi services for free while the pandemic plagues the people of this nation.

According to a company statement, Comcast noted that “During this extraordinary time, it is vital that as many Americans as possible stay connected to the internet — for education, work, and personal health reasons.” You can rest easy that in this time, Comcast will not be cutting anyone’s service, and is dedicating its best efforts to maintaining service going forward.

#2: The NBA/NHL/PGA/NCAA/Etc. Ending/Suspending Their Seasons Over Public Health Concerns

In a pandemic such as this, it is incredibly important to engage in social distancing – keeping away from one another and self-isolating to avoid spreading the disease if at all possible. To that end, despite people deciding this past weekend to go out drinking and partying like it’s the end of the world, those in charge of our time-honored sports traditions have instead taken the approach of discouraging such. As a result, the NBA suspended its 2020 season over concerns of coronavirus infection among its crowds and its players. Not only the NBA, but there have also been cancellations across the NHL, PGA, NCAA, soccer, and many more sports genres. This measure was taken voluntarily, despite the significant financial cost, and even further steps are being taken, such as the owner of the Bulls/Blackhawks United Center continuing to pay its employees.

#3: Walmart/Walgreens/Target/Etc. Are Helping the U.S. Government Administer Testing

As we saw during the President’s announcement of the state of emergency, COVID-19 testing has finally been addressed. Plans are now being made to expand services for testing via drive-through stations. The President also announced that these will be popping up in the parking lots of general merchandise big box stores across America. This is planned in conjunction, not coercion, with these businesses in an attempt to provide an essential service to Americans. As time progresses, more and more of these testing stations will be arriving in towns throughout the nation and will likely expand in size and scope to meet the growing numbers of possibly infected. Thanks to the joint efforts of these private businesses, the government will actually be able to effectively address the coronavirus crisis as opposed to the problematic response given so far by the Trump administration.

#4: The ESA Straight Up Cancelled E3 This Year, Remember?

In furthering the desire to keep people away from each other and practice that essential social distancing, the Entertainment Software Association announced last week that it was shuttering the E3 2020 event in response to growing concerns about COVID-19. Again, given that there are cases already of infected individuals going to these larger gatherings and spreading the virus to an untold number of people (like at CPAC), it stands to reason the continuation of the trend is likely as more events get cancelled. In the same vein, Amazon’s own Twitch streaming platform was to host its first European TwitchCon this year in Amsterdam, but that’s now been cancelled as well. The effect will likely be that events are going to continue to be cancelled well into August.

#5: Instacart Is Expanding Services And Overhauling Its Health Standards

Instacart is a wonderful new service that’s popped up in the digital age. We’re not sponsored, but we can definitely say that this is a service used by many members of our staff and has been great for those not wanting to leave the house. You order your groceries, then have them delivered to you so that leaving the house becomes a rarity and an unnecessary risk. There is even an option to have them left outside your door, further minimizing contact. They’ve expanded their employee options to allow for the accrual of sick leave pay for those who might be affected while providing services to those who don’t want to leave the house yet still receive groceries in this crisis. Now, employees will have a safety net if they end up getting COVID-19 in “the line of duty”. Furthermore, the company is working to expand and make more comprehensive its health and safety standards so that you can have peace of mind about getting your provisions safely.

#6: Countless Examples of Expanded Sick Leave Amidst COVID-19

Chipotle, Starbucks, and many more companies are expanding their sick leave policy. Starbucks is providing a new “catastrophe pay” service for employees who are affected by COVID-19. While at first, these companies were at the forefront of worry over whether or not people would be taken care of, it’s good to see those concerns assuaged. Chipotle is working directly with the CDC to maintain new and effective strategies for dealing with this menace, including wellness checks and paid sick leave for employees who catch the disease. As events continue to unfold and many states even forcibly shut down restaurant services, we’ll likely see more cases of these companies helping their employees weather the storm, despite the fact that this is likely an extreme burden on their already strained profitability.

Image: Instacart

The post Six Examples of Private Businesses Effectively Responding to Coronavirus Concerns appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The laundromat and dry cleaners are open. The UPS store is open. Target, Marshalls, McDonald’s, and the hardware stores are open. The farmers’ market is selling pies. Dunkin’ Donuts is doing a brisk business in coffee and the usual fare. CVS is welcoming all.

All grocery stores are open. But for the empty shelves that usually hold toilet paper, everything else is stocked up. Veggies. Meat. Milk. Soups. Cosmetics. Trucks are arriving to restock shelves after brisk sales of just about everything.

Automotive places are changing oil, repairing issues, and taking new customers. Antique malls are hocking wares. Coffee shops are serving lattes and muffins. Restaurants have lunch and drinks. Clothing stores are holding special sales on winter clothing as they always do this time of year. Gas stations are doing business. People are driving around, walking around, greeting each other in a friendly way, smiling at each other.

It’s normalcy all around, which is important because if you had only been holed up in your home and watching TV, you might believe that the world outside is in total pandemonium. It seems like many people are pushing for that or even think complete panic is justified. Instead what we are seeing is a sense of calm caution. Social distance. No handshakes. Big smiles instead. Lines at sinks in public bathrooms where people are washing hands. Hand sanitizer is everywhere.

Otherwise, there is calm. No one is freaking out. The shelves are stocked up so you don’t see hoarding.

I’m grateful for all of this. The people who make this possible are heroes. They are probably preventing pandamonium. So long as people feel that essential needs can be met, they maintain civility and morality (which is always a casualty in panics), giving us all a much greater chance of getting through this.

And while we are passing out blessings, save one for Domino’s Pizza. This is how you innovate.

It would be so easy to join the “shut down everything” chorus that you see online. How grossly irresponsible such demands are! In any case, most businesses are refusing to do so. And so far as I can tell, all the employees and certainly the customers in these places are happy for the opportunity to serve. And serve they do: enterprise is performing an amazing public service right now, and getting no praise for it in the media, so far as I can see.

You say: but they are all profiting from pandemic disease! I say: I hope so. They should all be justly rewarded for their service.

Also, while millions of people are extremely worried about losing their jobs, the people working today have an assurance that their businesses can continue to meet payroll because they are doing commerce. People are talking about survival right now but having a job and keeping the income flowing is also surviving.

Of course you could say all these activities are low risk because they involve only small gatherings, whereas many places have banned gatherings over a certain size (how that is Constitutional is another question). But in the United Kingdom, they have gone the extra step of maintaining calm by not banning sports events, concerts, and the like.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Britain isn’t alone in taking a more restrained approach. The Canadian government has also held off banning mass gatherings, although several of the country’s provinces have announced their own tougher measures. Germany is also proving far less interventionist than other European nations.

I don’t know what should and shouldn’t be shut down. But neither does the government have some special magical access to information on risk probabilities and the proper way forward. In fact, government is the last institution that should be making this judgment. Government acts out of self-interest; enterprise acts in the public interest. The obvious answer here is to leave the decision to private actors who are in the best position to make a good judgment on what should shut and what should open.

I do know that the more commercial life can continue as cautionary normalcy, the more we’ll all be in a position to get through this. The less economic damage is done. The more people keep their jobs. The less human suffering there will be.

The way to make an emergency worse is to shutter the shops and jettison commercial transactions of the goods and services we depend on for the good life and for survival itself. Commerce is society’s lifeblood. Nothing is gained from forcibly cutting it off.

In normal times, we take all of this for granted. We pick up meat and veggies from the store without a thought. We buy medicines and health aids routinely without consciousness that these things don’t have to exist. We go to the hardware store as if it were a chore, something we must do to repair the sink and get lightbulbs.

Take it all away and then we will see what the real apocalypse looks like. We would take an unnerving and scary pandemic and turn it into complete social collapse. This is a reality that none of us have ever faced and, god willing, we never will. And we won’t so long as we leave it to the discretion of commercial establishments and consumers to make their own choices. Take away that freedom and all we are left with is the barbarism of material deprivation and poverty.

And so I smiled and said thank you to every employee stocking shelves, running the cash registers, mailing my packages, taking my dry cleaning, and selling me bleach wipes. Blessed are those who eschew the crazy demand to “shut down everything” and instead continue to serve the people.

The post Celebrate the Heroes Who Stay Open appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

When I say “government”, I am talking about the forcible entity in which a series of officials are ‘elected’ to rule over a group of people and use said people’s finances in order to “maintain” systems such as defense, infrastructure, etc. I am not talking about a private entity or a private group voluntarily formed for the betterment of a community. 

Who Would Pay for Infrastructure?

Businesses

Business would most likely be the largest contributor to the cost of our roadways/infrastructure. While they wouldn’t be coerced into “paying their fair share” through taxes, they would be pushed to contribute through the laws of economics and business. In order to sell their goods, they must have customers, and they must have a supplier. In order to reach their supplier and customers, some degree of infrastructure is highly necessary, otherwise no money is made. 

In fact, businesses initially paid for much of our current railroad system, as private companies built them and maintained them. There would be many incentives to have infrastructure from a logistical standpoint, so why wouldn’t businesses contribute?

Suppliers

In the business world, your company either sells a service or supplies those businesses with the essential tools needed to sell a service. In order to sell a service, you have to have the supplies required. Such supplies are made and transported by outside companies that manufacture products for businesses, and those supplies are also delivered via infrastructure. That is why Libertarian theory also mentions the suppliers in the chain of payment to private industry. Companies like UPS, FedEx, DHL and many more would all have to contribute in order to make a profit and sell their services. 

Salesmen

Do you like buying new clothes or shoes? Do you have private insurance? Do you like ordering pizza? If you do, then you understand that someone has to sell those. Typically, salesmen work for a much larger operation than just themselves, but every so often, they are part of a small-scale business. Either way, they have to move their product, so sales people would be more likely to contribute an amount, however small compared to larger corporations. 

Tourists

Indirectly, tourists would pay for a small portion of the infrastructure through the costs of traveling and expenditures. Sure, that money would come directly from the business, but where did the businesses get their funds? From the tourists, who also need some source of infrastructure in order to travel from place-to-place. 

Homeowners/Common People

While the business world requires infrastructure through profit-motive, the everyday person will have to contribute in order to live their lives appropriately and comfortably. We use roads every day, whether it be for traveling to work, getting groceries, going shopping and so much more. In order for the common people to pay their share voluntarily, there could be sources such as GoFundMe or Kickstarter.com that allow someone to do the math on a project and its cost, and consumers could join those groups to pay a specific portion to ensure that the infrastructure is cared for and built appropriately.

Why Would Private Companies Want to Build Infrastructure? 

Private companies would have many incentives to build, maintain, and repair our roads and infrastructure. To start, it is highly profitable. For our failing system, billions of dollars are expedited every year. Construction and base companies could make major amounts of money from building bridges, buildings, roads, etc. 

Next, private companies would be held accountable by the consumer, who pays and uses the roads, to keep the infrastructure maintained and repaired as needed. Currently, this is where our government falls the shortest in the infrastructure category. You can hardly drive anywhere without seeing potholes, cracks, and other broken aspects of our highways, despite there being constant construction. If you switch over to the railways, private companies almost always uphold their rails, and keep them in the most usable shape possible. That is because of accountability. 

If the people are happy, they will keep paying for roads to be placed, maintained, and repaired, so that itself should be enough of an incentive. 

Otherwise, there would be no money going to the roads and companies/businessmen in charge of building such systems would go bankrupt.

The Advantages of a Private Infrastructure System

In a privatized, free market system without a coercive government in place, our infrastructure will be cleaner, safer, and more efficient than our current system. This is because the owners of the road would have their own self-interest at heart, along with profit-motive. 

Why, though? Because of economic competition and financial motivation. If Company A has a reputation for having the highest-quality, safest roads, then they will be making more of a profit than Company B, who makes roads that aren’t as dependable. If Company B wants to catch up with A, they will have to invest more time, money, and effort into their systems. If there are roads that are entirely unsafe, then you can simply not use them and they lose money, along with popularity. 

Privatizing infrastructure would also introduce new technology, similar to some things used by private businesses. You could have apps like ‘Yelp’, ‘TripAdvisor’, and much more. 

While most people cannot imagine a society without a gun to your head, it is not as complicated as it may seem. It just comes down to whether or not you want to cut out the middleman and keep asking yourself, “But Muh Roads?”

The post “But Muh Roads”: How a Governmentless Society Could Still Have an Infrastructure System appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

But what is usually left out is the rest of his tweet, “…but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

I am not a medical doctor, so I have no particular expertise in evaluating whether masks help prevent infection in the general public. Although I do find it interesting that masks are recommended for those *caring* for infected people, so masks apparently are effective at preventing infection, if used properly (and a big deal is made about how difficult it is to properly “fit” the mask over one’s face — just how hard can that be??).

But I am an economist, so I find the under-reported second part of his tweet very interesting and revealing. Is the Surgeon General advising people not to buy masks because they are not helpful in preventing infection, or is he advising people not to buy masks because he is worried about a shortage, and wants to ensure that the existing supply of masks be available for those who most crucially need it: the doctors and nurses and loved ones who are caring for sick patients?

I wish the Surgeon General had studied economics. The Law of Supply and Demand — the most fundamental principle of economics — tells us that shortages cannot exist when prices are allowed to adjust to changes in supply and demand. Or, to put it another way, shortages *only* arise when the price mechanism is impeded, whether by law or by custom.

In the United States, and around the world, both law and custom prevent market prices from adjusting when such adjustment is most urgently needed: when there is a supply disruption and/or a spike in demand for that product. That is happening right now, when it comes to “N95” masks, the type that filter out 95% of particles and are deemed most effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus.

I actually bought a box of 10 of these masks last year for a trip to Mumbai, India, where I used them — quite successfully — to protect me from the highly polluted air in that city. It cost about $15. Yet today at all of the drug and hardware stores around town that used to sell these masks, I see signs on their front doors that say, “No masks available.”

Demand has spiked for these masks. Whether this spike in demand is based on sound medical opinion or not, it is a fact. If prices were allowed to adjust, they would rise. This would have two effects. First, it would reduce the quantity purchased. Those who were not willing to pay the higher price for the masks would not get them, while those who urgently needed the masks — and could pay for them (think: hospitals!) — would find them readily available.

Economists often describe this salutary “rationing” effect of higher prices. It means that those who most urgently want and need the masks, and can pay for them, will get them, while those who value them less, will not get the masks.

However, the higher prices have an even greater salutary effect on the supply side. It is greater and longer-term, because the higher prices induce an increase in the *production* of masks. Higher prices signal higher profits to be made in making the masks. This means that factories can afford to bring on extra shifts, hire more trucks, pay more for scarce supplies — do all that it takes to make more masks to meet the extra demand.

The result — if market prices are allowed to adjust — is that while the quantities demanded are temporarily curtailed to meet the available supply — the quantities supplied begin to radically increase. The result is that more masks become available, and prices eventually fall. Eventually, they will fall to nearly the “typical” or “normal” level that preceded the outbreak of coronavirus, but with shelves full of masks. No shortages!

But instead of finding (temporarily expensive) masks available for sale, we are confronted by “No masks available” signs everywhere we look.

We have caused this potentially deadly shortage of masks with our antipathy to “price gouging.” That antipathy is deeply embedded in our culture. We decry “price gougers” at sporting events, or who sell drugs at “unconscionably high” prices or who simply charge prices that we do not like!

This cultural antipathy to high prices has found its way into laws. In the past 25 years, some 34 states have passed laws that prohibit “price gouging.” It is defined in various ways, some more objectively than others. In California, it is illegal to raise the price of a product during an emergency by more than 10% from what it was before the emergency. In Florida, the law simply says that it is illegal to charge an “unconscionably high” price for an “essential commodity” during an “emergency.” Good luck defining those terms.

The result is that the CEOs of businesses, such as CVS Drug or TrueValue Hardware, perhaps just to avoid the wrath of their customers who hate price gouging, or to comply with the anti-gouging laws, whether vaguely worded or not, simply choose not to raise prices of goods during an emergency.

Instead, they simply let their supplies run out. They cannot increase their orders because they cannot pay more for the goods to their wholesalers who, in turn, cannot pay more to the manufacturer who, in turn, is unable to call in the extra shifts, pay the overtime, rush in the urgently needed supplies, etc., to make more of the masks…

Or the generators, or the gasoline…

In 2006, in a notorious case, a man who wanted to bring in generators from out of state during Hurricane Katrina was jailed, and his generators confiscated, while the governor of Mississippi, Sonny Perdue, proclaimed that he would step up enforcement action against price gougers.

In Florida, gas station owners preferred to let their gasoline run out rather than charge more money for gasoline, which would have incentivized gasoline wholesalers (at greater cost to themselves) to ship in urgently needed gas from other parts of the country that were not devastated by the hurricane.

Generators, gasoline and (probably) face masks are urgently needed during disasters and emergencies, such as hurricanes or outbreaks of new viruses.

And the only way we can ensure their ready supply is to allow prices to rise.

It is time that Americans — and everyone around the world — embrace price gouging and recognize it as the vital and life-saving market mechanism that ensures that supplies reach their most urgent, life-saving uses, and that more of these supplies are manufactured and distributed.

A first step is to repeal the silly and non-objective “price gouging” laws on the books of 34 states. A second, more fundamental step is to understand the economics of supply and demand. It is high time that all of us abandon the term “price gouging” and call it what it is: supply and demand. And recognize the life-saving value of unimpeded market prices, whether those prices are “high” or not.

I have just one of those N95 masks left and see lots of “No masks available” signs at the stores that used to sell them around me. I hope I don’t get coronavirus.

The post Anti-Gouging Laws Can Kill appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Cass points to the mission statements of some think tanks as evidence for the need to break through the fundamentalist mentality found among policy wonks. Yet, even in these supposed bastions of free market thought are proposals to block grant Obamacare subsidies and send them to the states, hardly a fundamentalist approach to economics.

Arthur Brooks, the former president of the American Enterprise Institute, is an avid defender of free enterprise, describing it as a tool to help the poor. But he has also conceded the need for a social safety net, which seems to be at odds with the Cassian view of the right’s relentless insistence on moving to a pure free market economy.

Trillion-dollar deficits driven by obscene spending growth, tariffs, and bailouts for farmers are just some of the anti-market policies embraced by a bipartisan majority in the federal government. Even in the area of regulatory reform, where the Trump Administration has had some success, the rules emanating from the leviathan hit nearly 3,000 in 2019.

In both word and deed, market fundamentalism has failed to take hold. The move away from a free economy is regrettable because it is essential to the flourishing of society. While Cass and others acknowledge the importance of markets, they take issue with the dogged focus on economic freedom and the attempt to “maximize everyone’s freedom at every moment.”

I guess the truth of the claim depends on Cass’s definition of freedom. Not even the most hardcore libertarian believes people should be free to do what they want at every moment. According to libertarian theory, our ability to act is regulated by private property.

Cass’s quotation of Sen. Josh Hawley may give some indication as to his definition of freedom. Sen. Hawley inexplicably claims “public philosophy says liberty is all about choosing your own ends” and that this is a philosophy of the privileged because everyone else who has commitments to their family, home and nation is robbed of that liberty under such a philosophy.

I agree liberty means choosing your own ends free of coercion, but that doesn’t preclude devoting one’s self to their family or even their nation. People can be free and serve their family. They can be free and serve their nation.

Expanding the sphere of economic freedom doesn’t require ignoring broken families, drug addiction or other social ills. On the contrary, economic freedom equips us to solve these problems.

The challenges facing us today are not the result of too narrow a focus on economics for growth’s sake but of the government’s imposition of its will on the rest of us. The welfare state has shattered the traditional family. Prohibition has fueled drug addiction. Thankfully, many insurance plans cover drug rehab services such as Tricare drug rehab coverage. Explore society’s myriad of social problems and one is hard-pressed to find an ill in which government has not played a role.

I agree with Cass, Sen. Marco Rubio and others who place an emphasis on shared prosperity for workers, building stronger community ties, and encouraging individuals to pursue more than their own self-interest. However, these worthwhile goals won’t be met with a “conservative” version of freedom.

If history is any indication, attempts at a top-down approach to reengineering society will fail.

Expanding economic freedom is necessary not just because it’s the best way to maximize economic growth but because it’s the only system that allows people to take responsibility for life outside of the economic sphere.

If this view makes one a fundamentalist, then so be it.

The post Free Market Fundamentalism is a Unicorn appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Many of these young men are residents of Vermont’s “tuition towns.” Too small and sparsely populated to support a traditional public school, these towns distribute government education funds to parents, who choose the educational experience that is best suited to their family’s needs. If the school doesn’t perform up to parents’ expectations, they can take their children, and the tuition dollars they control, elsewhere. 

The Greenwood School is one of more than 100 independent schools in the tiny state of Vermont (population: 626,000). The whole state has just 90,000 students in K-12 schools (the city school districts of Denver and Albuquerque have more students, and some county districts are twice as large). How can Vermont sustain such a rich network of educational options? 

Tuition Towns and the Families They Serve

Ninety-three Vermont towns (36 percent of its 255 municipalities) have no government-run school at all. If there were enough kids, the pot of public money earmarked for education would be used to buy a building and hire teachers. In these towns, the funds local governments expect to spend per pupil are instead given directly to the parents of school-age children. 

This method gives lower- and middle-income parents the same superpower wealthy families have always had: school choice. Kids aren’t assigned to public schools by zip code⁠—instead, parents have the ability to put their kids in school anywhere, to buy the educational experience best suited to each child. If that decision doesn’t work out, they can change it the following year and try a school that might better fit their child’s needs.  

Better Outcomes, Similar Costs

So how much money are we talking about? As far as income distribution, Vermont looks a lot like the national average. The per-student expenditure of $18,290 is high by national standards (only New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and DC spent more). But independent, tuition-driven schools spend $5,000 less, on average, than public schools in the area, which is near the national average. 

In many other parts of the country, even the most “progressive” ones, government-run schools consume ever-more resources while doing little to address disparities of outcome. The promise of equal opportunity through public education continues to fall short, and lower-income families are the most likely to feel trapped by the lack of choices. 

A variety of schools has arisen to compete for these tuition dollars. A spectrum from centuries-old academies to innovative, adaptive, and experimental programs competes for students from tuition towns, just as for the children of independently wealthy families. 

Eligibility for tuition vouchers actually increased home values in towns that closed their public schools. Outsiders were eager to move to these areas, and the closure of public schools actually made at least some people already living nearby significantly wealthier as their home values rose, according to real estate assessments. 

Because parents, not bureaucrats or federal formulas, determine how funds are allocated, schools are under high economic pressure to impress parents⁠—that is, to serve students best in their parents’ eyes. 

Educational Alternatives = Comparative Advantages

The Compass School, nestled on the New Hampshire border, enrolls 80-100 high school students from three states and a mix of demographics. Forty percent of students qualify for subsidized lunch (the school system’s proxy for poverty), and 30 percent have special learning needs. 

Nearly any public school in the country with Compass’ student population (considered mid-poverty) would be aspiring to a 75 percent graduation rate and a 60 percent college-readiness rate. Compass has a virtually 100 percent graduation rate, and 90 percent of graduates are accepted to college. And still, Compass achieves these results with $5,500 less funding-per-pupil than the average Vermont government-run public high school.

Emergent programming for children with physical, intellectual, or behavioral challenges provides a 22-school menu of accountable, adaptive alternatives to public school remediation. Increasingly, “mainstreaming” students with these challenges has become a priority at larger high schools, which compete to serve special-needs students as fiercely as any other. 

Room to Grow? Watch for More Tuition Towns

Having watched these models develop nearby, two more Vermont towns voted in 2013 to close their government-run schools and become “tuition towns” instead. The local public elementary and high schools there closed and reopened as independent competitors in an increasingly rich marketplace of education options. We eagerly wait to see what the innovative combination of private control and public investment can bring to students in those areas. 

Can Vermont’s quirky school program work elsewhere? Probably. An independent evaluation by the Ethan Allen Institute, a free-market think tank in Vermont, reported:

…an expansion of Vermont’s publicly funded tuition model can be an effective way to lower costs, improve student outcomes, achieve greater diversity in the classroom, and increase parental satisfaction with and participation in their children’s education.

Wealthy parents will always have school choice. They have the power to choose the best opportunity and the best fit for their individual child. Tuition towns—where all parents direct their child’s share of public education spending—give that power to every family.

Vermont’s empowered parents feed a rich landscape of educational choices, not just one or two. In such fertile soil, smaller, tailored programs pop up and grow to meet children where they are instead of where a one-size-fits-most default curriculum says they should be. If the family’s needs change, their choices can, too.

We pour plenty of public money into educational potential. Only parents’ power of choice can unleash it. 

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post 93 Vermont Towns Have No Public Schools, But Great Education. How Do They Do It? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

But this “beating a dead horse” is not unique to just my father and his joke-telling. Just as my father does not learn from his not-so-witty mistakes, the state of Missouri does not learn from theirs as well.

Repeatedly, the state meddles in what should be decided by the private sector, not learning that this intrusion brings more harm than good. The most recent occurrence of this was just announced a few days ago, with the state releasing the names of the businesses that received licenses to sell medical marijuana in Missouri. 

Over 900 applicants sought a license to sell medical marijuana in Missouri. To obtain a license, they were tasked with filling out a lengthy application that included writing responses to numerous questions regarding how they would impact the community and their plans for marketing among other valuable questions. These answers were then judged and scored by a third-party company that the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services delegated the process to.  

This is the first of many problems in the process. According to the Kansas City Star, to find a third party to judge the applications, Missouri “put out a call for bids for companies to score the medical marijuana applications, [but] it got no responses.” This should have been the first red flag that this process was a horrible idea.  Nonetheless, the state was undeterred and on its second call, received interest.

To judge the third party, Missouri instituted a scoring system that would rate the prospects. The highest possible score of this system was 218, but the highest scorer and ultimate winner of the job to judge the medical marijuana applications, a company called Wise Health Solutions, received a whopping 106! This is red flag number two because Missouri handed out the task of judging the applications to a company that received less than 50% on its scoring test.

This does not exactly inspire confidence in this third-party scorer and whatever confidence that the state of Missouri had in Wise Health Solutions should be erased after the licenses were released. Since those who qualified for medical marijuana licenses became public, numerous applicants and lawyers who were associated with the process have cited irregularities and inconsistencies within the scoring process. 

One notable instance of this was applicants provided the same answer to a question and received wildly different scores. Some applicants who applied for multiple licenses “copy and pasted their answers on basic questions. But those identical answers received wildly different scores”. This happened even though the Missouri scoring guide stated that the same answer should receive the exact same score. This is red flag number three, with Missouri blatantly disrespecting the rules that it set out for applicants to follow. 

But the abuses don’t end there. In addition to indiscriminately giving the same answer different scores, applicants also received zeros for lengthy responses to application questions. One applicant stated that she received zero points on a question even though she provided exactly what the questions asked. The Missouri Medical Cannabis Trade Association ascertained that about 67 percent of the application pool received a score of zero on a question about marketing plans. The Association that this was so egregiously bad that it had to have been an error in the process.

Another applicant had support from the Mayor and 297 out of the 300 people in the small town that he planned to build his dispensary. In addition to this support, he planned to use revenue from the dispensary to aid the local police force. But this got him nowhere on the question on the application about the economic impact on the local community as he scored poorly on it. This apparent lack of attention to the application process earns Missouri a fourth red flag.

Apparently, though, Missouri is blind to the faults of this process. State officials still claim that the process was “secure and legitimate”, even though it was obviously not. Disgruntled applicants and their lawyers have started to file lawsuits against the state, causing an unnecessary headache for the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). The DHSS has already begun soliciting bids from attorneys who can defend the state in these lawsuits, which will be a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

But the underlying point remains: all of this could have been avoided if Missouri had left the task to the private sector. Hopefully, Missouri voters and legislators will learn their lesson so they will not repeat the same mistakes when recreational marijuana becomes legal.  I am not optimistic though. Missouri loves to beat a dead horse.

Image: Paul Sableman

The post Don’t Give Missouri License to Beat a Dead Horse appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.