Category Archives: Uncategorized

I’ll Be Home for the Holidays… If I Can Afford It

Posted on by sjcammenga
Reply

View Flying into Michigan

I love being home for Christmas, and am overjoyed at a chance to be at the Mackinac Center during break. The great, snowy state of Michigan is clearly a fitting place to spend the holidays, but if you need to fly in like I did, you may end up asking, “Can I afford it?”

Though prices often depend on when a passenger buys their tickets, statistics show that the average domestic airfare has gone up from $319 in the highest quarter of 2009 to $355 at the start of 2011. This is not surprising as most airlines are basically bankrupt and need a profit for survival. One of the most commonly cited reasons for this is the volatile price of oil, which comprises nearly 35% of operating costs. Within two years it went from $39 a barrel to $100. Mix that with the bad economy causing fewer people to fly, and most observers could assume they knew the reason for the increases.

Though these factors undoubtedly play big roles, there are additional reasons for air travel problems. For instance, American Airlines recently filed for bankruptcy citing union contracts that cost them$800 million a year more in labor costs than their competitors. The Transport Workers Union (TWU) made their own statement after, fearing that workers would lose their contracts and that airplanes would be less safe. Though workers may be asked to take cuts, this is financially preferable to the company dying altogether. As for safety, any airline which wants to stay afloat will take adequate measures to ensure customer satisfaction, safe service and good publicity without union urging.

Regulations also affect ticket costs. Early on, the prices for commercial flights were high, but in 1978 there was a massive deregulation. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, it removed government control over fares and lowered ticket prices by almost 40%. It also allowed for the entry of new, cheaper airlines into the market alongside the luxury carriers. Today, the Department of Transportation recently passed new regulations, requiring airlines to reimburse passengers for lost bags, give greater compensation to those bumped from flights and fine any plane which waits on the tarmac for more than three hours. These may be good ideas, but wouldn’t an airline which was seeking to be competitive already try to do these things? If an airline loses my bags I am not going to fly with them again, and they have the price of my future tickets to lose, not just the bag reimbursement. In fact, according to Joshua Mitchell of the Wall Street Journal, the regulations may make things worse, as airlines are three times more likely to cancel flights than wait out the time a little longer on the tarmac. If the fine is applied, the proceeds don’t even go to the passengers, thay go straight to the Department of Transportation.

Environmental regulations are another nightmare for both airlines and passengers. A NCPPR study shows that they contribute significantly to cancellations and delays by inhibiting construction of needed runways. Despite a 25% increase in departures since the 90s, only six new runways were added at major hub airports. A runway which should take two years to build can take ten or more, as airport authorities must obtain a number of permits under federal and state laws regarding environmental concerns. These permits are often further delayed by lawsuits from groups opposed to new construction.

Perhaps the key to enjoying cheaper flights and a more stable airplane industry is just to trust the free market. Freedom – that is what I want to find in my stocking and in my state. Happy Holidays from the Mackinac Center’s interns!

Saving Liberty Through Equality — and Equality Through Liberty

Posted on by Elizabeth Tara Ryan
Reply

If there’s one thing Americans are passionate about, it’s liberty. But tax laws that favor specific socioeconomic groups and health care laws that diminish our personal choices should cause us to ponder what liberty actually means. Liberty is undermined or supported according to the way in which we understand equality.

Abraham Lincoln is known as the champion of equality and liberty. In a speech to Union soldiers, Lincoln said: “Nowhere in the world is presented a government of so much liberty and equality. To the humblest and poorest amongst us are held out the highest privileges and positions.” When a government strives for liberty and equality by protecting the rights of its citizens, it creates the environment for individuals to thrive and accomplish their noblest dreams. Universal and equal ownership of natural rights, Lincoln believed, is the definition of equality. This may sound similar to popular political thought today, which says that all are equally entitled to the same things. However, this was not Lincoln’s definition of equality.

He said about the founders: “[T]hey did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. …” Lincoln never advocated an equality of outcome, but solely equal protection under the law.

“Inequalities” unique to individuals didn’t excuse slavery. In a letter to Henry Pierce, a congressional representative from Massachusetts Lincoln wrote, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.” Equality is not ruling others, which eradicates our right to liberty; it’s simply self-rule.

Lincoln, a poor American farm boy, is a stark contrast to Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat, but they were contemporaries and both lovers of freedom. De Tocqueville studied and wrote extensively on the U.S. His ideas on equality and liberty present a different side of Lincoln’s argument. De Tocqueville believed that equality isn’t some political issue, but rather a condition, or a social fact. It’s not simply equal rights, as it was for Lincoln. The government cannot give or take true equality or freedom from individuals — it is inborn. De Tocqueville wrote: “For it is something one must feel and logic has no part in it. It is a privilege of noble minds which God has fitted to receive it, and it inspires them with a generous fervor. But to meaner souls, untouched by the sacred flame, it may well seem incomprehensible.”

De Tocqueville believed freedom and equality in the heart and soul is essential for liberty to function in society. No matter the economic status of different citizens, each one is endowed with the same rights and privileges. Protection, but not dictation, of those rights is the government’s job; the sense of freedom and equality originate only from within.

Without understanding Lincoln and de Tocqueville’s views of equality, it’s easy to think equality means that if I’m working hard and barely making ends meet, my neighbor is not entitled to the luxury of buying a new yacht. Today’s commonly accepted view of equality attempts to offer not only equal protection of rights to citizens, but also an equality of lifestyle through the tax structure and health care options. To many, equality now means entitlement. By striving for more of this definition of equality, liberty is lost, making government, comprised of one faction of “we the people,” the ruler over others.

While every citizen is entitled to the same protected rights as every other, the government has no place offering free healthcare as a step towards equality of lifestyle. Nor is it the government’s place to “level the playing field” by burdening richer citizens more than poorer ones.

Politicians today seek to redistribute wealth in an effort to reach their skewed view of equality. Focusing on this type of equality negates liberty and places the government in the role of master. The spark of liberty within us should clash against political changes like ObamaCare and selective tax laws. True freedom comes from the inside, and those who love freedom should not accept repression of it. As government expands, freedom contracts.

Americans are passionate about liberty. Our understanding of equality determines whether freedom thrives or dies. Equality is equal rights, not the entitlement of wealth. If freedom isn’t burning within, liberty and equality will perish.

The Value of a Summer

Posted on by Josiah Kollmeyer
Reply

The summer is drawing to a close, and I regret that I will shortly finish my internship at the Mackinac Center.  This internship has been a fantastic opportunity for me to sharpen my skills while working to promote free markets, and I consider it a great privilege to be considered a member of the Mackinac Center team.

At the end of any project, it is good to look back and consider the significance of the work that has been done.  At the end of the day, why is liberty important?  Why do we (both myself personally, and the Mackinac Center collectively) spend our time and resources promoting this idea?

The answer lies in the dignity of the human person.  The great “isms” and ideologies of our day, such as communism, fascism and utilitarianism, exalt an economic or political system to the detriment of each individual human being.  Under the reign of an ideology, people cease to be valuable in their own right, and are only respected insofar as they work towards or promote the state’s ruling “ism.”  Yearning for the progress of the state tramples over individual human lives.  Demagogues and dictators who strive to create a new social order out of whole cloth have never made it to Utopia, though they have made a lot of bodies while trying.

In order to achieve either stable economic prosperity or general personal happiness, any state must recognize the fundamental dignity of each of its citizens.  This does not mean giving the citizenry all of the hand-outs which they might request: after all, isn’t it a greater sign of respect when an individual is expected to provide for his own needs?  Even “soft” or democratic socialism, unaccompanied by iron-fisted police measures, denies to every man under its rule the basic dignity of providing for himself, to the extent that he can. 

And so, I am encouraged by the hope that my work at the Mackinac Center has contributed, in some small way, to the promotion of human dignity and liberty in my own time and place.  As Edmund Burke said, a nation is a “community of souls,” not robots, slaves or cogs in a machine, but men and women carefully formed in the image of God and valuable on that account alone.  Americans both inside and outside of government must cling to this principle if the nation is to remain both free and strong.

I will miss the Mackinac Center, but trust that I will find many more opportunities to advocate for liberty wherever my future paths take me.  As J. R. R. Tolkien said, “The Road goes ever on and on…”

Beneath the Ivy

Posted on by ewreynolds
Reply

Beneath the ivy stones molder away;
Light shineth out as the last golden ray.
For all is autumn now under the birch,
Lest snowy night ore’ take the cathedral church.

It is a quiet autumn on our Western front, and beneath the ivy we may still glimpse the moldering remnants of our older world.
Read more on Landmarks of Liberty…

E. Wesley – Mackinac Center Intern

Smoking’s Bottom Line

Posted on by cjarrettdieterle
Reply

When Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm approved a private-business smoking ban in late 2009, many restaurant and bar owners voiced concerns over its potential effect on their businesses. The owners feared that smokers would reduce the time they spent at eating and drinking establishments, thereby hurting the industry’s bottom line. Over a year later, the argument for repealing the ban grows stronger.

A 2010 report by the Michigan Department of Treasury attempted to measure the effect of the smoking ban by analyzing restaurants’ sales tax collections. While the study indicated that most eating establishments were not significantly affected by the smoking ban, the authors observed that the reduced tax collections at taverns with liquor was “potentially related” to the ban. Also decreasing after enactment of the ban were liquor sales at restaurants, tax collections from cigarettes and revenue from bar “Club Games,” such as Keno.

Ultimately, the report concludes, “The impact of the smoking ban has likely affected some establishments within each group far more than others.” Therefore, the best way to determine the economic effect of the smoking ban is on a case-by-case basis.

The website Tobacco Reviews interviewed Michael Moriarty, the owner of two bars in Lansing. One of his bars, Moriarty’s Pub, enjoyed an enhanced lunch crowd, which Moriarty attributed to the ban. At his other bar, Stobers Cocktail Lounge, however, the ban caused Moriarty’s usual clientele to stop coming in as frequently and consistently.

In an article in The South End, Tom Moore, owner of Lefty’s Lounge in Detroit, concurred that the ban has produced mixed results. In May, Moore noted that while some of his customers, such as professors from nearby Wayne State University, enjoy the smoke-free environment, he has also “lost a lot of neighborhood regulars who don’t come in as much — if at all.”

A new Michigan Public Broadcasting series titled “reWorking Michigan” recently produced a video in which several state restaurant owners similarly reflected on the smoking ban. Val Orlando, owner of City Limits Bowling in Mason, supports the ban, and he praised it in the video. Despite this, he admits: “It’s been a little bitter sweet. Our late-night, singles crowd kind of has suffered a little bit … they kind of left us.”

Nicholas Fata, who owns Champions Sports Bar and Grill in Holt, is more vocal about his frustration with the ban. Fata claims that his business is down 10 percent to 15 percent, and he’s laid off 10 employees as a result of losing his smoking crowd.

At first glance, these testimonials from restaurant owners seem contradictory. What they show, however, is that restaurants are not fungible; rather, they have unique menus, business models and clienteles. For example, Moriarty’s Pub in Lansing can attract a larger university crowd to offset the loss of smoking customers. Fata’s sports bar in Holt does not have this advantage, and its business has suffered.

In the end, aggregate data on the smoking ban’s economic effect misses the mark by overlooking restaurants that depend on smoking customers; these establishments lose revenue, lay off workers or even close.

Some contend that the negative health effects of second-hand smoke supersede concerns about restaurants failing. As Mackinac Center Senior Environmental Analyst Russ Harding has noted, however, studies connecting secondhand smoke to health ailments are inconclusive, and such arguments ignore the ability of customers to make their own health decisions by deciding whether to dine at restaurants that allow smoking.

Michigan should repeal its private-business smoking ban and return this decision-making power to restaurant owners. They — not policymakers in Lansing — can better determine what affects their bottom line.

A Frothy Mug in the Houses of Liberty

Posted on by ewreynolds
Reply

Free speech in the coffee houses of Europe and America birthed the rise of gentility, republican government, and liberty during a time of, as Beatrix Potter said, “swords and periwigs and full-skirted coats with flowered lappets – when gentlemen wore ruffles, and gold-laced waistcoats of paduasoy and taffeta…” Whether philosophical men between sips passionately debated the latest movements of the British Army in America, or some highwaymen sat brooding plots over steaming mugs, coffee was sure to find its way at the heart of most adventures. With the introduction of coffee into Europe in the 17th century and the subsequent rise of the coffee house as a public forum in the 17th and 18th centuries, some of the greatest political, social, and literary achievements of Great Britain and America started with a cup of coffee.

Read more on Landmarks of Liberty…

E. Wesley – Mackinac Center Intern

Old Buildings, New Ideas

Posted on by sjcammenga
Reply

As a photographer, I have recently been inspired while looking through pictures of the beautiful but crumbling remnants of once great buildings, specifically in the Detroit area. There is something about imagining the vibrant life that once lived within their walls and wondering at the transient nature of everything on this earth. There is something both profound and sad about them, but also something beautiful in the life they continue to live in the minds of the creative, and I don’t just mean through photography.

Where some see these buildings as failures of times past, enterprising men and women can see creative and new uses for these unique structures. Looking at pictures of old theaters, I was surprised to find the clever ways in which they were re-imagined so as to escape the wrecking ball. One old movie palace in Brooklyn, N.Y., which had been closed for 40 years and was in the process of falling apart, is being adapted so as to become a state-of-the-art K-8 charter school run by a nonprofit group called Ascend Learning. It will also be used as retail space. Though there is much need for renovations, the building will retain much of its historical character.

The United Artists Theater in Los Angeles is another theater which has found a different use after closing the curtains; it is owned by the University Cathedral and has been used as a church for years.

Turning back to Detroit, the Michigan Theatre experienced an interestingly ironic fate. Built over the small garage where Henry Ford built his first automobile, the theatre was open for 50 years before being turned into a parking garage. Though this three-level, 160-space garage required the mezzanine, balcony and staircase to be taken down, much of the architecture remains intact. Remaining pieces include the four-story lobby, ticket booth, the proscenium arch and even part of the red curtain. This unique tourist attraction has played roles in movies like “The Island” and in Eminem’s music video “Lose Yourself,” as well as providing much needed parking space for the surrounding area.

Theatres are not the only places that can have a second chance at life. London’s Docklands were converted into condominiums and New York’s emptied tool shops ended up providing some of the city’s most coveted office space. There are people who can look at a dying lot and find a canvass waiting to be filled. Given free reign, entrepreneurs and visionaries may look at something that is crumbling and use their creativity to turn a failure into a success. Never underestimate the innovative mind.

On Equality

Posted on by Josiah Kollmeyer
Reply

Why, exactly, did the Founding Fathers assert that “all men are created equal?”  The statement is clearly false from a material perspective. People are born into widely varying degrees of material comfort and prosperity. Later in life, individual economic choices and work, or lack thereof, will necessarily leave some citizens with more possessions than others. 

Government’s attempts to bring about material equality most commonly bring the entire population down to a “lowest common denominator” standard of living. With the government officials themselves excluded, this system may appear to bring about greater equality, but at a terrible price.  The leveling, centrally planned programs of the USSR produced a society with nearly everyone at a low standard of living.  The average Soviet family’s income was not only well below that of the U.S., but even below the poverty line in this country for much of the Cold War. Meanwhile, the system failed even to produce equality, because privileged Communist party officials abused their influence to maintain a standard of living far above that of the people whom they ostensibly served.

Mackinac Center President Emeritus Lawrence W. Reed had it right: “free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.”  Government cannot force equality in the face of each individual’s choices. Indeed, it would be a gross injustice to pronounce that two men — one frugal and industrious, the other lazy and spendthrift — deserve the same quality of life.  The fact that harder or smarter work can better one’s condition is the driving force behind American innovation. Remove that incentive through redistribution of wealth, and many more citizens will drift toward the lazy-and-spendthrift camp.  If working hard won’t better your lot, why bother?

The Founding Fathers had a much deeper meaning in mind for the phrase “all men are created equal.” They envisioned a republic with all men equal under the law, each accountable for his own actions. Legal equality, to them, included each man’s right to his own life, liberty and property.  Regardless of political power, no man’s rightful possessions could be taken away from him: the laborer had as strong a claim on his scanty savings as the rich had on their mansions. This equality of rights — not possession s— strengthens liberty rather than undermines it. Liberty cannot survive in chaos, but equality before the law prevents chaos and establishes certain principles by which both leaders and citizens are bound. The founders were correct in their defense of equality; modern America needs to remember the form of equality they valued.

Vouching for Choice

Posted on by cjarrettdieterle
Reply

In the past several years a wave of education reform has swept across the United States. Charter schools are on the rise, vouchers programs are springing up in various parts of the country, and parents have more control over their child’s education than at any time in our country’s recent past. This commendable progress, although far from finished, owes much to the efforts of Milton Friedman. Friedman consistently and forcefully espoused the virtues of educational choice and flexibility.

Perhaps the most well known of Friedman’s educational reform proposals was the school voucher system. In his seminal book “Free to Choose,” Friedman diagnosed the problem with the nation’s education system: “For schooling, the sickness has taken the form of denying many parents control over the kind of schooling their children receive. … Power has instead gravitated to professional educators.” Friedman recognized that the solution was to give parents more flexibility as to where their kids could go to school.

Friedman’s voucher plan, originally proposed in the 1955 essay “The Role of Government in Education,” was remarkably straightforward. Friedman noted that when a child is withdrawn from a public school and sent to a private school, taxpayers are spared the expense and liability of educating that child. There remains a disconnect, however, as the family that withdrew the child receives “no part of that saving except as it is passed on to all taxpayers.” Therefore, Friedman advocated giving such families a voucher in exchange for relieving the state of their child’s educational costs. If the family saves the state $4,000 in costs and receives a $2,000 voucher in return, the state still saves money while the family simultaneously receives assistance for private school tuition. This financial aid, in turn, would make private schooling financially feasible for a greater number of families.

In May of this year, Indiana passed comprehensive education reform legislation that the Wall Street Journal editorial board called “the most ambitious voucher program in memory.” The law provides over 7,000 vouchers in its first year of enactment, eventually uncapping the number of available vouchers in three years (but still limiting availability through means-testing). The vouchers award up to $4,500 for students who are in public schools and want to switch to another public or private school. The legislation also includes other mechanisms that enhance school choice, such as a $1,000 tax deduction for families that spend money on private school expenses. Other places where Friedman-inspired educational choice legislation has been proposed or enacted include Texas, New Orleans, Florida and Washington, D.C.

Although this wave of education reform is welcome, the gains achieved are tenuous and reversible. Entrenched interests — most notably public-sector teacher unions — are determined to stymie reform efforts. Given their organizational advantages and significant financial war chest, such entities are a constant threat to school choice.

It is also important recognize that vouchers are not the be-all-end-all of the educational reform movement. As Friedman himself wrote, “[My wife Rose and I] regard the voucher plan as a partial solution because it affects neither the financing of schooling nor the compulsory attendance laws. We favor going much farther.”

Friedman’s own intellectual contributions to education have made “going much farther” a greater possibility than ever before.

Milton Friedman and Historical Landmarks

Posted on by ewreynolds
Reply

Time flies, and with it the memory of the late economist Milton Friedman, who would have been 99 years old this year. However, we at the Mackinac Center and the Foundation for Educational Choice hope to revive Friedman’s legacy by hosting some lectures this Friday on his monetary policy. It is also the 105th anniversary of the American Civil War, an issue encompassing a context for economic analysis.

Friedman’s free-market principles are vital to comprehending monetary supply during the Civil War. An entire generation of brothers hammered their plowshares into swords. As Northern factories shaped rifles and Southern farmers smelt bullets, the strain on local economies was enormous. Like a plague of locusts, the “terrible swift sword” burned through the Virginian Shenandoah Valley and across Georgia, destroying Southern crops and vegetation. Along the Western front, raiders on both sides wreaked havoc on the civilian populace. In the words of a song, “not now for songs of a nation’s wrongs,
not the groans of starving labor; Let the rifle ring and the bullet sing to the clash of the flashing sabre!” The elephant in the room was big government, as usual. Both North and South inflated their money supplies, causing a rise in prices. Southern currency especially suffered a significant decrease in value due to the printing of excess Confederate money. As was apparent to Friedman, inflation is most often the fault of central banks, like those during the Civil War, that print more money than reflects actual market demand.

As a historian, I have always found Friedman’s work to be historically pertinent. His view of the late 19th and early 20th centuries as an era of prosperity deserves more academic acceptance than it gets. I agree with Friedman’s impression that America during the Victorian era was a beacon to all those persecuted peoples throughout the earth who wished simply for the freedom to work hard for their existence. It was not a “gilded age” as historians want to paint it but a golden one. Friedman’s love for America’s heritage and his presumption of good will to all people, even his enemies, are his two qualities I admire most.

This Friday will be a day of both celebration and solemn reflection, as we remember Friedman’s legacy and the many thousands of lives lost during the Civil War. History often repeats itself in various forms. If we do not apply absolute principles to past events, we will be subject to repeating the same mistakes that history contains. We must remember those who are important in the history of our freedom, and reclaim our historical landmarks of liberty.

E. Wesley – Mackinac Center Intern

Image of CivilWarFifeandDrum from Wikipedia

The Good Life, No. 8: Heroes

Posted on by rombachk
Reply

Rose Friedman was once described as “equal parts velvet and steel.” At once her husband’s wife and colleague, Rose was never the great woman behind a great man. She noted in a 1999 interview that “I’ve always felt that I’m responsible for at least half of what he’s gotten.”  From co-authoring three of his most influential works to providing the impetus for such ambitious projects as their television series and nonprofit foundation, Rose Director Friedman can rightfully be called Milton’s partner.

An influential economist in her own right, Rose greatly influenced Milton’s economic thought. “It was an extremely close intellectual fellowship, and she was not someone who got credit for things she didn’t do,” Milton’s student Gary Becker observes. “They discussed ideas constantly.” Another longtime friend of the couple remarks that, for Milton, Rose’s opinion was “the ultimate test.” Friedman eagerly sought his wife’s point of view when developing his own, and openly admitted that she was the only person who had ever won an argument with him. This intellectual equality rendered their professional collaboration a very natural one. Still, she said, “I was smart enough to know that he was smarter than me.” So while Milton focused his efforts on technical economics, Rose set out to bring their theory of freedom to the public.

In the early 1980s, PBS approached the couple about turning their co-written international best-seller Free to Choose into a television series. After convincing Milton to take on the project with her, Rose assumed the role of associate producer and was heavily involved in organizing the series, which achieved global success. Friends and relations also credit her with providing the inspiration for the Friedman Foundation. But while she is universally recognized as an expert economist with intelligence and drive, Rose is also remembered for the grace with which she balanced her roles as colleague and wife.

“She was a great lady, in every sense of the word,” an acquaintance recalls. Outspoken yet polite, patient yet uncompromising, Rose stepped confidently — never aggressively — into her husband’s spotlight and quickly bowed out again when appropriate. She complemented Milton, earning the admiration of her peers and setting a tremendous example of feminine strength, courage and love.

These virtues helped to sustain the Friedmans through an arduous fight for freedom. When they entered academia, the field was virtually void of principled conservatives. Their work reintroduced classical liberalism as a valid and critically important body of thought with the power to revolutionize society as well as the academy. Milton and Rose changed the world together, leaving a legacy that will flourish for generations to come.

Our Greatest Protection

Posted on by Josiah Kollmeyer
Reply

            Americans have increasingly come to view government as a vital protector against economic hardship. U.S. politicians, especially from 1900 on, have touted various interventionist economic programs as essential for America’s prosperity and security. Free-market economist Milton Friedman, on the other hand, understood that the best protection for American workers and consumers springs not from government intervention, but from economic freedom. It is this freedom to choose that guards us from exploitation and opens innumerable doors of opportunity.

            Friedman describes in his book Free to Choose how economic freedom aids consumers. In a competitive market, businesses have strong incentives to produce goods that consumers need and demand. The freedom of new entrepreneurs to grab a share of the population’s demands ensures that the vast majority of consumer needs are met. Also, price spikes are mitigated by the competition: even if all existing stores agree to keep prices artificially high through collusion, new vendors can enter the marketplace and thwart their efforts. Consumers cannot be forced to buy particular products, and thus will voluntarily contribute to the expansion of high-quality vendors while abandoning companies that provide poor service. According to Friedman, it is free competition, not government regulation, that protects consumers from exploitation and shortages of essential goods. 

            In his works, Friedman also points out the benefit workers gain from economic freedom: the crucial ability to earn wages that reflect the value of their skills. In an open market, companies will compete strategically for the most productive workers, driving wages up and rewarding good work. The free market also allows workers to become entrepreneurs and manage their own time and resources. Free markets ultimately protect workers from poor conditions by providing them with the freedom to choose a job according to their own desires and abilities. By contrast, a legally enforced monopoly system hurts workers, as they can only seek work from an employer with little incentive to offer competitive wages or pleasant working environments. 

            Similarly, Friedman argued that the freedom to choose among schools can help protect American children against a poor education. The more options parents have regarding schooling, the more schools will be held accountable for the teaching they provide. The worst situation for any student is to have only one compulsory schooling option, as is true for many inner-city children. Without any alternative, they have nowhere to turn if their assigned school fails to provide a good service. Friedman and his wife Rose were tireless advocates for increased school choice, knowing that increased freedom for families could provide an escape route for children in poor schools.

            Dr. Friedman deeply understood the importance of freedom in our society. America’s key to prosperity and long-term economic security is the liberty that enables her citizens to apply their skills and talents without arbitrary government interference. Anytime a citizen is left with only one vendor to buy from, one employer to work for or one school to attend, that citizen becomes vulnerable. Our greatest protection against both corporate and government exploitation lies in our freedom to choose.

Inspired by Milton and Rose Friedman’s Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.

Friedman: the Influence of Ideas

Posted on by sjcammenga
Reply

On the bookshelf of an average American patriot, it would be more common to see a collection of Ronald Reagan biographies than books on the life of Milton Friedman. Ask a person on the street who they think holds the most power in America and you have a good chance of hearing “the president.” However, the president is a single man whose power is limited by checks, balances, and, depending on his character, his personal desire for re-election. One free man with an idea can prove influential and limitless without holding public office. Milton Friedman was that man.
Behind every great success lies a great inspiration. For the millions of conservatives who venerate Reagan, they are also (wittingly or unwittingly) admiring the impact Friedman made on the mentality of his times and on Reagan himself. That the political climate even allowed a man with Reagan’s platform to be elected was due in part to Friedman’s work, starting as early as the failed Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, which began calling for a return to laissez-faire economic principles when the position was extreme. This movement gained momentum, culminating in Reagan’s election.
In 1980, Reagan appointed Friedman to the select Economic Policy Coordinating Committee. As a team they applied Adam Smith’s concepts, and the economy became a freer and more prosperous place; regulations were limited, inflation was brought under control, taxes were cut, and government began to find its place – on the sidelines. Reagan’s policies are widely recognized as bringing about the second-longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the United States. The key to bringing this prosperity was the wisdom of those advisors who, like Friedman, truly understood economic policy. Later, Friedman was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.
Friedman didn’t only have an influence at home in America; his ideas brought significant changes around the world. Former prime minister of Estonia, Mart Laar, who is credited with bringing Estonia’s rapid economic development in the 1990s, said that the only book on economics he read before his election was Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.” Under Laar, Estonia became the first country to institute a flat tax, which was very successful. While speaking about Friedman’s “Free to Chose” TV series, Reagan mentioned that the principles Friedman expressed had also helped inspire the Polish drive for freedom.
Although politicians come and go and their ideas can change with the political winds, the protection and presentation of sound economic ideas remains a vital tenant of freedom. Politicians are only in power for a few terms at most, but influencing the electorate and swaying public opinion toward freedom is a full time job with no term limit. This position in the cause of freedom is taken today by think tanks like the Mackinac Center. They, like Friedman, publish articles, give lectures and research responsible policy changes, sharing their findings publicly.
As an intern at a think tank, I am inspired by Milton Friedman. Looking at his example, I know that as a responsible citizen, I can live an influential life of loving and sharing liberty without needing to be elected. My job is to provide, present and protect the principles which will bring about the next age of prosperity.

A Union Story

Posted on by sjcammenga
Reply

A long time ago in a town not so far away, a plant was built for a business called Dow. Though this plant has since been sold to SC Johnson, what happened there in earlier days should not be forgotten. When the plant was built, Dow’s union came with the building. As time wore on, the union began asking for things like higher wages, benefits and more skilled trades work. These bargaining sessions grew more and more strained. Eventually, the negotiations completely broke down and the union went on strike.
Unable to bargain with the union and determined to continue production, the plant contacted people who had sons looking for jobs, people within the company working on salaries and people from the company’s Midland plant to become strike breakers. This was harder than it sounds, as it was by no means a peaceful strike. According to one employee with a family member who crossed the picket line, the workers parked outside of the plant and took a bus in for their own protection. Police would do their best to hold back the protestors as they tried to take the top off the gas and cause an explosion to punish those crossing the line. During the height of strike activity, workers would often spend the week at the plant, and the company provided them with food and sleeping quarters for their safety.
Eventually, these measures were successful and something very rare happened; the union was defeated and removed from the business. When the company was able to continue running without the workers, the union went broke and could no longer pay for the protest. After the protests ended, the company allowed former union members to return as salary workers.

This was a great victory for the company and those who were willing to take the risk of crossing the picket line. Ironically, conditions became better after the union was gone. Realizing the value of good incentives, the company began to make their own improvements. Some were as small as bringing in food to improve worker morale. Others were larger, like later on when they installed air conditioning to make the hot and noisy working conditions more bearable. Many other changes followed these - no bargaining necessary.