Sunday, June 5, marked 128 years since the birth of economist John Maynard Keynes. Like any good libertarian, I refused to acknowledge it. Then I stumbled across this quote attributed to him, “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”

It’s hard to overlook the poor grammar, and I am sure Keynes was not in fact promoting capitalism. Nonetheless, free-market proponents should recognize that Keynes deserves short-term credit, though not long-run praise, for a crafty distortion.

Adam Smith expounds on self-interest in his book “The Theory of Moral Sentiments.” He writes: “In spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose … be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they [the rich] divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society.”

Apparently, Keynes forgot to read Smith’s entire book. Smith pointedly distinguishes between wickedness and selfishness. A major theme of Smith’s book is that in order for a free-market society to work, morality is necessary. Wickedness is a lack of morality, which degrades a society, while selfishness is merely caring for ones’ own needs ahead of others. A society of wicked people is different from a society of self-interested individuals.

If Smith had a chance to wish Keynes a happy birthday, he could heartily congratulate him on being partly right since, as Keynes is thought to have said, “It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.”

Happy Birthday, John Maynard Keynes. While celebrating his life and dissenting with his erroneous claims concerning capitalism, we concede that his death did validate his undisputed claim, “In the long run we are all dead.”

There’s a bright spot of opportunity on the horizon, but how conservatives approach it will determine whether it turns out to be a supernova of social change or merely the mirage of what could have been. The 2012 presidential election draws steadily closer, cutting its way to the front of our minds through a frenzy of scandal, speculation and sensationalism. But while candidates and commentators scramble to keep up, Americans everywhere are still trying to break with  apathy.

The apathy epidemic is likely due to disillusionment with the current administration and ubiquitous bad news. It manifests itself in widespread, self-imposed ignorance of current events (“I never read the news — it’s too depressing”), politics (“I’m above politics,” or ” I just can’t stand those dirty politicians”), and individual responsibilities (“Doesn’t the mayor/pastor/neighbor take care of that? Leave it to him”). Responsibility to a society that exhausts, marginalizes or frustrates its members becomes a burden, and so citizens turn inwards to increasingly private, individualistic lifestyles. From here, the candidate that promises to shoulder this burden becomes increasingly attractive. And, lucky for him, you do not care to know what the negative consequences of his policies could be.

Conservatives, I am talking to you! Do not succumb to the temptation to give up that years-old debate with your left-leaning cousin, to sleep in on election day (especially local ones!), or to let your subscription to the Wall Street Journal expire. We need, as a friend blessedly reminded me, to view these distressing circumstances as motivation for action, rather than an excuse to go do other things. A presidential election provides us with the much-needed opportunity to refresh our dedication to our principles and to vault them to prominence as  the beautiful remedy for rampant radical egalitarianism’s destruction.

Let me encourage you the way my friend encouraged me. Our beliefs are convictions, but, more than that, they are truths. Whether inspired by Scripture, history, or econometric models, lovers of liberty champion freedom knowing that such freedom is the key to sustainable governance, and, moreover, that liberty is the only creed worthy of a human person. Humans have shown ourselves to be great, to be geniuses and heroes and true friends. We have shown ourselves to be capable of the responsibility which accompanies the liberty we surrender so easily today. Now, when the hallmarks of our humanity are dimmed by something that smacks very much of socialism, we cannot afford to turn down the path of least resistance.

You already know what to do: read the news, hold your representatives accountable, accept that government’s operations are enumerated and limited and behave (read: vote) accordingly. Go to church. Reflect on what it means to be a human person, a citizen, a member of a community. Be inspired. Get motivated. Help your neighbor. Help yourself, for that matter — do not give the government another excuse to step in. Then spread the good news! Cultures cannot change before people do, and people are more likely to change for someone they trust and respect. Unless you are completely satisfied with the state of the Union, there is nothing better you could be doing.

Talk to Me: Are you feeling apathetic? Why? What inspires you to snap out of it, and what will you change when you do?

How can we best confront the problem of human want and poverty?  Two competing schools of thought frequently clash in this arena, painting two opposite pictures of what can most benefit the poor.  The first school is dedicated to personal charity and philanthropy, while the second seeks governmental redistribution of wealth.  While both systems seek the benefit of the poor, they are based on radically different ideas of personal responsibility, and ultimately lead in opposite directions.

Private charity emphasizes personal responsibility and stewardship.  A poor man’s knowledge that another human being (perhaps even a personal friend) willingly sacrificed funds to help him serves as both an encouragement and a call to responsibility.  Looking another man in the eye knowing that he helped you voluntarily is the best antidote against any sense of entitlement.  It also reinforces to both parties the value of the human person, as the rich man counts the act of helping his neighbor as more valuable than the goods he might have purchased.  In essence, charity promotes community and respect.

By contrast, involuntary governmental programs (such as welfare) do not encourage responsibility from either party.  The givers in a welfare system (taxpayers) have little opportunity to meet or interact with the recipients of their money.  While charitable giving is voluntary by definition, taxpayers have no choice but to pay into the welfare system, which builds resentment in individuals who might otherwise have been happy to give money to their neighbors in obvious need.  For the recipients of welfare, the nameless, faceless governmental checks can quickly give rise to a sense of entitlement.  There is no philanthropist or neighbor to thank, no one to hold the recipient accountable and push him to use the money in a constructive way.  Also, government programs often absolve the well-to-do of any sense of duty toward the poor, as they trust in the government to do so.  However, you can care best for people whom you actually know, and who will actually respond to your gift.  Government does not “know” people, and as such can never care for them like a charitable giver can.

When prompted for a charitable contribution at Christmastime, Ebenezer Scrooge angrily replied “Are there no prisons?  Are there no workhouses?”  The miser brushed his duty towards his fellow men off on the government, which truthfully provided such conditions that many “would rather die” than enter a workhouse.  At the end of “A Christmas Carol,” it is Scrooge’s personal and voluntary charity which both raises the Cratchet family out of want and brings joy to Scrooge’s renewed heart.

The point of charitable giving to the poor is precisely that it is charitable, defined by a love and valuing of our neighbors.  Government welfare is inspired by neither of those things, but by a rejection of one’s own responsibility toward the poor.  The answer is not to throw more money at a wasteful system.  In truth, both the rich and the poor must embrace responsibility.

I have been a fan of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy for a long time, but it was not official until I decided to friend them on facebook! Facebook has millions of users and has changed the way people communicate, advertise and share their thoughts.

Facebook is the dominant social network in most countries, but what you may not know is that there are several exceptions. These are mainly autocratic states.  Though facebook is not officially blocked in any country, there are measures put in place in many stricter countries like Iran and China, who offer alternative social networks which are more censored. This caution is because facebook is more than just a place to write about what you had for dinner or see pictures of a friend’s new puppy. It is a place where you can link to breaking news, have discussions and freely state your opinion on issues. The traffic of friends reading and referencing their friends’ facebook pages can cause stories, good or bad, to spread quickly. Governments fear when they cannot control the story, and Facebook is a forum of freedom.

Though free countries have this valuable forum, only the slightest fraction of a percent of what goes on facebook is related to policy or politics. True, it was designed to connect with friends and not to discuss the value of free market ideas, but there are many opportunities it provides that we can all make an effort to take advantage of. Some have already been realized. The U.S. government has its own page where it posts things like videos of President Obama’s speeches. The state of Michigan has a page on which to share information as well. The Mackinac Center itself has a page where it posts new articles to raise awareness of what is happening in Michigan policy and share new ideas of how to improve the state. The market itself can find uses for facebook. Not only can businesses take out ads, they can create free pages to keep customers informed of specials and upcoming events.  As private citizens looking to promote freedom, posting links to important news, having debates, or writing thought provoking statuses can be a way of informing friends who may not think of such things themselves.

Though many of its uses are not fully realized, there are steps being taken as businesses and organizations learn how to use facebook to their advantage. We too should use this aspect of American freedom to spread the truth to our friends at home and around the world.  If you want to try liberty, maybe you should try facebook!

The idea should be simple. Yes, schools need reform. One solution that would both improve the budget and give incentive to improved teaching practices is merit pay. What is difficult about this solution is how to implement it, as determining merit is not simple.

The standard answer is to determine a teacher’s merit by their experience or degree level, but these have not been proven to increase student performance in every case. Basing merit upon only test data and academic student performance diminishes the importance and scope of the teaching profession. A more well-rounded option for judging would be adding feedback from the students and parents themselves through valid and reliable teacher evaluations.

If changing the base pay seems too much to give for such varied ways of determining merit, reform-oriented school boards may want to give teachers bonuses for their effectiveness instead as a smaller, but still valuable incentive. Though state spending on public schools is high and still rising, student achievement in Michigan is not. Perhaps one of the best options is giving the money back to the parents who originally earned it so that they can decide for themselves what teacher at what school has the merit to best educate their child.

Though most teachers are in the profession because they care about the growth of the students and are driven by the intrinsic reward of doing a good job, all people are also encouraged by financial rewards and recognition for a job well done. Rewarding the key people financially who can improve the state education system is a logical way to use the budget to encourage positive growth in schools.