For Restoration…

Restoration of Values

Category Archives: Politics

The HHS Mandate on Contraceptives. A Critical History

Suits demanding exemptions from the HHS mandate on contraception and abortion covering in health insurance policies are to be decided by the Supreme Court. Most plaintiffs are Catholic organizations. Irrespective of the final outcome, it is appropriate to examine at this time how and why we have arrived in the situation of hanging on a Supreme Court decision.
On January 20, 2012, the HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, issued regulations on the implementation of the medical care and insurance law, colloquially named ObamaCare. The regulations cover “reproductive services,” meaning in fact anti-reproduction services. They require that all medical insurance plans offer contraceptive services, including abortion-inducing drugs. Exceptions were provided for church employees. Other religious institutions, such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes, were not exempted.
It was noted that ObamaCare leaves the Administration to decide what constitutes a religious organization and what conscience protection it deserves. The government also decides what is “health care,” what conditions are to be treated, who is entitled to medical care and to what extent, and how care is to be provided and paid for, with no considerations for “individual choices or ethical convictions.” The force of the government will impose the outcome from considerations of costs or ideology that will override religious conscience.[1]
The argument for the mandate was that everybody uses birth control agents. Insuring a general occurrence, however, makes no economic sense. It is cheaper for everybody to pay directly for the service than through the insurance; payment through government is the most expensive. The goal was then political
The mandate was bound to be controversial, so its timing was at first surprising. The promotion of abortion, contraception, and homosexual agenda were in his stated plan for government, but Mr. Obama is reputedly too astute a politician to start a controversy when the campaign for the next presidential election was heating up. After all, other evil aspects of the health care bill were hidden or scheduled to become effective in 2013 or later.
Information about the inside deliberations in preparation for the move, suggests that he expected a positive reaction. ABC News reported that a major role in reaching the decision was played by the Catholic members of the administration, Leon Panetta, Joe Biden and Bill Daley on one side, Kathleen Sebelius and David Plouffe on the other.[2] (Israeli blogs claim Plouffe is Jewish, but his biography notes he graduated from a diocesan Catholic high school.[3]) None of them argued the matter from religious or moral principles, but only for its potential to gain or lose votes. Panetta, Biden, and Daley thought that it might lose votes, but Plouffe and especially Sebelius argued that Catholics are very much in favor of birth control and free access to it.[4] This fitted Mr. Obama’s agenda and was also urged by his allies in Congress like Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and outside the government, like the Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.[2] (Another ally, Catholic Health Association president Sister Carol Keehan, welcomed the ObamaCare version without protection from abortion financing.[5])
The US Catholic bishops spoke forcefully against this measure. Acquiescing to such a diktat meant (perhaps this was its goal) denying the Catholics their identity, but the regulations attack all the citizens, by destroying the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion
The Administration replied along two lines: First, it stressed that individuals will not be obligated to use contraceptive services. Second, it claimed readiness to work with religious organizations, “to see if implementation of the policy can be done in a way that allays some of those concerns” (White House spokesman Jay Carney) [emphases added]
The first point confused the matter. It was not that individuals could choose to use or not use contraceptives and abortifacients but that Catholic institutions would have no choice but to pay for contraception and abortion. A religious institution has to operate faithfully according to its creed and persons that cannot abide by its rules should find work elsewhere. On the second point, the arrogance of White House’s response was striking. Essentially, they told the Catholic Bishops and all other critics: “We can talk with you if you insist, but rest assured it won’t make any difference.”
After negotiations involving Mr. Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Daley, and Archbishop Timothy Dolan (Head of US Conference of Catholic Bishops), the White House presented on Feb. 9 a modified plan: religious organizations still had to offer contraceptive coverage, but did not have to pay directly for it. The amended plan obviously disregarded the concerns expressed by the Archbishop.
The weakness of the bishops’ argument[6] was to claim exemption only for organizations. Not all Catholics work for religious organizations. Also, an agnostic opposing abortion and contraception should be protected, too. Christian charity compels us to demand that the conscience of all citizens be protected. We note that when a draft law was in effect, American citizens could claim “conscientious objector” status to avoid serving in combat.
Another weakness was that similar mandates have existed at state level, such as in New Hampshire and New York. Complying without protest were, for example, Catholic Charities and St. Anselm College (Benedictine) in NH, and Fordham University (Jesuit) in NY, although New York law allows waivers for faith-based entities. In New Hampshire, Diocese of Manchester and the Catholic Medical Center are self-insured and, therefore, exempt. The state mandates, however, were probably illegal under existing law, contravening the Religion Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.[7] On that basis, Catholic institutions that acquiesced to state mandates could have been brought out of them or ordered out by their bishops.
Even without the HHS regulations, ObamaCare was structured to circumvent conscience protections. Thus, the law does not prevent use of public money for abortions, because Rep. Bart Stupak (a Catholic, and the key vote for passing it[8]) accepted the President’s pledge to reaffirm by executive order the 1976 Hyde Amendment banning federal funding of abortions.[9] The Hyde Amendment, however, applies only to funds provided through annual appropriations bills. The Congressional Research Service found that no funds to be expended for ObamaCare plans will flow through HHS appropriations bills. Therefore, the Hyde amendment will not cover government expenditures for ObamaCare.[10] Mr.Stupak should have known that, but did not want to. Likewise the favorable reaction of the Catholic episcopate to the concept of nationalized health insurance underlying the law was ill-inspired. The danger of that approach to religious liberty is obvious. To protect the rights of all, the solution was not protection of organizations, but personalization of health insurance, so that each citizen can decide for himself whether to buy a specific coverage.
The contraception mandate and the lack of protection against abortion funding in ObamaCare have not been the only difficulties facing Catholics in the U.S. There has been a long push to transform the USA into a territory inhospitable for Christian faith. In matters of sexual morality, one should add the promotion of unnatural relationships, culminating with introduction of same-sex marriages. After a morally objectionable practice is accepted, it soon becomes politically incorrect to criticize it. In the end, one arrives at the situation in France, where a renowned physician was sent to jail for trying to pray in front of the Notre Dame church for abortion victims, or in Sweden, where a pastor can be jailed for stating from the pulpit that homosexual acts are sinful. Interestingly, some justices of the U.S. Supreme Court recommend that we trade our constitution for theirs!
In this context, the muted reaction from Catholics, particularly from the bishops, to the push for legalization of same-sex marriages has been disconcerting. Legalization occurred in Washington State[11] and in Maryland,[12] while we were all concerned with the contraception mandate. Yet, the two are facets of the same problem.
In any event, the bishops followed up on their denunciation of the mandate. Their messages were read in all churches and the faithful were urged to use the available political means to accomplish their rescindment. It became clear, however, after the failed negotiations involving Archbishop Dolan, that the only path to rescindment went through the elections of November 2012.
To analyze the result of the presidential elections, a comparison of votes cast by three groups of voters in 2008 and 2012 is most instructive (O = Obama, McC = McCain, R = Romney):[13]

Catholics: 2008, O 54%, McC 45%; 2012, O 50%, R 48%; O loss: 4
Jews: 2008, O 78%, McC 21%; 2012, O 69%, R 30%; O loss: 9
NR: 2008, O 75%, McC 23%; 2012, O 70%, R 26%; O loss: 5

The switch of Catholics from Obama in 2012 was half of that of Jewish voters and the same as that of those with no religious affiliation (NR). Whereas it might have been said (generously) that Catholics voted for Obama in 2008 because they didn’t know, the 2012 vote showed that they didn’t care. The comparison with the other groups suggests that even those who switched did not do so for moral reasons. The effect of bishops’ exhortation was nil. Likewise, the law adopted in December 2010,[14] repealing the so called “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy in the armed forces, did not seem to influence the Catholic vote in the congressional elections of 2012.
In an article of February 2012, a self-declared Catholic, Tim Padgett, wrote that according to polls the bishops no longer speak for most U.S. Catholics on issues like abortion, divorce, homosexuality, women priests and priests getting married, masturbation, premarital sex, and contraception. He stated that 98% of Catholic women ignore the ban on birth control, “in keeping with their faith’s precept of exercising personal conscience.”[15]. The implications of his statement are grim, but the 2012 elections seemed to bear him out.
As could have been expected, once reelected Mr. Obama wasted no time before starting the push to eliminate Christian morals from public life. Thus, his refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act was followed by an offensive through judicial channels using carefully selected judges, to force the same-sex “marriages” in state after state, against the will of state legislatures and of the citizens.
An enormous problem for maintaining Catholic principles and morals in the public place has been presented by the actions of members of the Catholic church with prominent positions in the society. A list (incomplete) of such persons is shown below. Notably, many of them are also products of Catholic education:
• Kathleen Sebelius: Summit Country Day School, Trinity Washington University (both Catholic); strongly pro abortion.
• Nancy Pelosi, US House Minority Leader, former Speaker: Institute of Notre Dame HS, Trinity College (both Catholic); strong supporter of every position incompatible with Catholic morals. After the first version of the HHS mandates was issued, she stated: “I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this.”
• Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor: St. Gerard’s School, Archbishop Molloy HS, Fordham University; attacked the other candidate for governor for being pro life. Promoted and signed the same-sex marriage bill. Recently, stated that people that strongly advocate pro life positions and the Catholic position on marriage are not welcome in his state.
• Martin O’Malley, MD Governor: Our Lady of Lourdes School, Gonzaga College HS, The Catholic University of America; supports federal funding on abortion, lobbied for a bill to legalize same-sex marriages, introduced it himself into the Legislature, and signed it when passed.
• Christine Gregoire, WA Governor: public school, Gonzaga U Law School (Jesuit); supports abortion and requiring pharmacies to sell morning-after pills, signed same-sex marriage law.
• John Lynch. NH Governor: public schools, Georgetown University Law Center; pro abortion, in favor of dispensing morning-after pills without prescription, signed same-sex marriage law.
• John Baldacci, ME Governor: public education; voted no on the partial birth abortion ban (while in Congress), signed same-sex marriage law (overturned by referendum).
• Barbara Mikulski, long term US Representative and Senator from MD: Institute of Notre Dame HS, Mount St. Agnes College; rated 100% by the pro abortion organization NARAL; has strongly promoted the homosexual agenda.
• Patty Murray, Senator from WA: public education, voted against partial birth abortion ban and parental notification, supports federal funding of abortion, was one of the three female Senators to support publicly the mandates when issued.
• Thomas Menino, five-term Mayor of Boston: Thomas Aqinal HS, attended Boston College (jesuit), but did not graduate; has supported abortion and taxpayer financing of it throughout his career. Going one step beyond his colleagues mentioned above, he abused verbally, threatening with retaliation against his business, an owner of a fast food chain “guilty” of expressing in an interview opinions on sexual purity and marriage identical to that taught and commanded by the Catholic Church
• The likely point of origin: Father Robert Drinan, S.J., MA congressman, advocated abortion before Roe v. Wade. After retiring from Congress, taught at Georgetown (1981- to his death in 2007).
Undoubtedly, as long as these politicians are not excised from the Church, the faithful in the pews will treat with indifference the exhortations of the bishops about morality of legislation.
It seems difficult to rationalize the bishops’ acceptance of “Catholics” like those listed. The explanation might be found in the adoption by the bishops (in America and elsewhere) of socialism as the method for helping the poor and achieving equality. According to this social model:
– The poor are not required to work for their living; they are not expected to strive to escape their condition. Poverty becomes permanent, hereditary. The poor are expected to demand to be provided with a living from the resources of the rich.
– The role of assigning people to the “poor” and “rich” categories belongs to the government. The latter provides for the upkeep of the poor, by confiscating a part of the resources of the rich. Expropriation is deemed theologically acceptable.[16](a)
– In practice, the government extends expropriation to the whole productive segment of the society. Additionally, the government refuses to be bound by moral restraints, invoking the separation of church and state.
– The right of the poor to sustenance is not limited to subsistence, but includes gratification, in which the government has included sexual satisfaction.
The virtue of providing for the poor through redistribution by the government seems to redeem every mortal sin and scandal. Being oneself wealthy and not giving to the poor more than the general expropriation does not detract from that virtue.
The Catholic institutions created to address social concerns also have fully embraced the philosophy and methods of the secular state.
The model contradicts the apostles,[17] and also Pope Pius XI,[16](b) therefore it must be more recent.
It was noted that the current situation shows a failure of catechesis in all three forms (from the pulpit, in the classroom and through example). The change in method cannot succeed, however, as long as the subject of catechesis contains basic contradictions. Moreover, these contradictions will continue to reduce the role of Catholic social institutions, until the care for the poor and education of children will be fully taken over by the government. Suits like those currently at the Supreme Court will then become moot.

[1] Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 7, 2012
[2] Jake Tapper, Feb. 9, 2012, Policy and Politics of Contraception Rule Fiercely Debated Within White House, ABC News, Feb. 9, 2012,

Click to access American_Catholicism%60s_Pact_With_The_Devil.pdf

[7] David B. Rifkin, Jr.& Edward Whelan, Birth-Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal, WSJ, Feb. 15, 2012
[12] timees
[16] John A. Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, New York, 1975, (a) pp. 386-388; (b) p. 387.
[17] (a) 2 Thessalonians, 3, 6-10; (b) 1 Corinthians, 9, 5;

Meaning and Implications for Catholics of Minimum Wage


A debate on minimum wage flares up periodically, as it does at this time. Much of the debate, however, is based on ignorance and misinformation. The compassionate argument reduces itself to the question: How could a family live on a minimum wage? The answer is, it does not. Thus, let’s consider a Mr. Smith with wife and two children, employed at $7.50/hr. If he works 50 weeks per year, he makes $15000 per year. Let’s say he earns $100 annually in interest (the paychecks are deposited in a bank).

Assuming the family pays for shelter (rent, heat, electricity, gas, water, telephone) a low $500 per month, it receives $405.35 of food stamps per month ($4864.20 per year).[1] If the shelter costs are higher, the aid is greater. In April, Mr. Smith files an income tax return and receives an earned income credit (EITC). payment of $5370,[2] bringing the family income to $25,334.20 per year. Additionally, the children receive free lunches at school, without any reduction of their food stamp benefits,[3] and they have free medical care in all states. Thus, half of the family’s income comes from charity, which should be the business of the church, rather than result from forcible confiscation and redistribution by the government.

The question arises: Why doesn’t Mrs. Smith work, say, four hours a day, when children are in school? Usually, because the added income would reduce the family’s benefits and it is not worthwhile to disturb herself for an effective pay of four dollars per hour or so. This is another negative moral effect of the scheme.

The poor family argument is in fact a red herring. Only a small fraction of minimum wage earners support a family. In addition, not all workers are forced into low paying jobs. For example, in my first years in the U.S. I found out that my experience did not matter much on the market: “Educated in Bucharest? Is that in Bulgaria, or where?” So, one day I went to a world-known professor at Princeton and offered my services as a postdoctoral investigator for a symbolic $1 per month. He had seen, however, some publications from my PhD research and hired me at 60% of the already low regular pay. As I was putting in 50 hours/week, my hourly pay was definitely below the minimum wage. Shortly thereafter, he hired my wife too, at 50%. One year later I was an instructor in the department and two years later both my wife and I had jobs with major companies.

In the same period, a physician, refugee from Romania, found work cutting grass in a cemetery at minimum wage, until he passed the examination to practice in NY.

Whereas those were personal examples, a minimum wage job is almost generally a first step for people with no experience, but with advancement in mind.

An elementary fact missed by partisans of dictating wages is that a salary is tied to the value produced by the employee through his work and that people are paid a low salary because that’s their output value. Nobody ever thought that farmers should sell their produce on the market at prices determined by the farmers’ family size. If the output value of low-paid workers surpassed their remuneration, they could refuse working for those wages and employers would have to accommodate them. In reality, if minimum-wage employees should quit, others would step in to take their jobs, knowing that their work can’t produce enough value for a higher salary. An increase in the minimum wage hides within the “salary” a part of the charity received and demeans the dignity of labor. It is in fact a hidden increase in public assistance payments and in the corporate tax. Having cooked the books on two lines, the government then makes uninformed people believe that it is all about protecting workers from “corporate greed.”

Negative consequences of political, rather than economical, control of salaries are many. Thus, there was a time when all office buildings had elevator attendants, mostly youngsters at their first job. Working, they learned to be on time, to be responsible, to know the layout of the building, to be neat, to be polite. Their cost to the employers was just a little cheaper than the operation, maintenance, and depreciation of an automated system. After a few years most went on to better jobs, sometimes in the same building. When the mandated minimum wage made the automated system cheaper, they were all on the streets. (It seems, though, that during the transition there was a bonanza for elevator manufacturers.)[4]

Some people argue that employers should have kept those workers at a loss. They blame “corporate greed.” for the bad consequences. “Corporate greed” is nonsense, just like “corporate gluttony” or “corporate lust,” or even “corporate charity.” Corporations can’t go to Heaven. They should make profits by legal means. In that way they help consumers, their employees (even those in the lowest positions are owners of company stock), and also retired workers whose pension funds are invested, etc. Companies that don’t make profits go bankrupt and all the jobs are lost.

Some minimum wage earners don’t even work for corporations. I witnessed how a minimum wage increase during the Clinton presidency robbed some students of the opportunity of doing (actually learning) research on small sums that professors had as remnants from research grants. Suddenly, the hourly paid student research helpers became unaffordable. It has been noted that the minimum wage increases also reduce the number of department-paid campus jobs.[5]

As shown by the examples given above, the main losers from minimum wage hikes are the least qualified and experienced workers, whom the move is claimed to help. Thus, youth unemployment, which was below 15% before the 2007 minimum wage hike, soared to 27% by October 2009, and is still very high.[6] The presence of a parent working steadily, however, helps educate a youngster for his first job. The societal unraveling of the family removes that mitigating factor. Counteracting that plague should be a first priority of the church. As explained by D. P. Moynihan (later a US senator for the Democratic Party), the government welfare programs have had a disastrous effect on black families.[7] Unsurprisingly, the unemployment for young blacks is higher than 35%.[8]

A salary hike does not always lead to the termination of all minimum wage earners. Also, the hike never affects only the minimum wage. For instance, if in the company the salary next to the lowest is $12/hr, those workers make 60% more than ‘Mr. Smith,’ a ratio determined by the relative value of their output. After Mr. Smith gets a raise from $7.50 to $10/hr, the pay ratio shrinks to 1.2, but the output value ratio is still 1.6, a situation unfair and unacceptable to the more productive workers, which demand, and receive, a raise as well. The move is repeated upwards the salary scale. As a matter of fact, labor unions routinely set the salaries in the collective bargaining at certain ratios to the legal minimum wage. Naturally, the unions are champions of raising the latter. In turn, politicians who depend upon union support, do their best to fulfil that request.

All these extra costs imposed on the companies are distributed in the company’s finances; a major part must go into higher prices for the products sold. The people with below average income suffer the most. In this race between prices and salaries, the only beneficiary is the government, which confiscates and redistributes, thus increasing its power. Another consequence is that more and more companies are pushed outside worldwide competition. Their production moves to China, Thailand, or some other place..

Most important, however, the replacement of Christian mercy for the poor under the auspices of the Church by the forced wealth transfer ordered by the secular government is destructive for the soul and marginalizes the Church in the society.


[2] www.







Dan Fãrcaºiu

Gun Control and Nuclear Disarmament

Whenever innocent people are murdered by some deranged individual, a certain category of people start clamoring for removal of firearms from sane and responsible owners.

The attitude manifested by the inciters to gun confiscation is not unique to the subject, but has been manifested, for example, in the campaign for (unilateral) nuclear disarmament which reached its peak about thirty years ago. The argument put forward, then as now, was that if only the good guys would renounce their arms, the bad guys, somehow, will give up theirs, too.

The difference in approach is that, at least so far, we haven’t seen mass demonstrations, sit-ins, etc. demanding a law to ban “assault weapons.” The anti-gun fight is for now limited to individual acts of the same groups, if not persons, active in the “struggle for peace” of yesteryear. We hear pronouncements of ill-informed TV pundits (who somehow happen to send their children to schools with armed guards), academics thoroughly insulated from real life, and such politicians as Michael Bloomberg and Charles Schumer. They keep insisting that gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens would reduce the occurrence of crimes.

Yet, the empirical evidence goes against their representation. Already in 1998, John Lott has published an ample and very documented study proving that possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a deterrent to crime. Also, local customs are important. Thus, gun-related homicide rate is 2.7 times higher in the Philippines than in the U.S., whereas gun ownership is 19 times higher in the U.S. than in the Philippines, where there are strict licensing laws and firearm possession is limited to a pistol and a rifle or shotgun (no assault weapons).[2]

Likewise, the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe during the Reagan administration, opposed most strenuously and with much property damage by the “champions of peace” played a major role in the elimination of the danger of nuclear war at that time and the demise of the Soviet Union in the bargain.

These arguments have no effect on Messrs. Bloomberg and Schumer; they are men of few ideas and those are all preconceived.

If the concept that “it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun” is so far fetched as these politicians claim, why did they approve of armed air marshals in commercial air flights? It is hard to imagine a stricter gun control for good guys than on the airplane.

To take Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Schumer seriously, they should:

– First provide a statistical survey (not doctored) of the ratio of crimes committed with legal (i.e., committed by the legal owners) versus illegal guns.

– If the ratio is less than one, they should keep quiet about confiscating legal guns until they finish collecting the illegal ones.

– They should start with a report on the success of retrieval of automatic weapons that the Obama administration has distributed among drug trafficking gangs in Mexico.

The attacks on (U.S.-held) nuclear weapons and on gun rights originate in uneasiness of socialists with free people. In the socialist model, the human beings are powerless atoms carried by the flow of historical determinism. Free men attempting to carve their own fate and countries of free men don’t fit the model. They are sincerely believed to be aberrations that impede the progress of the society and need to be eliminated.

The difference in substance between the efforts for nuclear disarmament and those for banning private ownership of guns in the U.S. is that the former addressed a government policy stand and the second a constitutional right of citizens. Therefore, the gun control forces have tried to redefine the meaning of the second amendment; recently, some calls to do away with the second amendment have been heard.

One significant limitation sought refers to the potency of allowable weapons. For example, the former Congressman Bob Michel stated that private gun owners should not have clips as large as he had in the Normandy invasion. In a bout of shouting in front of the state legislature, Gov. Cuomo of N.Y. said that one does not need an assault weapon to hunt deers. Equally clueless, the legislature passed a bill infringing upon the rights of citizens. The constitution has nothing in it about deers, but mentions the importance of a “well-regulated militia.” This phrase is used by some as an argument that militias, that is military formations of the states, have the right to own arms,  but the citizens do not. That interpretation is ignorant.

When the constitution was adopted, members of militias served when called, but did not undergo weapon training. They came to service with their personal weapons and were proficient in their use. The only training needed was for operating in large formations. (They acquired experience in operating in small formations by serving in posses.) The militia units were rather informally recruited and the officers were elected. Information is found in the memoirs of Davy Crockett, relating the Creek war of 1813.[3] It is thus clear that the second Amendment meant that the citizens should possess the same weapons as the army in combat.

It is interesting that the first large-scale involvement of American militias was fighting the lawful government of the time, that of King George III, who the citizens concluded had degenerated into a tyranny. Even after the American revolution, Thomas Jefferson stressed in his writings the right of citizens to take arms against their government if their liberty is threatened.

[1] John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns Less Crime, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998.

[2] Jeff Stacklin, Philippines shootings illustrate worldwide gun violence problem, Yahoo! News, 4 Jan. 2013;–190043649.html

[3] David Crockett, Davy Crockett: His Own Story, Applewood Books, Bedford, MA, 1993 (originally published in 1834), Ch. V.

Four Commentaries on Healthcare


In 2007, Mr. Elliot Spitzer initiated a reform of health care in New York state. Stating that one in seven New Yorkers has no health insurance; he promised to provide coverage for all. Read more of this post

Rape and Abortion

Two scientifically established facts will constitute the premise for this discussion:[1]

First, an embryo is never a part of the body of the mother.This fact is proven by in vitro fertilization combined with surrogate motherhood. In that situation, the biological mother never has the baby inside herself and the surrogate mother receives and carries a child with whom she has no genetic relationship, stipulated by contract to be someone else’s. Read more of this post

On The Redistributions of Wealth, or Why I Did not Sign the Petition for a State Grant

I received recently an appeal to sign a petition for a grant from the state for Speed Radar signs in our village. I declined, saying that a grant would be too costly for us. An explanation of my statement is in order. Read more of this post

Who built what?

Two schools of thought have attempted to explain the success of business endeavors. The first holds a free-market philosophy, maintaining that the entrepreneur’s talent and hard work determine his success in business. The alternative, collectivist theory, emphasizes Read more of this post