Archive for the ‘free market’ Category

Markets are much more than multinational corporations, banking firms, and stock brokerages on Wall Street, though all of those things are the result of a market system.Sound economies, from the biggest multinational banks to a childs sidewalk lemonade stand, operate on the principles of private property and exchange. These concepts are the building blocks of free societies, and it is the system of countless small trades, taken as a whole, that we call “the market.”It is important to note that these trades are positive sum win-win situations: each party agrees to a trade because they value what theyre getting more than what theyre giving up.And when those trades are voluntary–when nothing is preventing people from making trades or forcing people to make trades–that results in a free market, which makes everyone healthier, wealthier, more peaceful, and more technologically advanced.Thats what libertarians mean when they defend the free market.

via What Libertarians Mean By The Free Market – YouTube.

Advertisements

This week, we explain what NOT to do when talking to people about liberty… with special guest, Libertarian Girl!

The Libertarienne Show is hosted by Cathy Reisenwitz and produced by Sean W. Malone of CitizenA Media, LLC

via How NOT to Talk to People About Liberty – YouTube.

Protectionism bought and paid for by the Minnesota Funeral Directors Association, I betcha.

Verlin Stoll is a 27-year-old entrepreneurial dynamo who owns Crescent Tide funeral home in Saint Paul, Minn. Verlin has built a successful business because he offers low-cost funerals while providing high-quality service. His business is also one of the only funeral homes that benefits low-income families who cannot afford the high prices of the big funeral-home companies.

Verlin wants to expand his business, hire new employees and continue to offer the lowest prices in the Twin Cities, but Minnesota refuses to let Verlin build a second funeral home unless he builds a $30,000 embalming room that he will never use.

Minnesota’s law is irrational. Embalming is never required just because someone passes away and the state does not even require funeral homes to do their own embalming. In fact, it is perfectly legal to outsource embalming to a third-party embalmer. Minnesota’s largest funeral chain has 17 locations with 17 embalming rooms, but actually uses only one of those rooms.

Why is Minnesota forcing Verlin to waste $30,000 on a useless embalming room as a condition of expanding his thriving business?

So that the big, full-amenity funeral-home businesses can benefit from a law that drives up prices for consumers and operating expenses for competitors such as Verlin. Verlin’s basic services fee is only $250, which is about 90 percent lower than the $2,500 that the average Twin Cities’ funeral home charges. Verlin’s business model is built on minimizing fixed costs, which is why he does not have a hearse or chapel, and this law—to the advantage of his competitors—stands in the way of him expanding his low-cost, high-quality approach.

The government should not force Minnesotans to do useless things. That is why on January 19, 2012, Verlin and the Institute for Justice challenged the law in state court.

The Minnesota Constitution protects every Minnesotan’s economic liberty, which means that it protects entrepreneurs from being burdened by legal requirements that are either useless or designed to suppress honest competition.

A victory here will not only free Verlin from an unconstitutional restraint on his economic liberty, but protect entrepreneurs across the state from pointless laws and bureaucracy.

Ronnie Bryant was vastly outnumbered.

Leaning against a wall during a recent Birmingham, Alabama, public hearing, Bryant listened to an overflow crowd pepper federal officials with concerns about businesses polluting the drinking water and causing cases of cancer.

After two hours, Bryant—a coal mine owner from Jasper—had heard enough and, in a moment being described as “right out of Atlas Shrugged,” took his turn at the microphone:

Nearly every day without fail…men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just…you know…what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use?

I see these guys—I see them with tears in their eyes—looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So…basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting.

Thank you.

Meanwhile, as the EPA continues its war on Texas, it is spending tax dollars running TV ads that actually use the tagline, “Protect the EPA”. Since when is it the American Way to “protect” the bully?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The story:

U.S. New-Home Sales Unexpectedly Fall to Lowest on Record

The question;

Are economic reporters so mentally challenged that they wake up to a new world every morning? Or is there a new JournoList stylebook? Or simply lame rat-bastard leftist propaganda?


Last month’s Nanny tackled the scourge of distracted walking, and this month’s runners-up have their sights set on banning big-leaguers from dipping and toddlers from talking.

But top dishonors go to the nanny from Nevada who’s picking a fight with prostitutes. Does he not like being compared to those honestly plying their trade? Maybe it’s a ploy to get them unionized with the SEIU in order for him to get his cut.

Presenting Reason.tv’s Nanny of the Month for February 2011: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)!

*Update: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire law “must be declared void.” Judge Vinson cites this Reason.tv video on page 47 of his decision.

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate commerce . . . among the several States,” and for more than 100 years federal lawmakers invoked it for a very narrow purpose—to prevent states from imposing trade barriers on each other. But today members of Congress act as if it gives them the authority to do just about anything—including forcing you to eat your vegetables.

During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat. And what about ObamaCare’s “individual mandate,” which forces Americans to purchase health insurance? ObamaCare opponents are lining up to challenge its constitutionality, but supporters say it’s justified—you guessed it—under the Commerce Clause.

How did a clause intended as a restriction on states wind up giving Congress a green light to regulate noncommercial, local, and purely private behavior? How will ObamaCare stand up against the legal challenges brought by the states? Legal titans John Eastman (Chapman University Law Professor) and Erwin Chemerinsky (Founding Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law) slug it out to to determine whether or not Congress has been abusing the commerce clause.