Tag Archives: ethics

More on Too Much Law

Posted on by
Reply

A quick note on how our government’s regulatory overreach is affecting even the EU’s banking system, courtesy of Spiegel On Line International.

It’s been noticed that American money is rapidly departing European banks, and one reason for this is fear for the safety of those banks and, from that, fear for our money in those banks.

There’s another reason for that concern, and the departure of American money, though.  American money is being kicked out of the European banks by those banks.  It seems that, due to stricter tax reporting requirements pushed through by the Obama administration and the Progressive Congress in 2010, EU banks are reluctant to accept or retain our business.  The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) was passed in 2010, and it takes effect January 2013.  FATCA requires all foreign banks to identify and report all US citizens who have accounts greater than $50,000, all in an effort to clamp down on tax evasion.  If the banks refuse to comply, they face a punitive 30 per cent withholding tax on all payments from the US.  Never mind that under German (and many other nations’) laws, it’s illegal to give up much of the information FATCA demands.

It gets better.  FATCA also hits foreign banks that have investments in the US or that are part of an expanded affiliated group that includes e participating foreign financial institutions doing business in the US—even if those banks have no US customers.

DWPBank, which handles securities transactions for 1,600 German banks—the primary type of account that would be affected given that minimum account size—estimates the total cost of compliance in Germany alone to be as much as €10 billion ($13 billion).  A senior manager with JPMorgan Asset Management in Germany also notes that all the benefits, an estimated $8 billion in increased tax revenue over 10 years, accruing from this cost go entirely to the US.

Already, HypoVereinsbank has decided to stop many of its services for American customers as of 1 January 2012, while Duetsche Bank cancelled its accounts of its type last summer.  Commerzbank (already in trouble from the debt crisis, and at risk of being nationalized by the German government) is “considering a similar move.”  The cancellations aren’t limited to German financial institutions: HSBC, of Great Britain, will no longer service such large American accounts, and Credit Suisse, of Switzerland, has made the same decision.  The latter’s move, though, also could be related to US pressure on the Swiss government to alter Swiss banking laws to allow Swiss banks to report on US account holders.

Of course there’s another result to all this, also.  Americans in Europe may have trouble finding banks who want our business.

Government and Innovation

Posted on by
Reply

Government’s role is to create an environment within which men can prosper in accordance with their own efforts and the degree of those efforts.  Thus, legitimate government sets laws that prevent one from cheating another and laws that require each to honor the contracts to which they agreed.  Legitimate governments do very little more than that.  Government does not have, for instance, a legitimate role in determining what those contracts must accomplish, or how they must be structured.  Nor does government have a legitimate role in inuring any of us from the failure of our efforts: it is, in fact, from those failures that our enterprises grow stronger for the next effort.  It is in the fermentation vats of competition, unconstrained by government, that innovation occurs.

Why, then, is what used to be a uniquely American skill of innovation moving apace overseas and no longer occurring here?  Here’s an example of this failure, and it illustrates an answer.  Despite our need to become energy independent, for a range of reasons I’ll not go into here, and despite our Progressives’ push to move away from coal, oil, and gas as the primary source of our energy, nuclear power innovation is moving to the People’s Republic of China, at the behest of American innovators.  In this illustration, I’ll leave aside the question of helping the PRC obtain technological superiority over us (which is troubling in itself).

The Washington Post reports that a startup called TerraPower has developed a nuclear power breakthrough that involves traveling wave reactor technology and this technology’s ability to use depleted uranium to power a nuclear plant for decades without need of refueling or waste removal.  However, instead of looking to deploy this technology in the US, TerraPower, heavily backed by Bill Gates of Microsoft fame, is talking to the PRC government about selling its technology there.  How does this work?

For one thing—for the driving thing—innovators still are human, and humans still can go anywhere they like.  And humans, being humans, are going to go where it’s easiest to follow their dream, easiest to satisfy their own drives and imperatives.  With business, and especially high-tech business, those places are where the conditions conducive to development and growth are most available.

The US’ rules for permitting and environmental studies, especially for nuclear power, and the US’ litigation environment that encourages lawsuits over any perceived slight, whether environmental, social, or something else all serve to drive the costs of bringing innovation from the laboratory into the market to astronomical heights.  Although, in TerraPower’s case, this might be irrelevant: “Current U.S. rules don’t even cover the type of technology TerraPower hopes to use.”

Additionally, the US’ visa rules are outright stupid.  We educate highly talented and motivated engineers and scientists, and then, because they’re aliens, we send them back to their home countries, even if they want to stay—the quotas are too low and for the few allowed, it takes too long for the converted visas to be issued.  Then, getting talented, motivated, already educated—and experienced—foreign engineers and scientists (back) into the US also is a Herculean task, made worse by not having allowed those freshly trained to stay: the quotas are set too low, and the few authorized visas are slow to be issued.  In either case, why should we have quotas at all?  We should welcome these people with open arms, as we did with the German scientists after WWII, who built our space program.

On the other hand, the PRC has programs like “Thousand Foreign Talents” to attract the world’s best and brightest into China.  And they have an active, empirically visible interest in tech and in having an environment conducive to development—and deployment.  While the US is shrinking its satellite and exploration programs and withdrawing from manned space efforts, while hoping for small change from companies like SpaceX (which NASA is in the process of stiffing due to budgetary problems), China is accelerating its programs, including intending to put a man on the moon by 2020—a feat we’ve been too timid to think about trying for 40 years.

As the WaPo concludes

The lesson is clear: The U.S. government needs to be just as aggressive as the Chinese in creating incentives for entrepreneurs and technology start-ups to grow and mature. At a time when the U.S. is downplaying efforts to attract and retain foreign entrepreneurs and flirting with legislation that could slow the pace of digital innovation, it is strangely China that is proving to be more proactive in creating the conditions for innovators to thrive. Bill Gates is one of America’s great entrepreneurial legends. Something feels wrong about seeing him launch a new chapter in his tech career in China and not the U.S.

Hmm….

Voter ID and What It Means to Be American

Posted on by
Reply

The right to vote is held by all Americans to be a precious right, central to our American democracy.  The 14th Amendment to our social compact’s blueprint, our Constitution, makes this clear:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States[.]

and [emphasis added]

…the right to vote at any election…male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States….

The 15th and 19th Amendments extend this, making clear that the right to vote is any American citizen’s right, regardless of race or gender.  Notice that: the right to vote is a citizen’s right, and this right is not to be abridged in any way.

To support this, and to reduce the ability for one party or another to perpetrate voter fraud and thereby harm the sanctity of the citizens’ voting, the several States are actively enacting laws, centered on requiring photo IDs, to ensure that a prospective voter is both who he claims to be and a citizen and so eligible to vote.

Some argue that this is onerous and discriminatory: the elderly, the young, blacks, and so on do not possess photo IDs—one example offered being that many of these do not drive and so do not have the photo ID of a driver’s license.  These also argue that it’s too hard to get a photo ID at the last moment, on the way to a polling booth on the day of an election.  This is nonsense.  It’s just too easy to get a photo ID, including one that has the form of a driver’s license: it’s an ID any state issues to non-drivers explicitly for the purpose of identification.  The argument that it takes too much time to get a photo ID is little more than an insult to those who wish to get one; it says these people are too stupid to understand that there is an upcoming election, and so it’s time now, rather than later, to get the ID.  Further, the argument is fatuous.  The time spent getting the ID is a one-time cost—the IDs are renewable with even less expenditure of time, usually doable through the mail on the State government’s initiative.  The voter generally needs to do nothing more to renew his ID than to answer his mail.

Others argue that IDs of any sort are unnecessary.  Non-citizen immigrants, legal or not, as members in good standing of their communities, should be allowed a voice in the direction of their communities: they should be allowed to vote in elections.  Thus, with anyone allowed to vote, there is no need of any proof of ID or of eligibility.  This is a powerful argument on its face, but the argument is just that superficial.  Non-citizens are not members of their communities; they’re visitors.  They may be highly welcomed, and they may be highly productive and economically contributory, but the fact remains that, as non-citizens, they can only be visitors.  This does not leave them voiceless in the communities, though.  They are free to express themselves to their neighbors, they are free to take part in discourse in the public square, they are free to engage in any and all of the debates about our future that might occur.  But they cannot vote on the outcomes of those debates: they are not citizens, and so they cannot be members of their communities.

And yet the present administration objects to protecting this quintessential American right.  Instead, it’s launching, through Eric Holder’s DoJ, a campaign to block State photo ID laws on the basis of their alleged discriminatory nature.  Aside from this naked attempt to intimidate the States into diluting, rather than protecting, citizens’ rights to vote, though, it’s purely hypocritical: Holder doesn’t even mean it himself.  As Power Line has noted,

…people lined up to enter the LBJ Library to hear AG Holder rail against voter ID laws.   As each person entered the library they were required to present their photo IDs in order to be allowed in to hear the speech.

Non-citizens are, by definition, not Americans.  They may be here—they’re very likely here—under entirely legitimate means and doing very good work in the communities in which they live, but they’re not American.  Voting in an American election is part of what it means to be an American.  It’s wrong to attempt to dilute this fundamental right, this basic aspect of citizenship, by watering down the effect of an American’s vote, through which an American expresses his desire concerning the direction of his community and of his country, by allowing noncitizens to vote, also.  Indeed, such a dilution would seem to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the citizen’s right.

Natural Rights, Our Social Compact, and “Rights”

Posted on by
Reply

The principles statement of our social compact acknowledges that all humans are endowed with certain inalienable, natural rights, and the entirety of our social compact seeks to apply those natural rights in a concrete way to the members of our compact, us American citizens.  Our Declaration of Independence says of this:

…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]

Our principles statement acknowledges further that, when an instituted government fails in its purpose, it is both our right and our duty to replace it with one that will do better, but that’s a subject of a different discussion.

On the matter of Happiness, John Adams was clear that this was—and is—more than simple personal pleasure and pecuniary wealth; although these are certainly part.  But Happiness includes far more, and far more important components, also:

All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

However, today (indeed, for the last 80 years, with rapidly increasing national cost, and failure) some want government to guarantee such things as jobs, retirements, and so on; they assert these to be “rights,” a continuation of Franklin Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights, which included such things as employment, housing, and social security.

In fact, such manufactured “rights” cannot be achieved by award from government, whether directly by fiat or indirectly by managing our economy; our government in the end is nothing more than our employee and so possessed of no more power than that.  Moreover, the thing which our government gives to one of us (vis., a retirement pension check, or an artificially cheap house), it must first take from another of us (not least in the form of tax money); it must take from one of its employers.

These “economic rights,” these “social rights,” of Roosevelt’s and today’s Progressive’s invention, though, are nothing more, and nothing less, than the inevitable output of our individual efforts when those efforts are carried out within the framework of our inalienable rights.  In the end, the obligation, freedoms, and power of American citizenship—our Happiness—under our social compact results not through the mechanism of Government as Giver of Rights, but through minimal government interference with our own efforts as we act politically and economically for our individual needs and wants.

Many, though, who were actually taught such governmental guarantees in our public schools and institutions of “higher” education, are discovering that these invented “rights,” in fact, are not automatically available, and so they think they are being denied in some way.  Their disappointment is all the more bitter because they’ve been promised that government—not they, themselves—is the proper guarantor of their prosperity and security and liberty.

In order for government to guarantee security, though, it must have complete control over individual behaviors and decisions, and so there can be no liberty.  And without liberty, there can be no prosperity, since no man then will be free to pursue his own need or his own Happiness; no man will be free to show the best that there is in him.  And without liberty, or without prosperity—much less without both—there can be no security.

This contradiction of government as the font of prosperity, liberty, and security, and that earlier described  confusion of the prior with the result, are both individually and together the source of the failure of invented guarantees.

Liberals and Tea Parties

Posted on by
Reply

“Liberals need a tea party, damn it,” wrote Jonah Goldberg in a recent National Review, and thus “have embraced the [Occupy] movement…with the understanding that they’ll worry about the details later, if at all.”

So why don’t Liberals, generally, or the Democratic Party, specifically, have anything other than the Occupiers and the public service unions that are, more and more, running the Occupy “movement?”

Because, unlike modern Conservatives, generally, or tea partiers, specifically (who, it turns out, are main stream America), Liberals don’t have any tenets that are foundational to individual liberty, to individual responsibility.  All they have is a fundamental belief in big government and an equally fundamental distrust of their fellow citizens’ judgment.

Tea partiers, modern conservatives, are whole-hearted supporters of such basic principles of liberty as freedom of speech, freedom of religion (the positive freedom actually to practice their own, not the negative freedom of no one else’s being visible), equal opportunity for all individuals, and most of all, these two things: freedom from government interference with these, and the primacy of individual responsibility.  In short, tea partiers hold out for the continued implementation of the Declaration of Independence’s acknowledgment

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Tea partiers, mainstream Americans, understand that they are far better suited to determine how their lives should be lived and how their resources should be allocated than any government can hope to be.

Liberals, on the other hand, are the quintessential big government believers.  It’s Liberals who insist on wealth redistribution programs—run entirely by government—as the only legitimate means of leveling wealth and income.  It’s Liberals who insist on these equal outcome goals of wealth redistribution, at the expense of equal opportunity for all Americans.  It’s Liberals who insist that government must be the means of first resort for those who need a hand up, and not the means of last resort.  It’s Liberals, also, who insist that government keep giving those hands up (which can come only at the expense of other Americans) to the point they stop being hands up and become permanent handouts.

All of this flows from that fundamental Liberal distrust of ordinary Americans, it comes from their foundational belief that some Americans are better suited to govern and to make decisions about individual lives than are common Americans.

What kind of grass roots movement might support that?