The Garden

The “Big Three” U.S. auto companies—GM, Ford and Chrysler—are reporting that they are in financial trouble and whining for a “bailout” package from none other than the U.S. Taxpayer.  How surprising.

Apparently these and other auto manufacturers lost money recently due to the economic turmoil we are, by now, all too familiar with.  According to a November 15 CBS News article, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President-elect Barack Obama are on board to support a version of the bailout proposal.  According to Pelosi, the bailout is meant to fund advanced vehicles, alter fuel-efficiency standards, and “restructure” the U.S. auto industry “to ensure their long-term economic viability.”  Pelosi did not mention how much this bailout might be, but the auto companies have asked for two loans of $25 billion each (note that Congress already approved a $25 billion loan to automakers earlier this year, but the automakers are not expected to receive the funds until sometime next year).  Pelosi has said that the proposed funding should come from the $700 billion bailout bill passed earlier in October, but this is yet to be determined.

Now, I think the whole idea of government “bailouts” is absurd, so I naturally oppose this bailout proposal.  First of all, private businesses are called “private” for a reason—they are wholly accountable for both the benefits of their successes and the consequences of their failures.  This feature should not change as a function of the size of the business.  E.g., businesses employing thousands of people should not be spared the consequences of their foolish business decisions simply because thousands of people will be affected by the deleterious effects of those decisions.  Anyone who starts, invests, or works for a private business ought to understand that there are risks in a free market economy and that they best ensure that their business decisions are prudent.  Failure to make good decisions can lead to hardship, but that cannot be avoided.  Regarding the auto industry, will autoworkers be harmed by the bankruptcy of their company?  Sure.  Does it make a difference how many autoworkers lose their jobs because of the bankruptcy?  No.  Is the free market business model harsh?  Absolutely, but so is the natural world.  In short, it is a gross mistake to think that the bad consequences of bad business sense can be artificially avoided.

Further, there should not be any “free passes” for unforeseen hardships, such as the recent economic crisis (if it even was “unforeseen”).  While it is unfortunate that businesses can be affected by factors outside their control, this risk is nevertheless the “nature of the game,” as it were.  Big businesses are not the only businesses affected by external circumstances, especially major economic crises.  Therefore, it is inimical to a fair, free market economy to provide assistance to one industry without providing the same assistance to others.  On this point, I firmly object to all private bailouts—banking, auto or otherwise.  Note the absurdity here: normally, when we talk about welfare we talk about disadvantaged people or organizations receiving benefits; in these recent cases, we’re talking about welfare for the biggest fish in the pond.  Not only do the have-nots need to be rescued, but now the have-everythings need rescuing, presumably because they are “too big to let fail.”  I don’t buy it.

Next, I have to mention the shameless audacity with which our government “leaders” peddle their “plans.”  Pelosi tries to suggest that Congress has the capacity to “ensure long-term economic viability” with their “immediate, targeted assistance” plan.  On what grounds should I believe that our government officials, in any way, shape or form, have the ability to act on this sort of matter with such precision as to ensure this “long term economic viability”?  Contrary to what Congress might think, “omnipotence” is not on their resume, nor part of their job description.  Further, if there really is such an ace-in-the-hole plan out there that could make this whole mess go away, why was it not found sooner?  Why is it that by the time I hear about these crises, it is always at the “imminent and immediate disaster” stage?  Where is the foresight to avoid these disasters before they are imminent?  It seems “omniscience” should be scratched from Congress’ resume as well.  From my point of view, having learned about the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf in elementary school, I’m not falling for this.  Neither should you.  Invest your faith in the natural forces of the free market economy instead, and let businesses rise and fall of their own accord.

Finally, where do these Congressmen get off spending the taxpayer’s dollars so recklessly?  My tax dollars are not meant to reward major businesses for screwing up.  Period.  The suggestion that I should pay for the mistakes of these businesses should never even be on the table in the first place, let alone passed by our purported “representatives”.  And the fact that it is the auto industry really turns the knife for me (not that I like the banking industry either).  I have been criticizing SUVs and other gas-guzzling monstrosities out there on the road since they became popular.  In my mind, it was obvious that marketing fuel-inefficient vehicles would make for poor long-term business success—especially given the erratic and unpredictable oil market.  However, this is precisely what these companies did—especially GM with its foolish Hummer line.  Therefore, it is only natural that these businesses collapse for promoting ridiculous vehicles that no consumer in their right mind would buy.  The fact that people did buy some of these things does not say much for American consumers, but they too have been suffering by the marked decrease in the value of their SUVs, and the marked increase in the cost of operating such machines.  Both manufacturer and consumer alike can reap the consequences of their decisions as far as I’m concerned, so long as they don’t drag me into the mess they’ve created by taking money out of my paycheck to ease their pain.

It is also interesting to note that GM had developed a fully functioning electric car back in 1996.  The electric car was known as the EV1 model and it was discussed at length in the film “Who Killed the Electric Car?” (see www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar for more info).  In short, despite the existence of the technology, GM and other auto manufacturers scrapped their electric car research and development and even shredded the existing models of their cars so no one could own one.  Now, I cannot say whether an electric car would have been successful in the market place, but it sure seems like it would have been a promising avenue to pursue given the increasingly volatile oil market.  However, GM opted out of this route for whatever reason and now they should own up to the consequences of their foolish gas-guzzling Hummer business plan.  Notice also how ironic it is that Pelosi talks about this bailout as an investment in advanced vehicles and new fuel-efficiency standards, yet at least one of the potential recipients of this funding destroyed one of their advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles only a few years ago.  Who’s the victim here?

Kenosha residents who truly believe in freedom of choice had a shining moment last week Tuesday when a bare majority of voters opposed an unfair and intrusive smoking ban referendum.  The referendum was held as an advisory, non-binding survey of City of Kenosha residents and is supposed to influence the direction of the Kenosha City Council—a council comprised of 17 Alderman from each of Kenosha’s 17 Districts—who are supposed to vote on the proposed ordinance on Nov. 24.

The ordinance, titled “Smoking Prohibited,” seeks to make it unlawful for individuals to smoke tobacco products in virtually all public places, including workplaces.  The motivation for the ordinance is, of course, health related.

Proponents of the smoking ban have argued that because second hand smoke is dangerous it should be removed from all places an average citizen, smoking or non, is able to go.  This would even include clubs and taverns.  Similar bans have passed throughout other select cities and states in the country, including the city of Madison, WI back in 2005.

Now, I am not a smoker and I do not particularly enjoy inhaling second-hand smoke, but these facts have absolutely nothing to do with whether others should have the option to inhale as much hazardous, cancerous smoke as they wish inside a privately owned building.  Last I checked my lungs are in no way affected by the amount of carbon monoxide ingested by the thousands of smokers packing themselves into small, poorly ventilated watering holes night after night in this town.  And, in all my years in this city, I have never been forced into an establishment where inhaling second hand smoke was an inevitable and inescapable certainty.  Amazingly, through my own volition, I have been able to navigate my way in and out of restaurants, bars and bowling alleys with the threat of second-hand smoke looming large without once feeling trapped by the tobacco exhaust of those smoking nuisances in the area.  If I didn’t want to be around second-hand smoke, I, being the genius that I am, simply declined to go into those places!  That way, I breathed the cleanest air nature had to offer, and the smokers breathed as much polluted air as their little lungs could bear (or not bear, as the case might be).  This has always been a wonderful exhibition of freedom of choice and a demonstration of how individuals of different lifestyles could coexist harmoniously in a shared environment.

Apparently, others don’t see it this way.

The developing nation-wide trend of banning smoking in private establishments is an unsettling step towards the increase of the size and scope of governmental intervention within the private sector, and it is at the expense of individual choice.  The founding ideals of this purportedly “free nation” of ours is that individuals can live their lives however they see fit so long as they do not forcibly do harm to others.  This ideal respects the right of all individuals to determine their own lifestyle, no matter how unpleasant or unsavory their chosen lifestyle might be.  A noteworthy example of this is the right to freedom of expression—everyone (ideally) has the right to express his or her opinion no matter how vile or distasteful that opinion might be…but no one has to listen.  In a similar vein, private business owners ought to have the right to run a business in whatever way they choose, so long as they do not force others to go along with it.  As a potential customer, I have the option not to visit a smoke-filled bar; and as an employee, I can choose not to work in a smoky environment.  What’s more is that I can even tell a local business owner that I will refrain from awarding that establishment my business unless the establishment accommodates my needs.  Since the business owner ought to have the freedom to choose how he conducts his business, he can very easily voluntarily ban smoking from his establishment.  The business owner, through the free exchange of ideas, can choose to supply what I demand.  No government required.  In my mind, this is exactly how the free market is supposed to operate.

Fortunately, the citizens of Kenosha have chosen to preserve the ideal of free choice, and have advised our City Council to reject this unnecessary augmentation of governmental dominion. However, there is still the possibility of a statewide smoking ban down the line that could supercede the will of the people of this city, and supplant the individual’s right to live their chosen lifestyle.  I encourage all to seriously consider the implications of such a sweeping legislative act, and to resist the temptation to force others to conform to your preferred way of life.  It doesn’t matter how noble you might think it is to take someone else’s health into your own hands, you nevertheless have no right to tell another person what he or she is allowed to do with his or her own body in a free country.