Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: My answer here is no. Non-profits like FEE don’t get checks from the government. Government has simply agreed not to take anything FROM us in the first place. But of course, it does anyway. You should see the checks we send to the government for the taxes on our employees.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: <p>I think a moral code comes first, then an appreciation for how it applies in the realm of economic life follows. Once you understand, whether from a Christian perspective or an Objectivist perspective or whatever perspective, that it’s wrong to steal, then you can appreciate the creation of wealth and its free exchange. If you don’t understand or believe in honesty, you won’t appreciate the free market putting a premium on businesspeople who practice trust and honesty in their business dealings.</p>

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

Great to hear from you again! I remember that Lake Wales speech well. Webber University is a great place.

I use the phrase, “lust for learning,” to accentuate my point because even “love for learning” doesn’t quite do it. I think it greatly behooves and benefits a person to regard learning as an intense, life-long, never-ending endeavor that is key to accomplishment and fulfillment in life. We were each made with a set of skills and talents that will never be fully developed if we ever let up in our efforts to learn. We can never afford to become so pompously wrong as to assume we know it all, or even know a fraction of what we’re capable of—about ourselves, about others, and about this vast and beautiful universe before us. We should approach learning with a zeal and passion as if it were an exhilarating journey. I don’t think it’s possible to ever really regret having done so, and the benefits are endless.

As to how those various institutions you mentioned can develop it, let me say that I think this is something that really gets a huge, indispensable boost if it starts in the home at an early age and is always encouraged from thereon. If that doesn’t happen, it makes it harder and less likely for a person to develop this “lust for learning” later. Parents have to be always encouraging of their children’s interest in learning. Help make it exciting and rewarding for them. Let their healthy interests develop as opposed to trying to push them in too many directions they don’t want to go. Let them see how the benefits of learning have manifested themselves in the lives of others. Encourage them to read biographies of great and uplifting men and women. Use competitions and contests to get them involved more in reading. Think of all the incentives you can put in place to encourage them to learn more, read more, listen better, and put what they’ve learned to tangible use. I don’t think we want the government to assume responsibilities in this area (I really want to see the government LESS involved in education, not more), but that must start with parents, friends, relatives and voluntary local groups doing more to encourage and reward learning.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: The non-initiation of force is critical to liberty, absolutely. If everyone lived by it (it’s really the Golden Rule restated), the results would be a free and amazingly productive society. But I think to get there, elements of character of necessary first. For a person to abide by the non-initiation of force principle, he or she must first understand, respect and practice certain character virtues. For instance, he must put a premium on honesty because lying usually has a negative, invasive effect on others. He must be patient because when he relies on voluntarism, he might not get what he wants as quickly as if he just went out and stole it or hired a politician to steal it for him. He must be self-reliant and independent to the extent his physical and mental abilities permit, so as to avoid dependence on others through the force of government.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: Freedom is indeed a challenge. Any group of slobs, ne’er-do-wells, bandits or thieves can be socialists, and in fact, probably will be. Freedom requires us, one individual at a time, to rise to the challenge and be worthy of it. This side of Heaven, don’t expect any society to ever be utterly free of the bad character. But the more we teach ourselves about what good character is, why it’s important, and how we must abide by it, the freer and better off the vast majority of people will be. For me, the principles of Christianity are central to this, but I would hope that non-Christians would also see the value of strong character (and many do). I have no faith in Big Government’s ability to teach us character. It has a full-time job on its hands just keeping the peace, let alone everything else it tries to do and performs so poorly. We must of course punish wrong-doers but a society in which character is not widely sought after, taught and practiced is not a society that can ever be “fixed” by any act or program of government. Government at its best reflects the character of the citizens it represents; it never transcends it. At its worst, which is all too often, it’s general level of character isn’t even as high as that of its citizens. 

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

The elements of strong character must be expected of all individuals, no matter how and what they’ve organized themselves into (corporations, governments, churches, etc.). And we all have to make it plain by our personal examples, our votes, our purchases, our choices of places of work, etc., that this is important to us. We will endorse high character, we will shun and penalize poor character. If society’s general level of character suffers, as has been the case in America for decades now, it’s like a disease that affects all parts of the body, infecting all walks of life.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: What you have described sounds like bad character on display all the way around—stealing from some what doesn’t belong to you in the first place, and then giving it to others of rotten character. I don’t draw a line between individual honesty and acting in the public interest because I don’t think it’s in the public interest to be dishonest, unless perhaps you’re talking about some extraordinary circumstance in which, for example, you must lie to an enemy.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

I am familiar with Objectivism and in fact, there is much about Ayn Rand, its founder, that I appreciate, including her emphasis on reason. I don’t embrace her atheism but many of the values she stood for are totally compatible with a Christian view—limited government, private property, entrepreneurship, and many of the personal character virtues I write about such as honesty, courage, etc. I wrote a piece in the April 2010 Freeman called “Anti-Force is the Common Denominator” that I would refer everyone to here, available at www.thefreemanonline.org. I can write more about self-esteem perhaps after this session, and we will post more answers that I don’t have time to get to during this hour.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: We certainly don’t have to convince EVERYBODY of the importance of a free society in order to prevail, but it helps the more you’ve got on your side. So I would be careful to be the best, most inviting example you can be in your personal life and develop the most attractive, persuasive abilities to bring others along. There will be the incorrigible, however, and at some point you do have to smile and move on. Try to prioritize. If somebody is too tough a nut to crack, remember there are others who are more conducive and they deserve more of your attention.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: Though I personally am a Christian and believe that Christ’s teachings (not necessarily what some Christians have said or done in their name, to be sure) are the fount of character, I have many friends of other faiths and some of no faith. But in all cases, I think a reasonable person of good conscience can understand that the principles of strong character (non-initiation of force, self-reliance, courage, honesty, etc.) can and should be embraced by all people who want to be free and want others to be free as well. I don’t think in a free economy that a business can be successful in the long term if it isn’t trustworthy. We as consumers should make sure of it, in fact. If somebody short-changes or cheats you intentionally, willfully breaks their word, we ought to exact a price for that by our word of mouth, our refusal to purchase, etc. Often, that can be more immediate and powerful than waiting for some government agency to come to your rescue anyway.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: I don’t see any way out of the difficulties faced by some states like California without some form of bankruptcy. Bailing them out from the funds of other states is itself a moral affront. And of course, the greatest immorality in the whole picture was that of special interest groups and politicians putting their states in this situation in the first place.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

Way too many questions here from one person. I think I may have at least partially answered some of them in other answers.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

Small businessmen and women tend to be supportive of freedom and free enterprise, at least much more so than big business. This is especially true of those small businesspeople who are still managing the very businesses they themselves created. I would endorse any effort to reach out to them more. FEE enjoys the support of businesspeople large and small, but mostly it’s the smaller ones who have the greatest passion for liberty. They see firsthand everyday how hard it is to keep a business going in the face of so many onslaughts from government, and they are usually not as politically well-connected as some of their larger business counterparts.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

Thanks, by the way, for keeping questions brief. There are some that are so voluminous I can’t possibly get to them in this time-sensitive session.

Yes, I am a strong believer in the power of learning from example. The character of great men and women is inspiring to most people. If you e-mail me over the next few days, I can provide additional names of people who are worth our attention, and about whom wonderful biographies have been written.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

Yes, liberty is possible among people of character and is simply not possible among people without it. First you have character, then you can be free. I like to say that a system of “self-government” really must begin with self-government at the most personal level. If you do not govern yourself, you will be governed. There are always plenty of people who will be happy to take your liberties from you if you give them the chance.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

Ultimately, I want a society where people do the right and healthy things because they want to, they CHOOSE to, not because somebody has a gun at their heads. Government can punish activities that do violence to the rights, lives and property of people but ultimately that’s not the glue that keeps society together. What does keep it together is people assuming responsibility for their own lives and that of the children they raise. The free market gives people what they want, but that doesn’t mean they’re always going to want what you and I think they ought to. But you haven’t gained much if you use the force of government to simply prevent people from getting what they want. It usually just drives it underground and makes its provision less safe. Work from within the person,  that’s the kind of meaningful and lasting change you can count on.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: <p>Government universities do tend to be crusted with old and hard-to-change, even hard-to-explain thinking. After all, they get their subsidy usually without regard to what they are doing or how well or cost-effectively they do it, and their professors get a job for life whether they satisfy consumer tastes or not. But there’s plenty of this in all academic life, private as well. I can’t explain the motivation in your case, but I would guess it’s related to a relatively free and flexible job market moving in one direction and an overpaid, subsidized bureaucracy stuck in its ways and sitting on its hands.</p>

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: In the long run, if large numbers of people do NOT see what you described as theft, then I don’t think a free society CAN survive. This is one of our most important tasks we must assign ourselves as lovers of liberty—explaining this very point. One thing is for sure: Government will not educate us about such critical matters as liberty and character. It will not tell us in its classrooms that when it does more, the theft level in society rises. This is one reason among many why we must separate state and education. It’s also a case for private groups like FEE working to get this message out to people in a variety of ways.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

That’s a great one. I also think the 8^th and 10^th Commandments are pretty clear. Don’t steal and don’t covet. Keep your cotton-pickin’ fingers off what doesn’t belong to you, and hiring a politician to get it for you doesn’t make it one speck more right or moral. I also appreciate Luke 12:13-15, wherein a man asks Christ to redistribute the wealth on his behalf and Christ rebukes him for it, even saying, “Who made me a judge or divider over you?”

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote:

You’ve described an oxymoron. You cannot  impose morality on someone by using immoral means for the purpose of achieving what may be well-intentioned but nonetheless immoral ends. You don’t make people charitable at the point of a gun. You violate individual property rights and right of contract when you intervene in freely-arrived-at contracts and impose different terms, such as the “just wage.” You make the problems worse by doing such things, and you increasingly preclude the provision of private people working through their problems without interference, and learning from the process.

Question

Answer

wrote: You’ve described an oxymoron. You cannot impose morality on someone by using immoral means for the purpose of achieving what may be well-intentioned but nonetheless immoral ends. You don’t make people charitable at the point of a gun. You violate individual property rights and right of contract when you intervene in freely-arrived-at contracts and impose different terms, such as the “just wage.” You make the problems worse by doing such things, and you increasingly preclude the provision of private people working through their problems without interference, and learning from the process.

Question

Answer

Lawrence W. Reed wrote: In the long run, if large numbers of people do NOT see what you described as theft, then I don’t think a free society CAN survive. This is one of our most important tasks we must assign ourselves as lovers of liberty—explaining this very point. One thing is for sure: Government will not educate us about such critical matters as liberty and character. It will not tell us in its classrooms that when it does more, the theft level in society rises. This is one reason among many why we must separate state and education. It’s also a case for private groups like FEE working to get this message out to people in a variety of ways.