In Other News, Anti-Semitism Continues to Rear Its Ugly Head

Recent events in France have brought the seemingly somnolent monster of anti-Semitism to the forefront of national consciousness. On Friday two Muslim terrorists killed 4 Jewish hostages at a kosher supermarket in Paris, in addition to massacring 12 people at the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. In a Wall Street Journal article covering news of the attack, a Parisian resident Hervé Laurent stated somberly: "Clearly something is broken in France."("Deadly Raid Ends Terror Spree in France," Meichtry, Gauthier-Villars, & Bisserbe, 2015). In response to the murders of Yoav Hattab, Philippe Braham, Yohan Cohen and Francois-Michel Saada, France ramped up its security on Jewish schools and synagogues in the vicinity, deploying up to 10,000 soldiers around the country to protect Jewish children.

So. The Holocaust is over, the Jewish blood libel has been ridiculed and summarily dismissed, the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition lie 500 years in the past. And yet the hate and prejudice that perpetrated these tragic events is still alive and well today. A few months ago the former chief rabbi of England, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, wrote an essay in the Wall Street Journal discussing this phenomenon, stating that, however much the media and other nations may attempt to mask the ugliness of its features, anti-Semitism continues to be prevalent and that, "Never again has become ever again." He cites recent examples from all across Europe: "In France, worshipers in a synagogue were surrounded by a howling mob claiming to protest Israeli policy. In Brussels, four people were murdered in the Jewish museum, and a synagogue was firebombed. In London, a major supermarket said that it felt forced to remove kosher food from its shelves for fear that it would incite a riot. A London theater refused to stage a Jewish film festival because the event had received a small grant from the Israeli embassy."("Europe's Alarming New Anti-Semitism," Sacks, 2014).

What is this monster, and how can Jews and non-Jews stop its evil and hate from infecting the world?

             
           

The Encyclopedia Judaica describes anti-Semitism as“a term coined in 1879, from the Greek “anti” [against], and “Semite” by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr… “Anti-Semitism”soon came into general use as a term denoting all forms of hostility manifested toward the Jews” (Heinemann, Gutmann, Poliakov, Weissman, Toury, & Hertzberg, 2007, p. 206-246).

However, to define the term “anti-Semitism”, examples serve better than any dictionary definition, and they exist in abundance. A few years after my family moved to the small Dutch farming town where we currently live, several of my little brothers were playing outside, and some boys their age rode by, yelled “Heil Hitler”, gave them the Nazi salute, and told them to go back to the ovens of Aushwitz. When my parents visited Israel they were walking in an Arab neighborhood and several small Arab children came out of their house and began pelting my parents with small stones: simply because they were Jews. These are examples of anti-Semitism on a very small scale, perpetrated by children bearing weapons no larger than tiny rocks and hurtful words... yet this attitude had to have come from somewhere. This is where anti-Semitism starts – in the minds and souls of young children, who grow up thinking that hatred for another race is not only normal, but is right and just.

The history of this monster is a long and tragic one. But nowhere in the pages of history can we find such a horrendous and tragic example of anti-Semitism on a mass scale aside from the Holocaust. A brief look at the statistics of the Holocaust should somewhat suffice to convey its utter horror: in 1933, about nine million Jews lived in Europe. By 1945, an estimated 5,830,000 Jews were completely wiped out. In a little over ten years after Hitler’s rise to power, two out of every three European Jews had been killed. An estimated 1.2 million Jewish children were murdered, mostly in the six extermination camps established in Poland where mass murder by gas was conducted systematically. Millions also died in these ghettos and camps from forced labor, starvation, disease, brutality, and execution (Leckie, 1987, p. 903-920).

During the Holocaust, one of the darkest times in Jewish history, the true colors of non-Jews all over the world were revealed when neighbors turned on neighbors, and friends upon friends. Historian Martin Gilbert recounts such an incident in the Ukraine his book The Righteous: A Jew managed to escape from the ghetto of Dabrowica in Poland, and sought refuge from a Ukrainian peasant whom he had thought his friend. But his “friend” responded, “You come to me asking me to help and save you?…Hitler has conquered almost the whole world and he is going to slaughter all the Jews because they crucified our Jesus…Get out of my sight, for the devil remains the devil, and the Yid remains a Yid” (Gilbert, 2002, p. 9).
        

Yaffa Eliach in his "Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust" tells the horrifically ironic story of Holocaust victim Zvi Michalowsky who survived a mass shooting near a church and climbed naked and covered in blood out of the pit after the Nazis had gone. He made his way to a Christian home and knocked on the door. When the widow saw him shivering on her doorstep she chased him away telling him, "Jew, go back to the grave!" But then Zvi had an idea. "I am your Lord, Jesus Christ," he told her, "Look at me - the blood, the pain, the suffering of the innocent - let me in." The woman's demeanor changed dramatically and she fell at his feet crossing herself - "My God, my God!" she cried, and welcomed him into her home (Eliach, 2011, p. 54-55). Yes, the Jews crucified Jesus, and for that, they were persecuted, tortured, and killed by the millions during the Holocaust. Yet in the name of avenging Jesus' death many Christians somehow forgot that their Savior Himself was also, in fact, a Jew.

          Anti-Semitism has existed as a social evil for centuries, it still exists today in the modern world, and Jews and Gentiles alike need to stand behind Israel and the Jewish community to prevent anti-Semitism using their words, their deeds, and their overall attitude of support.  It is prevalent everywhere, even in the free, democratic, culturally diverse country of America, as my brothers’ personal experience above demonstrates. The authors of Encyclopedia Judaica point out that anti-Semitic rhetoric and behavior has been more pronounced in some periods of American history than others, such as during the Civil War, when General Grant expelled all Jews from military territories in December of 1862. (Heinemann, Gutmann, Poliakov, Weissman, Toury, & Hertzberg, 2007, p. 206-246).  A significant increase in reported acts of anti-Semitism in America has been recorded during the last few years, as Jeffrey Ross explains in his Jerusalem Post article, Campus Anti-Semitism Grows In the U.S.; “In 1984, the "Annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents" of B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League showed incidents on six campuses. This figure doubled to 12 in 1985 and increased to 19 in 1986. In 1988, the number jumped to 38, the highest ever recorded by the ADL” (Ross, October, 1989, Jerusalem Post). Ross reports that a Holocaust memorial adjacent to the Yale campus was desecrated on the 50^th anniversary of Kristallnacht, and swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans were spray painted on the walls of New York State University. The next morning a philosophy professor told his class that the Jews had brought these incidents upon themselves (Ross, October, 1989, Jerusalem Post).

“Here? In America?” you might ask in disbelief. The answer is yes, anti-Semitism still exists in America – and not only do these incidences point to its existence, they demonstrate the fearful truth that an anti-Semitic attitude is growing in the United States.

Today anti-Semitism’s most powerful and frightening voice is not Germany, but Islam. Islam’s very ideology is based in hatred of the Jews and the belief that the entire Jewish race should be wiped off the map. “The Jews are said to have always abused the generosity and hospitality of the Moslems by stirring up unrest against them - from the Jews of Medina who betrayed the Prophet Mohammed to the Jews in today's Arab and Moslem world” (Israeli, 1990, The Jerusalem Post). Leaders of the Arab world such as Khomeini and Iran’s president Ahmadinejad are very vocal in their hatred of the Jews. If we wish to avoid yet another Holocaust, we must take measures to stop Muslim aggression on the Israel.

How can one individual hope to combat such a prevalent social evil, such widespread hatred of a people, such racism and violence? More can be done than one would think. One man's stand for the Jews, one solitary voice of support for Israel, one person speaking up against any expression of anti-Semitism, is a powerful, unquenchable light in a dark world. Think how differently the Holocaust might have turned out if all the non-Jews had banded together and stood against anti-Semitism in the 30s and 40s. An entire generation of European Jewry might not have been lost. A great many Jews were saved because of the bravery of righteous men and women. Over 19,000 non-Jews have been recognized as Righteous “Among the Nations” By Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem (Gilbert, The Righteous, dust cover).

In the preface to his work The Righteous, where he recounts the stories of the noble Europeans who helped save the Jews during the Holocaust, Martin Gilbert describes this scene: “On 28 October 1974, while walking on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, I saw… a procession on its way to one of the city’s Christian cemeteries.” Surprised that most of the procession seemed to be Jewish, Gilbert asked one of them whose funeral it was, and was told that it was that of a German Christian, Oskar Schindler, who had helped save the lives of more than 1,500 Jews during the Holocaust (Gilbert, The Righteous, p. ix).

The solution to the problem of anti-Semitism is not to passively stand on the sidelines and allow Jews to be attacked. To prevent anti-Semitism, you must support Israel, support your Jewish friends and neighbors, support the entire Jewish community. Stand up against anti-Semitic slurs and jokes even when the situation may be awkward or uncomfortable.  Support Jews with your words, your attitude, and most of all through a united stance against all forms of anti-Semitism. Support them to turn the tide of hatred that they have endured for so many thousands of years as a nation. Support them because God has called us to show love towards every race and people and to stand against racial hatred and prejudice. The massacre of the 4 Jewish men in Paris on Friday is the brutal culmination of more subtle forms of anti-Semitism: indifference, apathy, and silent betrayal.

This is not an ancient or outdated social problem – this monster is not asleep or dead or forgotten in the past - its ugliness is alive and well in today’s modern world, as evidenced by America’s apathetic and even hostile attitude towards Israel and Islam’s violent and unwarranted acts of hatred towards the Jews. We must never let another Holocaust happen again in a civilized country, as it did in Germany of 1939. We must stand with the Jewish people and declare, as did the citizens of Billings, Montana in 1939 when the Klu Klux Clan was waging their anti-Semitic hate campaign: “Not in our town” (Ross, Dec. 4^th, 1995, Columbian).

References:

Eliach, Yaffa. Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust. 2011. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group

Gilbert, Martin. The Righteous. 2002. Doubleday Publishers: Great Britain

Heinemann, J.; Cutmann, J.; Poliakov, L.; Weissman P.; Toury, J.; and Hertzberg, A. et al. Antisemitism, Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. By Berenbaum, M. and Skolnik, F. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. P. 206-246.

Israeli, R. 1990, Aug 09. Antisemitism and Israeli Islam. Jerusalem Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/320997884?accountid=12085

Leckie, R. Delivered From Evil: The Saga of World War II. 1987. Harper and Row Publishers, New York, N.Y.

Ross, J. 1991, Jun 25. U.S. Campus Antisemitism Grows. Jerusalem Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/321023782?accountid=12085

Ross, L. (1995, Dec 24). Not in our town. Columbian. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/252751995?accountid=12085

An Editorial From the New York Times. Oct. 20^th, 2003. Islamic Anti-Semitism, Loud and Clear. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/391022693?accountid=12085

A Brief Explanation of Capitalism

            I wrote this informative speech for my communications class last semester. Thanks to this blog, it was relatively easy to put together: I had already done most of the background research and expressed most of my views on this topic in my Classical Student posts. (That brilliant butcher analogy of mine might sound familiar.) Simplifying Capitalism But I thought a more comprehensive post that summarizes my personal definition might be interesting to read as well.

Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman said, “What kind of society isn’t structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system.” So much for capitalism’s purpose. But what is capitalism exactly?

       Today you are going to come away from my speech with a full grasp of the definition “capitalism”. I will demonstrate, first of all, the literal definition of the term capitalism, along with a real-life example of what this system would look like on a practical level. I will also relate a brief history of capitalism, and finally contrast and compare capitalism to its opposing economic system, communism.    
      Capitalism has always been an interest of mine since my dad read George Orwell’s Animal Farm to us when we were young, and I’ve been studying the contrasting economic systems of Animal Farm’s socialism and its opposing system capitalism every since. I’ve also explored the topic through my writings on my blog and in my personal reading. I’m fascinated by its basic principles of free choice, non-intervention, and individual initiative.
      One way to understand a concept is through its definition. We will look at a definition of capitalism by Milton Friedman, a real-life example, and an alternative explanation.
      Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman defined capitalism and its role in society when he said: “The role of competitive capitalism is the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market – it is a system of economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom” (Friedman, 1962, p. 4). Wow... these words are all very grand and imposing, but what does this definition look like on a day-to-day basis? What is the practical picture behind this fine-sounding economic jargon?
      Well, picture me as the owner of a butcher shop. You need meat, so you come into my butcher shop. I provide you with the resources, (meat,) and skills, (preparing and packaging the meat,) that you cannot provide for yourself, because you don't have the resources, skill, or time. In return, you give me money, which I can then use to provide for myself the things I need. I go to the bakery and buy bread with that money, because I don't have the resources (flour, ovens, bakers, etc.,) or the time, or the skills, to bake bread myself. Thus you have provided me with something I don't have, and I have provided you with something you don't have. That is a mutual exchange. This is capitalism in its purest and most basic form. 
      Maybe another butcher opens a similar shop down the street. Maybe he has a larger variety, or cheaper prices, or better quality of meats - so you go to him to buy meat instead. That's free choice. You can decide which butcher you like better. I want more money so I can buy bread for my family, so I lower my prices to bring in more business. That's competition. Does this competition hurt you, the customer? On the contrary, it lowers prices and improves quality/quantity for you, which is very beneficial for you. These laws - the laws of mutual exchange, free choice, and competition - are the basic tenets of capitalism. Adam Smith called these natural laws "the invisible hand" of the market.    
      Now that you have a clearer picture of what capitalism looks like on a daily basis, let’s look at an alternative definition from Robert P. Murphy, Ph. D. and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. He summarized capitalism this way: it is a system where people can use their property however they want – it’s also known as the free enterprise system because people have the freedom to choose their own jobs, the products they want to buy, and the products they want to sell (Murphy, 2007, p. 1).   
      But we can’t fully understand the definition without understanding where it came from – entire economic systems do not come out of a vacuum. Capitalism had a definite history, beginning with the end of the feudal system and the rise of the middle class, and continuing into the pages of today’s modern economic story. To better understand capitalism we will take a look at its brief history.
      The basic tenets of capitalism go all the way back to the Torah, where hard work, individual initiative, and private property were valued components of God’s economic system. God commands us in both Exodus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 5:13, “Six days you shall labor and do all your work” and as Rabbi Spero pointed out in his Wall Street Journal article, with work a person becomes comes to understand that he has to be productive, and that success is not just an entitlement (Spero, What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism, 30 Jan 2012: A.15). (I recommend you read the full article, as it's excellent - here.) This is a fundamental principle of capitalism as well. Of course, as Spero says, the Bible “has nothing to say about financial instruments and models such as private equity, hedge funds or other forms of monetary capitalization.” But it does demand “honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a borrower's collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, and empathy” for those less fortunate than ourselves (Spero, What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism, 30 Jan 2012: A.15) 
      So capitalism’s principles were laid down in ancient times through the Torah – but modern capitalism was introduced into the world by Adam Smith. The popular economic system of the day was mercantilism, which he challenged in his revolutionary book The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. “It was Adam Smith who noticed that mercantilism was not a force of development and change, but a regressive system that was keeping the world from advancing. His ideas for a free market opened the world to capitalism” (Beattie, The History of Capitalism: From Feudalism to Wall Street, October 14^th, 2011). After Adam Smith popularized “laissez-faire” (“do what you want”) economics now known as capitalism, the era of the industrial revolution dawned. As Beattie stated, this new industrial capitalism was the first system that carried benefits for all societal levels instead of just for the nobles. The standards of living were raised which led to the formation of a middle class that grew larger and larger as more people from the lower classes rose to prosperity (Beattie, The History of Capitalism: From Feudalism to Wall Street, October 14^th, 2011). 
      Today’s version of capitalism is quite different from the Biblical models of Moshe and also quite different from Adam Smith’s “laissez faire” economic system. But the basic principles are the same. Modern capitalism still emphasizes the ideas of individual initiative, working hard to receive rewards, and getting to keep those rewards – Americans believe that these are inherent rights and American capitalism is a reflection of those basic beliefs.
      Yet another way to understand a concept is to contrast and compare it with something else (Foreman, 2013, p. 10). Let’s take a look at capitalism’s nemesis, communism.  
      A basic definition is that communism is a form of society in which the means of production and sustenance belong to the community (O’Leary, Communism, 2007) Communism, which puts the power into the hands of the state, stands in stark contrast to capitalism, which generally gives the state the role of referee, rather than player. Communism votes for working for the common good of the whole community sharing both labor and profit – capitalism relies on individual initiative and personal rewards for an economy to run smoothly. (On a side note, it is obvious form the examples of Russia and China that communism often leads to totalitarianism while capitalism generally promotes free trade, free enterprise, and political freedom in general – but that’s a topic for another speech.) As economist Milton Friedman said, “There are only two ways or coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion… the other is voluntary co-operation of individuals – the technique of the market place” (Friedman, 1962, p. 13). Communism vs. capitalism.

       Through the literal definition of the term “capitalism”, a look at a simple form of capitalism in practice, the history of capitalism, and a contrast/comparison of another economic system besides capitalism, you now have a basic understanding of this very important and influential economic system.

      Capitalism’s literal definition is an economic system that promotes individual initiative, free trade, free choice, minimal governmental interference, (except to enforce rules), mutual exchanges, competition, personal profits, and personal property. To borrow, yet again, Friedman’s way of expressing capitalism; its central feature is that it prevents one person from interfering too much with another – the consumer’s protected from coercion by the seller because there are other sellers with whom he can deal – the seller is protected from the consumer because of other consumers with whom he can deal. Moreover, the employee is protected from the employer because of other employers for whom he can work (Friedman, 1962, pp.14-15). This is how capitalism is supposed to work on a practical level in our daily, economic lives.

References

Beattie, Andrew: “The History of Capitalism: From Feudalism to Wall Street”, October 14^th, 2011, Investopedia, http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/capitalism-history.asp#axzz2CDmqGLvC.

Brearton, Steve: “A Brief History of Capitalism”, June, 2008, “Report On Busines Magazine”, The Globe & Mail division of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., Canada.

Foreman, Mark: Prelude to Philosophy: Thinking Critically About Foundational Beliefs, 2012, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.

Friedman, Milton; Friedman, Rose D.: Free to Choose, 1980, 1979, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York and London.

Friedman, Milton: Capitalism and Freedom, 1962, The University of Chicago

Press, Chicago Ltd, London.

Murphy, Robert P., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, 2007, Regnery Publishing, Inc.: Washington D.C.

O’Leary, Zina. Communism. (2007). In The Social Science Jargon-Buster. Retrieved fromhttp://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.credoreference.com/entry/sageukssjb/communism

Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 1945. Secker and Warburg, London.

Smith, Adam: Wealth of Nations. 1776 W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London.

Spero, Aryeh. What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism. Wall Street Journal. 30 Jan 2012: A.15; New York, N.Y.
 

Simplifying Capitalism - Part/Chapter Two

        From my two previous posts on capitalism, my readers might logically and reasonably assume that capitalists think that, indeed, all government is evil and must be destroyed. After all, Friedman says that government, specifically American government, has done a lot of things wrong. He says government should not interfere with buying and selling, he says that government should not use coercion to manage the people's economic activities, and he says that government interferes in American society in many areas where it should not be present. Thus we can conclude that capitalism proposes government should be done away with.
So to Washington D.C., conservative Americans! We must wave our banners and proclaim that the White House should be burned and the office of President abolished! ... Right, Friedman??
         Unfortunately, no. In the second chapter of "Capitalism and Freedom," titled "The Role of Government in a Free Society," we find that this is not Friedman's conclusion at all. On the contrary, our government has an extremely important role to play in the workings of this nation. After all, where would we be without leaders, without authority, without referees? And this is, in fact, government's primary job - that of referee. As a rule, the people should be left to their freedoms of speech, religion, thought, and open marketing. But this does not mean there shouldn't be laws, and this does not mean there shouldn't be individuals to enforce these laws. Therefore, our government's job is double-sided; it must know where to step in and where to stay out.
        Firstly, there are many important ways it must step in. In this chapter Friedman has defined eight specific areas of government intervention...
1.) Maintain order and uphold the laws,
2.) Define and uphold property rights,
3.) Arbitrate disputes,
4.) Enforce contracts,
5.) Promote competition,
6.) Counter technical monopolies, (monopolies on lighting, transportation, electricity, etc.)
7.) Counter neighborhood effects, (by-products of private agreements that harm a third, uninvolved party,) and
8.) Support private charities and support families to govern the irresponsible (children and lunatics.)
        These are extremely important functions, ones that, if adequately performed, would have an enormous impact on our society's law and order. We can trust humans to be able to manage their own affairs, but we need higher authority when these affairs threaten to harm other human beings. This also goes along with the Founding Fathers' idea of three separate branches of government - one branch, the legislative, makes the laws. The next branch, the administrative, puts the laws into action. The third branch, the judicial, tries and punishes those accused of breaking the laws. Without government we would be a lost and immoral country indeed. A few important lines from one of my favorite plays, "A Man for All Seasons" by Robert Bolt, serve to express this concept; 

Will Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Will: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast... And if you cut them down, (and you're just the man to do it,) do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

           In other words, so many people's lives would be threatened and ruined if there were no standards by which to judge their actions. America devoid of laws and authority is a frightening thought. 
           Government's role however, is not only very vital to the preservation of law and justice in our country, but is, (or should be,) a very defined role. There are many areas of society in which it can and should, in fact, be an active participant; there are also areas where it should mind its own business. This is where some of the lines become fuzzy. Many recent presidents, beginning, I believe, with Teddy Roosevelt and the "Progressive" Age, have taken it upon themselves to broaden, expand, and re-define government's parameters in society so much so, that these parameters hardly exist anymore. That is to say, fewer and fewer boundaries restrict government from intruding upon every area of our lives. This is also a frightening thought, one that has given rise to much concern from conservative Americans like Friedman. In this chapter he also lists 12 roles government has taken it upon itself that should instead be played by the American citizen...
1.) Sets agriculture prices,
2.) Sets tariffs on imports and exports,
3.) Controls output,
4.) Uses rent, price, and wage controls,
5.) Regulates many industries,
6.) Regulates and censors free speech,
7.) Forces people to use social security programs,
8.) Public housing,
9.) Conscription into military service, (employed several times throughout our history, such as during the later stages of the Vietnam War,)
10.) National parks,
11.) Government post offices, and
12.) Government toll booths.
         And these are not its only spheres of influence - think of public high schools, public colleges, income taxes, public service projects, licenses on occupations, the alphabet soup of wasteful government programs, its interference in health care. You are probably familiar with and accustomed to the government being a part of all these things in your life. I, for one, have become very used to giving my Social Security number to anyone in the public sector who asks for it, though I don't really or fully understand Social Security's purpose. All I know is that I had to have that 10-digit number memorized by the time I was 16 and can only do certain things if I write it down on certain forms. There are three very important things that define American individuals - our health, our education, and our jobs; Washington has stuck its finger, its entire hand rather, deeply into all three.
      I could continue in this line of argument for many pages, using 1984 or Animal Farm by George Orwell, or excerpts from works of Hayek, Reagan, and De Tocqueville as support. However an anti-government theme is not my focus. I merely wish to point out, as Friedman did, that government should and does have certain duties, and one of those duties is leaving the market alone. The more recent presidents have found this difficult to do - they have found it impossible to do. And te consequences for our economy have been disastrous. More importantly, the consequences for our much-cherished liberty have been disastrous. 
     This is a summation of Friedman's "The Role of Government In a Free Society," along with my own commentary and thoughts on the subject. There is much, much more I want to say, but I'll stick with this expression of the main points for now. Any comments or questions below would be much appreciated. 

Simplifying Capitalism - Part/Chapter One

Relating Economic Freedom & Political Freedom

Assuming all my readers are conservative Americans, such as myself, I'm pretty sure you all agree with me on several basic political principles...that Americans should be free to buy/sell what they want, that freedom of speech and opinion are fundamental natural rights, that we should not oppress one another, and that we should abide by the laws of our country. These are principles that are found, not only in the ideas and writings of the Founding Fathers, but in the Torah as well. In the Communistic governments of China and Russia we have seen examples of political systems which flout these principles of human rights and individual freedom.
        How does the economy relate to these? How can our system of buying and selling affect our political freedoms of speech and thought? And vice versa - how do politics affect the economy? Do labor unions, wage standards, and the price of laundry detergent have anything at all to do with voting, the Constitution, or America's laws? In Milton Friedman's first chapter of Capitalism and Freedom, he demonstrates that political freedom and economical freedom are intimately related, and explores the relationship between the two entities. Also in this chapter Friedman discusses the market as a direct part of freedom, the relation between market arrangements and political freedom as well as briefly tracing the development of free trade concepts and outlining the ideal economy promoting a free society.       
        First of all, Friedman states that only certain arrangements between these two freedoms are possible - more specifically, that only a competitive capitalistic economy ensures political freedom. (Big surprise.) In other words, a country where people are free to start their own private businesses, compete with other businesses, buy what they want, and sell what they want, all without restrictions of the federal government or anything else, is the only kind that also ensures political freedom. We will be free to live securely in liberty if a capitalistic infrastructure is in place.
        In the early 1800s, the trend was laissez-faire economics, ("LAH zay fair", French for basically "do what you want,") which seemed to work very well and greatly improved the conditions of the masses. But then the trend changed, and government began to interfere in the economy more and more - "Welfare rather than freedom became the dominant note in democratic countries." And after World War Two, this collectivist trend was briefly interrupted by a reversal in economic policies and an increased emphasis on private markets. Now we are back to more government and less individualism once more. During these twists and turns in the economy, political freedom has fallen suit - strangely enough, whenever the market was left alone and individuals were free to compete in trade, the nation's population did very well and enjoyed greater freedoms. Whenever welfare prevailed and government stepped into private business affairs, the people suffered, politically and economically. 
       Next Friedman states that there are two ways to manage the economic activities of the masses - either military/totalitarian coercion, or voluntary individual cooperation; "the technique of the market place." He is saying the government can force people to buy and sell what the government wants them to, or they can allow the natural laws of supply and demand to determine the market. Obviously the latter is the most appealing mode of management...
     What does a "free private enterprise exchange economy" look like, and why is it so desirable? These are questions that Milton Friedman will spend the rest of his book answering in detail, but he also briefly and simply answers them in a few paragraphs in the first chapter. Essentially, capitalism in action is - a business that uses the resources it controls to produce goods and services, which, in turn, it exchanges for goods and services produced by other businesses, on terms mutually acceptable to both. Money is the exchangeable commodity that makes this transaction that much easier.
      On a very simple level, let's take a very simple example of a free-enterprise market. Let's say I run a butcher shop. You need meat, so you come into my butcher shop and I provide you with the resources, (meat,) and skills, (preparing and packaging the meat,) that you cannot provide for yourself, because you don't have the resources, skill, or time. In return, you give me money, which I can then use to provide for myself the things I need. I go to the bakery and buy bread with that money, because I don't have the resources (flour, ovens, bakers, etc.,) or the time, or the skills, to bake bread myself. Thus you have provided me with something I don't have, and I have provided you with something you don't have. That is a mutual exchange. This is capitalism in its purest and most basic form.
       Maybe another butcher opens a similar shop down the street. Maybe he has a larger variety, or cheaper prices, or better quality of meats - so you go to him to buy meat instead. That's free choice. You can decide which butcher you like better. I want more money so I can buy bread for my family, so I lower my prices, or I expand my variety, or I better my quality of meat to bring in more business. That's competition. Does this competition hurt you, the customer? On the contrary, it lowers prices and improves quality/quantity for you, which is very beneficial for you. These laws - the laws of mutual exchange, free choice, and competition - are the basic tenets of capitalism. It is obvious how letting these laws alone to freely balance and improve the market in turn lead to greater freedom of choice and a more prosperous economy. Adam Smith called these natural laws "the invisible hand" of the market.
      What does this have to do with politics? History may prove that people are more free when they can buy/sell what they want, but why is this so? Well, for once thing, minorities are more free under a free market because the market is impartial. When you buy bread at a bakery you don't know if the flour was grown by a black person or white person, and you probably don't care. Thus minorities are less likely to be discriminated against in a free-enterprise society. Also, the market naturally "gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want... each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants, and get it; he does not have to see what color the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit."
        For another thing, the economy has long been a powerful source of coercion by despotic governments - Communist governments make their people their political slaves by determining what they can or can't buy, what occupations they can or cannot hold, what they can sell or not sell. They take away their political freedoms by taking away their economical freedoms. In a society where the government doesn't interfere with the economy, this source of force is gone.
       In conclusion, the principles and ideas outlined in this chapter are extremely important to our understanding of what a capitalistic economy should look like. It is vital for Americans to grasp the basics. Friedman covered numerous extremely significant points about economics and politics, and I hope that my interpretation of his thought is accurate and made good sense. Questions/criticisms/praises are encouraged below! :)

Simplifying Capitalism - Introduction

If I stopped the average American on the street and asked them what they thought of Communism, nine times out of ten the reaction towards this institution would be negative.

Most Americans are afraid of Communism for many reasons, the main one being that they have very recently been eyewitnesses to its oppressive and destructive effects on the peoples/economies of China, Russia, and others in the forms of censorship of the press, violent authoritarianism, harsh quenching of liberties such as liberty of speech and thought, savage anti-religion campaigns, etc. McCarthyism in the 1950s was one example of how Americans feel about Communism - so was the largely unsuccessful and embarrassing Vietnam War of the 60's and 70's - and so was the Cold War of the 80's. Fear of 'Commies' pervades this nation.

Yet how many of us really understand the philosophies of Karl Marx in all of their complexity? What element(s) of Communism make it so repressive of mankind's natural rights and liberties? Americans understand from the examples of China and Russia that Communism is wrong, but do they ultimately recognize why? Something vital to understand is that Communist theories are fundamentally unsound, which has in turn led to phenomena like censorship of the press in Russia and 70 million deaths under Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong (1893-1976.) These cases of massacre and oppression are not radical, rogue events perpetrated by insane leaders - they are the results of an economic philosophy, one that blatantly contradicts the guiding premises of the Jewish Torah.

In summary, to understand why "Communism is bad" one must first understand what Communism essentially is. However that is a study for another post. At present, I'm going to take the opposite side and discuss what Communism is not.

Communism's nemesis, as you probably know, is capitalism. There are many definitions of this word, and for the time, I'm going to put those aside and look at capitalism how the Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman understands it in his book Capitalism and Freedom. I'm reading this book for my literature class at the moment, and to better understand it (not exactly Dr.Seuss level stuff, just sayin'!) I'm planning on blogging my notes. You may not be a politician or Barack Obama's economic adviser, yet I think it's still important that everyone understand what a free market should look like and why Communist economic thought is fundamentally wrong. In any case it will be interesting to learn more about what one of the greatest thinkers of the century has to say about Communistic fallacies and how our government could be doing it better.

Senior Thesis - Proof Three, Parts One & Two

The Right of the Jews to the Land of Israel, Proof III

Meritorious Right

The Jewish nation not only possesses the right of military conquest and historical ownership, but the right of merit as well. Under the hands of the Jews the land of Israel has blossomed from a bare desert to a prosperous nation in a short 64 years. Since 1948 Israel has developed into a country with more companies in NASDAQ than all of Europe combined, ranking third after the U.S. and China; in 2008, it had more than twice the global venture capital of the U.S., 30 times that of Europe and 80 times that of China. (Student Life, Dan Senor Speaks About Israel’s Economic Success by Becky Prager.) This is merely one of many statistics proving, in simple black-and-white fact, that the Jews have earned their right to possess Israel.

Merit, according to definition, is “the quality or actions that constitute the basis of one’s rewards or punishments.” Our fundamental sense of justice, an innate part of every human being’s consciousness, creates an awareness of what we and others deserve for our actions. The idea of justice is also an important concept in the history of human rights, something for which wars have been fought, laws have been passed, violence has been perpetrated, and philosophies have been formed. I don’t attempt to argue that, because the Jews suffered the horrors of the Holocaust in the mid-twentieth century, they deserve a land of their own, though it certainly should be compensation. Rather, the fact that Israel’s economy has flourished since 1948 proves that they are amply capable of its care, representing the only democracy in the tempestuous Mideast.

1.) Economic History of prosperity

Economically Israel’s recent history has been characterized by growth and prosperity. During the British Mandate as Britain was preparing to hand Israel over to the Jews, their economical and political systems developed separately from those of the Palestinians’; Israel experienced rapid growth during this era due to the influx of both immigrants and capital. After this, in spite of the financial challenges it faced with immediate wars, new settlements, and adjustment to new government, its transition from British territory to Jewish state went relatively smoothly. Israel introduced a New Economic Policy in 1952 and achieved an especially high growth rate from 1950 to 1965 – real GNP increased by 11% while GDP per capita grew by 6%. “Following independence, the new state’s economy was structured around three basic elements: high defense costs, mass immigration absorption, and the building of new institutions such as banks, a national insurance institute, and government agencies, all of which necessitated massive infusions of public money into the economy.” (MERIA, Middle Eastern Journal of International Affairs, Journal, Volume 6, No. 3 - September 2002, Israel’s Economic Growth; Success Without Security, by Linda Sharby.)

2.) Success Against All Odds

As demonstrated by this brief summary of Israel’s economic history, the Jews faced and overcame numerous challenges at the inception of their new state. A mere few of the numerous odds against them were; a wasteland left by centuries of foreign misrule, six wars, enemies on all sides, an economic boycott by the disgruntled Arabs, an isolated diplomacy, and monumental task of creating a new nation from scratch. “Nonetheless, Israel has a strong, modern, and diversified economy that in 2000 posted an annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $104.1 billion, 40% of which consisted of exports of goods and services. Growth for 2000 reached six percent. Israel’s per capita Gross National Income (GNI) for 2000, at almost $17,000, placed the state ahead of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and New Zealand… 64-year-old Israel now ranks as a high-income economy and was identified as one of the most global emerging markets by Foreign Policy magazine’s Globalization Index. Over the past decade, Israel’s high-technology industry, second only to California’s Silicon Valley in concentration of firms, powered economic growth and attracted massive Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to the country, a figure that reached $4.4 billion in 2000.” (MERIA, Middle Eastern Journal of International Affairs, Journal, Volume 6, No. 3 - September 2002, Israel’s Economic Growth; Success Without Security, by Linda Sharby.)

As Mr. Wohstetter of the American Spectator points out in his article Israeli Exceptionalism, the United States at its inception was faced with none of Israel’s challenges – America was a land rich in natural resources, protected by two oceans, and populated by a few primitive Indian tribes, yet it took a full century to progress from George Washington’s inauguration to the “final frontier.” “Along the way, America had time to develop and prosper, shielded from the destructive wars of monarchical Europe, until in 1917 it came to the rescue of a Europe attempting to commit suicide.

“Israel had no such luxury. Shooting started the very night that news of the November 29, 1947 UN partition resolution reached the Mideast, and continued through Israel's May 14, 1948 proclamation of statehood. Sixty-three years of unremitting Arab hostility have followed. Israel is a tiny island surrounded by more than one-quarter of a billion Arabs, virtually none of whom think there should be a single Jew in the Mideast.” (The American Spectator, Israeli Exceptionalism, by John D. Wohlstetter.)  

 In 1867, 81 years before the Jews took possession, American author Mark Twain described the Holy Land, outside of Jewish settlements: “There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent--not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings...” Yet in less than a century, under the care of the Jews, Israel became one of the most prosperous nations in the world, surpassing even highly developed countries such as the U.S. in high-tech developments, exports, sales profits, etc., especially since it shifted its economic policy from socialistic to capitalistic during the past twenty years. She ranks third in the world in the number of university graduates per capita, possesses the highest per capita number of scientists in the world, publishes the largest amount of scientific papers per capita in the world, possesses one of the lowest inflation rates during the global economic crisis (2.3 %,) and the 24^th largest economy in the world, (in spite of being the 81^st smallest country.) Israel’s economy is based on significant resources such as copper, sulfur, citrus, dairy, vegetables, poultry and beef while the industry is primarily composed of high-tech projects, along with chemical and plastic productions. This makes for a highly diversified economy, a prerequisite to political and national financial stability.

 In 64 years Israel has been forced to fight 6 full-scale defensive wars to maintain her place in the nucleus of the Middle East. Yet she has developed into one of the most industrious and fertile nations in the world. How did this happen?

“Against the backdrop of the events that typically cause Israel to be in the news …people often forget that there are normal things happening in Israel. And in many cases, extraordinary things, like the amazing performance of the Israeli economy over the past decade. Haaretz reports that the TA-25, the flagship index of the Israeli stock market, has increased forty percent in the last year. A period that has included a month of warfare, massive public discontent with the Israeli political echelon, and the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. …What accounts for this growth? A vital factor is of course the Israeli culture, which embraces entrepreneurship, risk-taking, and ingenuity… (Michael J. Totten, Middle East Journal, July 13, 2007, The Israeli Economic Miracle, by Noah Pollak)

Aside from supernatural factors, which are clearly the key to the Jews’ success, several Jewish characteristics help explain how they overcame the monumental challenges facing their new country to meet with such results. For one thing, their enemies have been predominantly external, excepting the violent pockets of Palestinians throughout the country. Israel has never experienced a civil war, nor does it appear that she will anytime in the near future. Moreover, her military is one of the best in the world – out of necessity Israel has invested significant amounts of time, money and resources into defending her borders. “National military service is mandatory for all Israeli citizens over the age of 18, although Arab citizens are exempted if they so please and other exceptions may be made on religious, physical or psychological grounds.  Men serve three years in the IDF, while women serve two.” (Wikipedia, Israel Defense Force, Service) In 2010 Israel’s money supply decreased which could lead to stability in the long term – flooding a country with excess cash can lead to inflation, but Israel should be able to keep their inflation low. (MoneyNews.com, Israel: A Safe Haven of Economic Prosperity by Jacob Wolinsky) 

All of these practical factors contributed to Israel’s unexpected economical success. From a pragmatic point of view, the Jews overcame impossible odds by mustering their available resources and indefatigable Jewish ingenuity to make their nation one of the most prosperous leaders in the world today. Contrast their country to Cyprus, which was likewise ruined by Turkish rule, yet stands far beneath Israel in terms of financial success. Cyprus’ climate and agriculture are very similar to Israel’s. Perhaps the different nationalities occupying these territories have something to do with this contrast.  

Individualism in "Democracy In America"

                "The moral authority of the majority is party based upon the notion that there is more intelligence and wisdom in a number of men united than in a single individual... human pride is thus assailed in its last retreat."
                This statement encapsulates De Tocqueville's argument that democracy promotes the good of all over the prosperity of individuals - in economic terms, that socialism is favored over capitalism and private interests suffer. Is this completely true, however? Do Americans place too much importance on society as a whole than on the individual? I believe some institutions in America supports this argument of the author's while others promote freedom of individuality and personal competition.
                 A support for De Tocqueville's argument is found in his book - specifically, in his analysis of education and intellectual activity in America. These astute observations support his claim about the common good: "In the United States politics are the end and aim of education; in Europe the principal object is to fit men for private life." In other words, children are taught in America how they may best serve their country, not themselves. This is why, he contends, all Americans are educated, but none are geniuses. Americans place their society above their own self-fulfillment in the field of learning and this trait is characteristic of their attitude towards life as a whole.
                Another argument supporting the author's claim lies in his observation that Americans have exchanged equality for liberty. This is a result of the lack of social hierarchies in America and the absence of aristocracy - which in turn is a consequence of abolishment of primogeniture and equal conditions of colonial settlers. "Liberty," points out De Tocquevillle, "is not the [Americans'] chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol"... This statement continues to hold true of American society today - and its verity leads to conflict with individualism. The author continues, "This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great... impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level"...
                 However some American institutions do not support De Tocqueville's claim that the common good's importance supersedes that of the individual. For instance, universal suffrage is the right of every American citizen and his choice is made for himself, based upon his own opinions, knowledge and ideology. Moreover the American right to form associations, as De Tocqueville himself admits, is a powerful counterbalance to tyranny of the majority. The minority in America may not always rule, but they are rarely prevented from speaking out and expressing their opposition and joining with others who share their views.
                 Expression of opinion leads to the third American institution promoting individualism - freedom of the press. The liberty of the press in America, claims De Tocqueville, "is the only guarantee of their liberty and security that the citizens possess." A forum in which to speak, debate and express opinions is indeed a powerful guarantor against suppression of thought or stifling of individuality. Liberty of the press is a part of a legitimate democracy - so is the importance of a private citizen's opinions. These two democratic ideas don't conflict - rather they complement one another. Freedom of speech and religion, liberties Americans enjoy,  also place more importance on an individual rather than a community.
                 In conclusion, many of De Tocquville's observations about our country's obsession for equality are correct - this is apparent in social taboos against discrimination, political incorrectness, etc. But America is still free and at present, we are at liberty to enjoy many personal rights. We are free to vote, free to debate personal opinions, free to compete, free to worship as we please. These are liberties that have been dearly paid for, may be dearly fought for again, and ones which we should not take for granted.
          

A Compilation of Great Political and Philosophical Quotes

What is conservatism?  Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?  ~Abraham Lincoln

Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.

—Will Rogers

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.

—André Gide

 We learn something every day, and lots of times it’s that what we learned the day before was wrong.

—Bill Vaughan

Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.  ~Richard Armour

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right” -  Abraham Lincoln

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”  Thomas Jefferson

"I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." Charles De Gaulle

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field.  ~Albert Einstein