This story highlights the type of mind that result from and thrive in an economy rife with Government meddling - Faux Capitalists.

[Ford CEO Alan Mulally] was a guest recently at this newspaper’s ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, where he outlined his efforts to revamp the struggling car maker. He said one problem is that America didn’t have an “integrated energy policy.” On the one hand, the government “regulated” smaller cars by “mandating average fuel mileage improvements,” but on the other hand “with low fuel prices and low interest rates over the years, the U.S. consumers have chosen generally larger vehicles.”

Mr. Mulally offered his own solution to the mismatch, artfully explaining that we needed to “involve the consumer in our energy policy.” In case anyone missed his point, Michael Jackson, CEO of AutoNation, the largest auto dealer in the country, was more explicit: “Mr. Mulally said it very elegantly last night and I will say it more straightforward. We need more expensive gasoline.”

In other words, they want to leverage illegitimate government force to compensate for the mediocrity (lack of market share) that results from previous illegitimate government force. Yet another example of the recursive nature of statist regulation, i.e., controls breeding controls.

So: The U.S. government mandates fuel-economy standards that force Detroit to make cars Americans don’t want to drive. When Detroit loses money on those cars, Washington throws taxpayer dollars at its mistake, and the car makers demand a tax increase that would prod Americans to buy the unpopular cars that Washington mandates. As for what the American consumer or taxpayer wants — or can afford in today’s economy — who cares? Welcome to government-run energy policy.

I would correct the last sentence… welcome to government run anything. The mindset of these mixed-economy barons inevitably serves to further blur the line between economic and political power that so many fail to see. When most American’s hear successful supposed Capitalists calling for such measures it only reinforces their confusion of the proper role of Government in a free nation’s economy.

I’ve been re-listening to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal in audiobook format just this week, and to read this piece after having just heard Greenspan’s chapters is mind-boggling. The style, wording and clarity are the same, but it’s all non-essential tangents!

How could he be at once so eloquent and passionate an advocate for Capitalism and turn into this? Smeagol says not to “bridle with heavy regulation”, Gollum calls for a new “regulatory regime” - which is it Mr. Greenspan?

A friend sent me this impressive visualization of a very large sum of money - roughly the amount of which the Government has written IOU’s backed by our future productivity. So generous of them to loan such a stupendous amount of money on my behalf.

One Dollar

Ten Thousand Dollars

One Million Dollars

One Hundred Million

One Billion Dollars

One Trillion Dollars

Pretty impressive huh? This is only the beginning…

To accrue reckless debt on behalf of others, and where the only means of payment is the current wealth or future production of one man or a million, be it one cent or one trillion, is a contemptible feat of human evil.

The anti-freedom monkeys are in another flinging frenzy. They just can’t accept the notion that freedom enables individual variance in lifestyles. Couple this with complete ignorance of individual rights or economics and the result is their attempt to regulate existence.

I’m amazed at how quickly people will condone the trampling of others at whim. This little gem is one of the most offensive justifications I’ve heard.

Statesville resident Eric Lamberth, a smoker, said he supports the ban because he believes it would help him kick the habit. [emphasis mine]

Unbelievable - the condonement of Government tyranny as means to compensate for his lack of self-control and discipline.

Restaurants are private property. The property owners are the only individuals who can rightfully determine the smoking policies for their property. The purpose of Government is to protect individual rights from being forcefully violated. Since customers are free to choose whether they accept the smoking policies of a particular dining establishment or not - no rights are being forcefully violated. Any law that trumps an owner’s smoking policy prerogative is an unjust slap in the face of America’s essence.

Your rights end when you are unable to keep your smoke away from my nose.

Only if we’re on your property.

The typical debate surrounding this non-issue rests on a fundamental error. This issue is not about the rights of individuals to smoke, nor about a supposed “right” to fresh air; but rather the right of property owners to set the terms for acceptable behavior on their premises. There is no “right” to fresh air. The only right that applies to consumers in this scenario is your right to not be forced to be exposed to air quality that you find unacceptable. So long as an individual chooses to enter the property of others (as opposed to someone forcing them to be there) they do so under the acceptance of the owner’s terms.

This, like all economic issues, is one that a free-market would solve far more effectively. If consumer demand for smoke-free environments rose to the point where such an offering were profitable, then the market would supply such. Instead, our culture is oblivious to the concept of rights and their fundamental role in making America the most prosperous country in the history of mankind. Rights equal freedom and freedom has a brilliantly clear historical record of raising man’s standard of living. To the extent that we chip away at freedom by violating real rights in favor of supposed rights, we destroy what made America.

As Don Watkins of ARC put it:

This widespread war on smoking [sic] is infecting America with a political disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our freedom to make our own judgments and choices.

Well said.