When Is a "Playing Field" Level?
by Barbara Hunter

It seems that these days the words "level playing field" are cropping up on almost a daily basis, resembling the latest buzzwords from the late-night TV hosts.  All the people (and businesses) want one of those level playing fields for themselves, especially when some new or revised competitor appears on the horizon.

Take a close look, and you'll discover that each one's standard for "levelness" depends on what produces the most advantage to oneself.  Corporations want tariffs or import quotas to gain or maintain an advantage over foreign competitors.  They claim that some condition from abroad is "unfair," and that the tariffs or quotas are needed to level the playing field.  It is generally not necessary to show that the advantage they had prevously possessed, or that they now covet, actually constituted or would constitute levelness.  The victim paradigm can be exceedingly mighty.

Labor unions have their own techniques for their special versions of playing field leveling, the most egregious of which is the Davis-Bacon Act, as explained below from the article "Governments Assault on Freedom to Work," by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, in the magazine The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, September 1991:

Davis-Bacon Laws. Another related measure of labor market intervention is the existence of laws, such as the Davis-Bacon Act in the United States, which mandate that government-specified wages be paid. In the case of Davis-Bacon, the government-specified “prevailing wage” in an area must be paid on all Federally supported construction projects, even if the Federal support is less than 1 percent of the cost of the project. The “prevailing” wage is almost always the union wage, and the effect of the Act is to drive lower-wage, nonunion labor from the market. Making wages artificially high restricts competition from lower-wage firms, depriving their owners, managers, and employees of economic opportunities.

Now, even retail stores have gotten into the level playing field act.  As reported in the October 9, 2006 Wall Street Journal, Target Corporation, the management of Target stores, has threatened the producers of DVD movies with economic harm, such as decreasing the store space allocated to their products, if they offer direct downloads of their new releases to users at prices below that charged by Target for the DVD discs.  (Punish the comsumer - that will teach them!)  The company's "leveling" solution is for the downloads to cost at least as much as the retail store's DVDs.  One noteworthy point is that when downloads were costing more, the store had no problem; the level playing field issue simply never arose.

So far, it seems not to have occurred to Target and the other DVD retailers participating in this hissy-fit that pressure of that type could actually backfire by driving more customers, and potential customers, to their computers to do more downloading.  No, the only acceptable answer to those who would rule is to try to force a "level playing field" that is anything but level.  The simple measure of levelness (a condition which in itself is a dynamic entity, changing day by day and minute by minute with the actions of all who participate in the economic process) is whatever people, peacefully and without coercion, decide is most advantageous to themselves.  Nothing levels better than freedom to choose.

What Is Forgiveness?
By Barbara Hunter

    The events of the past few years have given us more than our share of violence, bloodshed, and torment.  The Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 bombing of World Trade Center (in the futile attempt to bring down the Twin Towers), the discoveries of mass graves in many parts of the world, the deliberate starvation of entire populations, massacres, beheadings, planes flown into skyscrapers, and most recently the murders of little girls at a one-room Amish school - have produced dozens of polls and interviews about whether these acts are "unforgivable."  As expected, quotations from the Old or New Testament are used as justification for either giving or withholding forgiveness.  In each case, the basis of forgiveness or its lack is whether the person "deserves" to be forgiven.
    In my view, what is being called forgiveness is not forgiveness at all, but rather judgmentalism.  Consider the following:  If you forgive someone, or if you refuse to forgive, this has absolutely no effect on the persons whose deserving you are judging.  Either they see the error of their ways and turn from their evil-doing, or else they continue and perhaps even enjoy the horror their iniquity has wrought.
    Our forgiveness or lack of it probably doesn't change the criminals or other evil-doers.  However, the willingness or refusal to forgive does have a profound on someone:  ourselves.  The genuine act of forgiving strengthens our mentality and builds our arsenal of love, with the inevitable good effect on our mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being.  On the other hand, the judgmental act of refusing to forgive because the evil-doers are "undeserving" of our forgiveness builds a very different arsenal - one of hate, anger, and destructiveness that can poison our very being.  Simply stated, how much would you like to hurt yourself?
    The assignment of judging what others do or do not deserve was not given to us.  Our task is before us, and it is a full-time job, and it does not include playing God.

Can You Recognize Mass Mesmerism?
     by Barbara Hunter

It started about a year ago.  Large portions of the mainstream press, who certainly did not have the welfare of Republicans in mind, began a steady whispering (and not so whispering) campaign that people of conservative bent should sit out this election if the available candidates failed to meet their standards for "purity."  It might be worth noting that not once did they suggest that liberals should do the same if their candidates didn't measure up.  Gradually, the whispering has become a drumbeat:  Conservatives stay home!  Don't vote unless your Republican candidates agree with one hundred percent of your views.

Pro-life?  Rape or incest no excuse for abortion.  Illegal immigration?  Nothing but deportation of 11 million people will suffice.  Wasteful earmarks?  Forget that Democrats are guiltier and make sure you punish your Republican.  And on and on.

This stay-home-on-Election-Day campaign needs to be recognized for what it is:  a form of mass mesmerism that would substitute harmful decisions for common-sense ones.  Note that the polls show Democrats ahead when questioning "likely voters."  First tell conservatives not to vote, and then poll the rest.  The only way the Congress will be turned over to the tax-hikers, fascist-apologizers, and America-haters is if enough Republicans can be convinced not to vote.  The key to this destructive phenomenon on the part of the mainstream press, especially the television pundits, is making you believe that their thoughts are yours, that you are incapable of reasoning and making up your own mind, and that these suggestions should be made your own.

Face it:  There are no "perfect" candidates, in or out of office.  Voting is a necessary combination of least of two evils, plus most of two goods.  Every Senator and every Congressman must at times compromise on one thing in order to gain another.  This is not selling one's soul to the devil, it is doing the best under the circumstances of the moment.  I have never found a perfect person to vote for in my 48 years of trips to the polls, and I don't expect it ever to happen.

Recognize this morally corrupt mass mesmerism for what it is, then go vote and select whoever is the best available at the moment.

How Do People Get Elected?
     by Barbara Hunter

One of the most difficult decisions a candidate must make is how to represent his or her views when asking for people's votes.  If your opponent is promising the sun, moon, and stars, with everybody else to pick up the tab, can you counter the argument by explaining that robbing Peter to pay Paul actually robs everybody?  How do you explain that the economy does not consist of "the public sector and the private sector," as though they are merely two parts of some sort of cooperative arrangement?  How do you explain that if taxes are raised, you will not be better off because no one will be better off?

It sometimes appears hopeless to try to substitute reason and logic in place of slogans, especially if your opponent has already taken title to the slogans.  Yes, the challenge is great, but it is far from hopeless, as some of our best senators and congressmen have proved.  Take heart, and make your positions known.