Re: MTA has more happy riders — but still lags behind D.C., Chicago:
Only a government monopoly such as the MTA could brag about an “almost” 50% customer satisfaction rate.
And yet no one is willing to ask the most obvious of questions: why should the government, which is a coercive monopoly by its very nature, be involved in the transportation business at all? Why shouldn’t our filthy, crumbling, rat-infested, utterly unreliable subway system be sold off to a private entity to take over, modernize, and run efficiently and cost-effectively? And why should New York City and New York State be allowed to cripple, with unending and ever-increasing fees and regulations, the competitiveness of private ride-sharing companies like Uber that have a 97% customer satisfaction rate?
(Published in New York Daily News)
Re “A tough ‘gig’ in Albany” (Jan. 28): Lost in your amplification of the talking points of the politicians and union leaders pushing this legislation are the voices of the people whose lives will actually be affected by it. I run two freelance businesses that have taken me 30 years to build successfully — one as a jazz bandleader, another as a freelance graphic designer.
As a bandleader, I am hired by ever-changing clients in many different contexts. It would not be practical or possible for any of them to hire me full-time. If this law passes, they will not hire me at all. And my sidemen are many and ever-changing. I cannot hire any of them full-time and if forced to do so, will not be able to employ them under any circumstances. As a freelance graphic designer, my clients are many and ever-changing. Not one of them would hire me full-time merely to design, say, a website or a PowerPoint presentation.
I am 60-years old, and so am unemployable full-time. Even if I was to give up my independent businesses (as I will be forced to do), there will be no alternative but to face permanent unemployment, or to leave the state. For independent contractors older than me, the consequences will be more dire.
California’s independent contractors’ legislation does not “protect gig-economy workers,” nor does it “guarantee rights to workers.” (“Freelancers law making waves in New York,” Dec. 20).
On the contrary, it violates the fundamental right of employers and employees to contract freely under whatever terms they mutually judge to reflect their self-interest. As a result, it restricts choices, destroys opportunities, increases costs, lowers the standard of living and will ultimately destroy lives and livelihoods as it inevitably spreads from car services to musicians, photographers, writers and all other independent contractors whose very fragile livelihoods depend entirely on the right to contract freely with their employers and clients. Keep this destructive legislation out of New York.
That Mayor Bloomberg believes that “tax policy is the way government uses capitalism… to encourage the right behavior” is shocking. It belies a fundamental ignorance of capitalism while revealing the mindset of a dictator.
Capitalism is the system wherein the government exists solely to protect the right of the individual citizen to make his own choices based on his own judgment, so long as he abstains from violating the equal rights of others. A dictatorship, by contrast, is the system wherein the government forces the individual citizen to follow the judgment of a single political leader.
Of course, we don’t yet live under a dictatorship or anything near one. What we live under is a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of capitalism and statism that is currently drifting towards the latter. In this context, the brazen assertion that the purpose of taxes is to influence behavior, rather finance government, represents yet another principled step away from our country’s founding principles.
Under capitalism, a political leader is not endowed with superior wisdom and the right to enforce it on the citizenry through tax policy, law, or any other means. Not in theory, not in fact, and not in a country founded on the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Senator Obama’s speech was an evasion of the issue that it was allegedly intended to address. His beloved reverend is a hateful, racist, anti-semitic, anti-American crackpot. By what stretch of the imagination can Senator Obama claim him as his “spiritual mentor,” and faithfully listen to his vicious ideas week after week for twenty years, while simultaneously claiming not to share them?
As demonstrated in this election and countless other aspects of contemporary culture, race is no longer a significant issue in the American mind. Articulate, charismatic, but two-faced, the Senator is the wrong man who has appeared at the right time.
In “The Greens vs. Germany’s Welfare State,” writer Martin Hefner attempts to deny the economic destructiveness of the Greens’ policies by ignoring their motives and absurdly claiming that the Greens are “allies” of business.
In fact, the premises held by the Greens are the exact opposite of the premises held by businessmen. According to Environmentalism, the business production that makes possible the urban and suburban environment of man should be eliminated because it “destroys” the “natural” environment of everything that isn’t man.
There is no way in logic to reconcile opposite principles. Environmentalism is undeniably a friend to trees, swamps, the unused oil under the ground and the caribou above it. It and its leaders are just as undeniably enemies of economic activity and human well-being.