By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
S.M. writes to suggest that there is a need to combat the socialist bias that exists in many of our schools, including our Catholic schools. S.M. argues that many in the academic world buy into the proposition that socialism serves the common good of society, in contrast to free-market capitalism, which they see as a system that enriches the few at the expense of society as a whole.
To combat this bias, S.M. argues, we should begin by stressing “that the private property rights found in capitalism are essential to personal liberty. Property rights go beyond just the freedom to own a farm in the country or a house in the city. Without property, lifting yourself out of poverty becomes impossible. Private property rights guarantee the individual the ability to survive economically without government ‘connections’ to the political party in power.”
What of the “robber barons” of old? Were they not an inevitable outcome of a free-market economy? S.M. asks us to put them in perspective: “We were all taught that the robber barons of the late 1800s were evildoers who took advantage of the markets to create monopolies yielding vast wealth at the expense of the common man. Modern academics tell us that it was only through trust busting by our ever-vigilant government officials that we were saved from this exploitation.”
S.M. recommends How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo to gain some a perspective on this topic, specifically the insights DiLorenzo offers on the careers of John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, and Cornelius Vanderbilt.
“John D. Rockefeller,” S.M. continues, “was not an oil man, but a good business man. His strength rested on his ability to work costs out of production processes to reduce use of raw materials and lower prices. He did this in competition with literally hundreds of competitors and the result was the creation of a dominant Standard Oil Company. He integrated the full production process into one company making use of all byproducts along the way. Over time, his prices kept dropping with increased efficiencies to the point his competitors (many of whom were U.S. politicians) rushed to the government seeking help.
“Our government responded by eventually breaking up Standard Oil and keeping the less efficient firms in business at higher prices to the consumer. This is how the trust busters ‘saved us’ from this robber baron, who had asked for no government subsidies.”
S.M. sees a similar pattern in the career of James J. Hill: “Hill created the Great Northern Railroad at a time of massive economic expansion throughout the country. In 1862, the government began to subsidize railroad construction with free land, loans, and payments per mile of track laid. The Union Pacific, Central Pacific, and Southern railroads were born, isolated by route.
“Once again, some executives of these companies were senators. These railroads laid track as fast as possible, without regard to shortest or best route, and used inferior materials when prompted by circumstances to facilitate the process. They even resorted to using cottonwood ties in places, inviting disaster.
“In contrast, James J. Hill always found the shortest routes and insisted on the best materials, regardless of cost. The long-term benefits were seen in a remarkably efficient railroad with quality service and constantly lower freight charges because rework/maintenance costs were minimized. Hill integrated his operation, but did not use government subsidies to support government waste.”
S.M. contends that Cornelius Vanderbilt’s success was the result of similarly sound economic planning: “He built an empire in steamships and steel. He actually began by competing with a government monopoly run by Robert Fulton. As the cost of steamboat traffic plummeted because of deregulation, the volume of traffic increased significantly and the industry took off. Government subsidies for the industry only served to encourage inefficient ship-building and higher operating costs once the ships were built.
“By not taking subsidies, Vanderbilt focused on efficiency and avoided the government regulations and ultimately drove his subsidized competitors out of business. His efforts produced lower costs with a quality of service that led the industry.”
On another topic: the ongoing assault against common sense at the hands of the politically correct. Katherine Timpf does admirable work in ferreting out examples of this syndrome. Just recently she described in National Review feminists in Australia who are turning against each other in an effort to demonstrate that their version of feminism is the purest and most uncompromising.
The contretemps took place over a decision by the city of Melbourne, Australia, to install dress-wearing, “female” traffic signals in the name of gender equality.
We are talking about those illuminated stick figures in the shape of a walking pedestrian at traffic intersections that tell you when it is safe to cross the road. The problem was that all the figures were in trousers.
Writes Timpf, “According to an article in the local news, the city started installing new lights as part of a campaign to eliminate ‘unconscious bias.’ In other words, the city was concerned that seeing only ‘male’ traffic signals was causing its residents to subconsciously develop the idea that male people mattered more than female people.”
This is not an April’s Fool joke. Feminists in Melbourne decided to intersperse lighted stick figures in skirts along with those wearing trousers. “The idea is to install traffic lights with female representation, as well as male representation, to help reduce unconscious bias,” chief executive Martine Letts told reporters in Australia.
“The aim is to move towards one-to-one male and female representation across the state of Victoria.”
Complaints poured in, but not from where you might think. They were from other feminists who object to the skirts! They contend it is sexist to assume that women wear skirts and that only women wear skirts!
Timpf resorts to sarcasm to underscore the absurdity of all this. She writes, “The people objecting to the skirts make great points. I mean, why weren’t we assuming that some of the pants-wearing traffic signals were women all along? Is Melbourne saying that you’re not a real woman if you don’t wear a dress? Oh, and by the way, why are all of these dress-wearing ones being declared ‘female’? Don’t these people know that not all people who wear dresses are women? Why no dress-wearing, male-to-female-transgender signals? Why no signals that alternate between pants and skirts to represent gender fluidity?”
One’s first reaction is to laugh, except I suspect that the question of whether it is demeaning to women to have a traffic figures depicted in skirts — or not — would be taken quite seriously in some modern American college classrooms.
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford CT 06492.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress