The Middle is Always Evil

Dear Exxon Mobil Executives,

Yesterday, you made public your quarterly earnings, setting a record for the biggest profit in the history of the United States: 11.68 billion billion dollars. Over the next few weeks (and quite possibly over the next few years), you should expect to get a lot of flak from Washington, as well as the American public, about how you have made an “unfair profit;” they’ll tell you that the money that you’ve made rightfully belongs to somebody else. Just today, Barack Obama has said that he thinks your profits should be divided up and given to the American public– but did they earn those profits? No!

This is the United States of America, the greatest country in the history of civilized men. Here, each man is entitled to the sweat of his own brow, to the products of his labor. I am proud to live in a country where a corporation has earned as much as yours has; I consider it a great honor. Gentlemen, when the entire country comes to you demanding a share of your wealth, do not capitulate. Do not give in to their threats, or their corrupt moral code that demands that you do. Do not accept guilt for living on this earth, or the way that you have chosen to do so. Do not listen to them.

And when you are called before Congress to testify for your crimes against the American public, this is what you tell them:

I work for nothing but my own profit - which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with - voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbours and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologise for my ability - I refuse to apologise for my success - I refuse to apologise for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish - but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognise the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work - my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good - that nobody’s good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices - that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the right of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation - as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won’t. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being’s right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!”

I am proud of what you Gentlemen have achieved, not because of the “public service” that you have provided, but because of the virtue that it requires to achieve it. You are heroes; do not give in.

I commented on gas prices in an earlier blog post, but I feel that more needs to be said.

Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic Nominee, has said that if elected, he would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies. It is said that companies like Chevron and Exxon Mobile have made an “unfair profit, ” and that they should have to give the excess money that they made “back to the American people.” Obama himself has said:

“I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.”

Other liberals have spouted similar rhetoric. Here’s Hillary Clinton:

She wants to “take” their profits.

Obama and Hillary aren’t the only ones. Every Democrat in the Senate– as well as two Republicans– voted for such a windfall profits tax, which– thankfully– did not pass.

If you take away the windfall profits of oil companies, they will be unable to reinvest in new supply; they will be forced to slow their own production of crude oil. Where will they go for crude oil then? Ah, yes, the Mideast; where else? But buying their crude oil from the Mideast will be much more expensive than it would be if they were able to process it themselves. Unfortunately, they won’t be able to because Obama will have “taken” the money that they would need. But what does all of this mean for the average American?

As George Will notes in a video that is viewable here, Corporations don’t pay taxes, they just raise their prices, and the consumer pays them. Taxing away gas companies’ profits will only hurt the American consumer. That’s what happened in the 80’s under Carter’s profits tax, and it will happen again under a similar Obama tax– only this time it will be much worse. Why? Because this time around supply is being even further restricted by environmentalist congressmen–Democrats mostly. What exactly are they doing to restrict the supply of oil? First, a bit of history.

In 1995, Congress passed legislation that would have allowed oil production on a small fraction– less than one tenth of one percent– of ANWR. With this land designated for oil production, America could have produced an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. Such a measure would certainly have been a huge step toward relieving America of its dependence on foreign oil, but the bill was vetoed by Clinton. Why? The same reason that the Democratically controlled Congress opposes the same drilling in the present day– Environmentalism.

Democrats today want the same things they wanted in ‘95: A complete and permanent halt of all development on ANWR, as well as a ban on offshore drilling on the east and west coast of the United States. The men who draft such proposals talk about the devastating effects that such acts, if taken, would have on the affected ecosystems. Not only are these claims unfounded (offshore drilling has actually been fairly clean since the ’70s, and as I said above, the ANWR drilling in question would be over less than .01% of the reserved land, thus affecting little of the wildlife, if any), but it is my sincere belief that the men who make them do not believe what they themselves are saying, and their motives are sinister in nature.

Think hard about what the liberals in Congress actually want.

First, they want a huge windfall profits tax of at least 25% on an industry that already has 45% of its income taxed, an action that will cause a decrease in supply, a rise in demand, and ultimately, an increase in gas prices. Next, they want to ban oil exploration and drilling everywhere. But thats not all: liberals want heavier taxes on coal companies, as well as the continuation of a very heavy tariff on ethanol from Brazil, which is a de facto ban. And it doesn’t even stop there: most liberals, including ‘Bama, do not support nuclear energy, the cleanest, safest energy source known to man, because– guess why? Environmental hazards.

If Barack Obama is elected president, this kind of supply restriction will occur, and it will result in a kind of perfect storm for the American consumer. Over time, gas prices will hit an unimaginable level, and the American economy will be devastated. But just as always, the guilty parties will receive no blame. The blame will fall on “greedy corporations,” and like fuel onto a fire, more harmful restrictions will surely be put in place.

If liberal Congressmen actually wanted lower gas prices for Americans, they would take the opposite position on all of the above issues. But they don’t. Why not?? These men are not stupid; they are not misguided; they are elected officials; they all have been well educated, and have a significant amount of experience in the world. They know what they are doing. They want our gas prices to go higher. George Will put it well when he said:

“On the left in this country what they want is a manufactured scarcity so that government can have the rationale to ration [oil supplies], which gives the government what the left wants: an ever more minute supervision of our daily choices.”

And while this is what the left wants on the surface, it is only a means to an end, which is, ultimately: the destruction of all that is good. The Dems in congress hate the profits of the oil companies, not because they are evil, but because they are good. They hate the production of oil refineries and drilling for oil, not because those things represent ruin, as they claim, but because they represent production. They consider that which is good to be evil because it is good. Ayn Rand wrote about this view of life in her book, Atlas Shrugged:

They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.

How can we defeat this kind of evil? As believers in Capitalism and the free market, we have historically put ourselves at a disadvantage. We must start believing that we are right, and that what we believe in is virtuous. We cannot win a fight in which we consider ourselves to be evil, and our opponent good.

We allow these men to escape from moral judgement by accepting that the cause that they say they fight for– environmentalism– is virtuous. As I have said before, to hold nature as an end in and of itself is not a moral position, it is an immoral one. All of that which is anti-mind is anti-life. By accepting the premise that environmentalism is a fundamentally positive ideal, we are giving them a moral sanction that they do not deserve. It is for this reason that we get candidates like John McCain, who compromise progress and pay lip service to “stewardship of creation.” McCain tentatively supports offshore drilling, but only recently, and only because it has become so politically convenient in the last few months.

Proclaim Capitalism to be your moral sanction, and that each man’s right to his own life is an absolute that cannot be superseded by any legislature. This is the truth they fear, but will never admit.

Tell it.

I just read Liberty Tree Lantern’s most recent post, which posed the question: Do liberal environmentalist senators care about your family? After a quick read of the post, I was unsurprised to learn that they most certainly do not …Not that I would expect them to– that would be a ridiculous expectation; after all, they don’t even know my family. What I was surprised to learn on Liberty Tree’s blog is this: apparently, they don’t care about their own families either.

Liberty Tree sent Senator Herb Kohl an e-mail admonishing him to relinquish land for oil drilling that has been delegated by the government (without any constitutional authority) for the “National Wildlife Refuge,” thus stripping it of any productive use that it may have.

Liberals will often dismiss drilling on this land, which was stolen from us by the government for the sake of polar bears, as well as offshore oil drilling, on the grounds that it does not have enough resources in it to even put a dent in our dependence on foreign oil. I am tired of hearing this. They don’t know how much oil is on that land– no one knows; there are estimates that range from hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil per year to hundreds of millions. All that anyone can be sure of at this point, is that these men are artificially restricting our supply of crude oil.

Traditional conservatives and most libertarians view this as a mere political difference, just another case of dumbliberalitis.

I know better than that. The following is an excerpt from Senator Khol’s automated response to Liberty Tree’s email:

I oppose drilling for oil and gas in the ANWR because of the irreparable damage that would be done to its fragile ecosystem.

Senator Khol, it seems, is a true believer in environmentalism, a topic I blogged on just the other day. But that is not all! Kohl continues:

I co-sponsored Senator Lieberman’s (I-CT) bill, S. 2316, which was introduced on November 7, 2007 that would designate a portion of the ANWR as a wilderness, placing a permanent ban on development (italics mine)

Sounds to me like Senator Kohl is a humanity hater in the first degree. Heaven help us if we actually developed something– we might interfere with an ecosystem! Sounds like we need a permanent ban to make sure no productive individuals slip through the cracks and start… developing… (insert Senator Kohl’s evil laugh…)

By now, you the reader must be wondering: what about Kohl could be so bad that I would desecrate his name with a post title? Well, Kohl has earned my ire just by virtue of the fact that he is the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. Kohl’s contribution to the business of government mainly consists of wrecking the American economy with harmful regulations of business, while attempting to justify his useless, bureaucratic position by holding hearings on things that few care about, but for which all have to pay. Kohl’s record is so long, and shows so much promise for continued growth, that I’m starting a category dedicated solely to him called Kohl Watch; every time he does or says something stupid, I’ll be sure to blog on it. I’ve got my work cut out for me.

Some of you are probably aware that last month, Senator Kohl, along with the rest of his gang of thugs, publicly made a mockery of the United States Government when they demanded to know what oil company executives had to say for themselves, insisting that they defend their right to their own, freely earned profits, what George Reisman, noted economist, called an interrogation of the innocent by the guilty. The high point of this sham of a proceeding was by far and away when Khol made an utter fool of himself, lashing out at the VP of Chevron, screeching:

People listening just don’t get it … when demand isn’t going crazy, why are prices going crazy?

The stupidity is almost palpable. Demand is not the problem at all; just ask David O’Reilly, chairman of Chevron:

On the supply side, there’s still a lot of concern. The world isn’t running out of resources — the biggest risk for expanding production is restricting access to new developments.

Herbert Kohl has been complaining about the profits of Big Oil for years– since he was elected in 1989. Talk about a hatred of the good for being good. What he doesn’t mention– what nobody cares to mention, in fact– is that with all the tax on oil in the United States, the government actually gets more money per gallon than oil companies. Unbelievable, but true, and it doesn’t stop there. Congress has also slowed the import of clean ethanol by imposing hefty tariffs on the imports from Brazil in order to “protect American jobs.” If by “protecting American jobs” you mean eliminating market competitors for fossil fuels, thereby forcing us all to pay more for gas, then you’re doing a great job, Congress. What about nuclear energy? You know, the cleanest, safest form of energy ever discovered by man? No, no serious talk of that in 20 years… I know! We can really stick it to the evil oil companies by riding our bikes to work like we live in Columbia! Come on, people.

If they really wanted to lower gas prices, they’d cut the taxes, and open up the restricted areas. But they won’t. They want the prices to be high so they can foster a positive public sentiment about their Marxist agenda to nationalize the US oil refineries.

You see. In the end, its all about empowering the weak at the expense of the productive. Don’t buy into their nonsense. If you’re an oil company executive, and you’re reading this, please shrug.