Should Employers Be Allowed to Check Your Credit?

Business, Nanny Statism
By / / 6 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Should employers be allowed to check job applicants’ credit reports?

I debated that question on CNBC’s Street Signs today:

Of course employers should be allowed to check applicants’ credit. Why should they look only at the biased information you put on your resume? Credit reports provide a fuller picture.

My debate opponent, consumer advocate Joe Ridout, pointed out that there aren’t any statistical studies that show a correlation between bad credit and employees who rip off their employers. But why should we need such studies? How about a little common sense, which tells you that, say, someone who is routinely late in making payments just might be late for work?

The consumer advocates’ argument rests on the assumption that businesses are irrationally discriminating against applicants with bad credit.

But if we just assume that businesses are greedy and care only about making money — which, I think, the consumer-advocate types would normally grant us — then why would they spend money on credit reports that have no value? Do “consumer advocates” really believe that they not only know what’s best for you and me, but also know what’s best for businesses’ bottom lines?

Finally, let’s not forget the people with good credit and what a great service credit reports perform for them. A clean credit report lets you carry your good reputation with you wherever you go. Because of this market innovation, it doesn’t matter if you move to a new town where you don’t know the people at the bank or at your prospective employer’s office. They can check your report and see that, to that extent, you seem to be dependable.

It would be a shame if misguided activists and pandering politicians took some of this benefit away.

(Cross-posted at the Mises Blog.)

Should Employers Be Allowed to Check Your Credit? Read Post »

Re: Rekindling my hatred for Republicans

Anti-Statism, Drug Policy, The Left, The Right
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share
"Excellent..."

The War on Drugs is one of the most  insidious, racist policies I can imagine, Rob. It’s the allegedly “unintended” consequences which create the kind of havoc in the black community that the staunchest racists could never have accomplished with a free hand to terrorize blacks. The only other policy nearly as destructive to blacks is the government “school” system. And consider that taken together, these policies create a brutal one-two punch on black males. By operating a “school” system which makes it virtually impossible for urban black males to become educated, the most entrepreneurial of that demographic are wiped out in the drug war, either via murder at the hands of fellow black entrepreneurs, murder at the hands of state agents enforcing the prohibition on drugs, or imprisonment in the state’s torture-and-rape institutions. These are the guys who, in a world without the nanny-police state, would be the risk-takers, starting businesses and peacefully satisfying consumers’ wants. Racists must love seeing them killed or imprisoned! I suppose those urban black males with a spectacular talent in sports or the arts, as well as those who can rap well, have a shot of escaping the reservations called “housing projects” blacks have been gathered into by government over the last few generations, but for the average urban black male, joining the military and going to war is probably less stressful than just trying to survive.

Really, I can visualize the long-dead Southern slave-masters  looking up from Hell, tapping their fingers together in glee a la Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons.

Re: Rekindling my hatred for Republicans Read Post »

Rekindling my hatred for Republicans

Anti-Statism, Drug Policy, The Left, The Right
By / / 3 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

I’d let go of the hatred of Republicans for a while. I’d transferred most of the acrimony to Democrats, since Democratic policies have had the most devastating effects on my friends and family. Welfare has been incredibly destructive to blacks in America. The steady erosion of the family, the obsolescence of men within many black communities, and the reliance on government solutions to problems are things which I specifically associate with the programs supported by Democrats, and the popular support of the Democratic Party by blacks.

But just when I think I can forget about the Republicans, a reminder came to me, courtesy of The History Channel. During a discussion on cocaine, Nixon’s initiation of the war on drugs, and Reagan’s escalation of that policy were particularly highlighted. Looking at the ruin visited upon black communities, especially ones in urban areas, across the country, I found the old hatreds easy to resurrect. In my opinion, the war on drugs is the most destructive set of laws since slavery. Worse, in fact, than Jim Crow, since at least with Jim Crow laws, a black person could escape within the United States by going north. It is difficult to escape the war on drugs, even outside of the US.

Of course, the war on drugs cannot be blamed purely on Republicans. Democrats have waged the war on drugs very fiercely in their own right, yet few, if any, of the so-called black leaders who are commonly trotted out on various television programs bother to ever say anything negative about these policies. Those “leaders” are swift to take offense for all blacks for the smallest perceived slight or appearance of unfairness, yet they rarely attack the most savagely unfair laws on the books, drug laws. Indeed, looking at the issue without bias should lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that Barack Obama, due to his continued prosecution of the drug war, is the latest in a long line of racist presidents.

Rekindling my hatred for Republicans Read Post »

Corporate Leftism: Questions About the University of Michigan’s Smoking Ban

Corporatism, Education, Nanny Statism, The Left
By / / 17 Comments / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Just less than one year ago, it was announced that the University of Michigan would institute a “smoke free” policy on all three of its campuses, finally banning smoking on all university property after incrementally banning it first indoors and then within fifteen feet of all entrances and exits to university buildings. The new policy is set to take effect on July 1st, 2011.

However, this proposed policy has caused significant and vocal opposition from members of the campus community. In particular, members of the University of Michigan College Libertarians, including myself, have led the efforts to reverse this decision.

Criticisms, up to this point, have focused heavily on the fact that this decision was made entirely from on high by President Mary Sue Coleman without the involvement of students, faculty, or staff. There have also been significant concerns regarding the justifications for the ban: representatives of the “Smoke Free University Initiative” have stated, interestingly, that the ban is not in response to concerns regarding second-hand smoke (the usual excuse for such measures), but rather for the purpose of creating a “culture of health.” This, it seemed, was particularly ridiculous: the university was engaging in blatant paternalism and trying to make personal health decisions for students, faculty, and staff. One of the most vocal opponents of the ban, Alex Biles, had a modest proposal of his own for promoting a “culture of health.” There were a variety of other concerns, of course, including the issue of enforcement, the costs of this policy to the university, the additional cigarette butt littering after the removal of butt huts across campus, and so on.

However, a massive break was made last weekend when it was discovered that President Mary Sue Coleman, architect of the policy, also just so happened to sit on the Board of Directors of the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, which is the largest producer of smoking cession products in the nation, and received an incredible $229,978 in compensation. The College Libertarians quickly wrote up and sent out a press release regarding this development and the issue has spawned two articles in the most-read campus newspaper, the Michigan Daily, this week. This significant and obvious conflict of interest has never been addressed by Mary Sue Coleman and it was only through independent investigation that this was discovered.

This, of course, does not constitute evidence that the policy was motivated by her affiliation to the corporate giant. But, as Murray Rothbard insisted, we should not shy away from investigating such relationships and always asking, “cui bono?” when examining the genesis of government policies. What appear to be disinterested and benevolent actions by “public servants” are often motivated by far more sinister and self-serving reasons.

Corporate Leftism: Questions About the University of Michigan’s Smoking Ban Read Post »

The Division of Responsibility

Drug Policy, Health Care, The Basics
By / / 9 minutes of reading
Share

It is odd, perhaps, that just as the federal (read: national) government moves to take primary responsibility for our medical lives, the several states are moving in the other direction. The right to self-medicate is, increasingly, being seen as important. First medical marijuana — a slap on the face to federal nannies — and now recreational use, sees advocacy and advance at the state level.

Any advance in taking full responsibility for medicine, on the part of citizens, individuals, goes against the grain of our collectivist age, and sparks some hope.

Of course, in a sense, it seems 35 years behind the time. …

The Division of ResponsibilityRead More »

The Division of Responsibility Read Post »

Scroll to Top