I Believe

Americans believe in free speech. We share a social contract that assures every individual the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What happens when these cherished principles intersect with the realities of corporate responsibility and societal norms?

Should Americans boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech?

How should companies that champion First Amendment rights above all else position themselves?

The 21st Century is one of “Managing for Stakeholders.” The task of executives is to create as much value as possible for stakeholders without resorting to tradeoffs. Great companies endure because they manage to get stakeholder interests aligned in the same direction. — R. Edward Freeman

Americans have the right to boycott companies for any reason of their choosing. These reasons might include political donations, treatment of employees, stances on social issues, and other policy positions.

R. Edward Freeman, Ph.D., American philosopher and Elis and Signe Olsson Professor of Business Administration at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, pioneered modern Stakeholder Theory in Business. Stakeholder Theory has profoundly impacted business ethics and corporate social responsibility practices.

Stakeholder Theory posits that a firm should “create value for all stakeholders, not just shareholders.” These stakeholders include employees, customers, the broader community, and shareholders. In A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management, Freeman and John McVea outline decisive factors businesses must consider, including integrating stakeholder equity into the firm’s purpose to achieve survival. Towards this aim, business executives must establish and share their firm’s core values and invest in the relationships that will ensure long-term success for their organization.

Imagine a social media company facing backlash for allowing offensive speech on its platform. Applying Stakeholder Theory, the company's executives would need to evaluate how this speech impacts all stakeholders. For employees, it could create a hostile work environment; for users, it might foster an unsafe online community; for advertisers, it could associate their brands with harmful content, and for shareholders, it might lead to financial losses due to consumer boycotts.

You can watch Dr. Freeman’s entertaining TedX Charlotte presentation, “Business is about Purpose,” here.

Thomas Donaldson and Thomas Dunfee, in their work Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics, considered social contract theory for economics. The book’s introductory analogy is a handshake between business partners, symbolizing a contract. Donaldson and Dunfee identify fairness, respect for others, and integrity as fundamental business principles. They further identify challenges, such as cultural differences, that lead to varied business expectations. 

The social contract is an intriguing construct, especially in the context of business and consumer relations. This theory posits that just as citizens can hold their government accountable in a social contract, consumers have a parallel right to hold businesses accountable. When businesses fail to uphold ethical standards or societal values, consumers can perceive this as a breach of the implicit social contract.

In short, businesses must balance the interests of all stakeholders, and stakeholders (like consumers) have the right to hold companies accountable when they fail to do so.

For example, when a company engages in practices that are harmful to the environment, consumers may respond with boycotts. Donaldson and Dundee use Shell Oil as a case study in their book. This action is not merely a market choice; it's a form of holding the company accountable for violating the implied ethical agreement that it would operate in line with the American social contract.

This business-consumer social contract might seem at odds with other strong American views. The social contract of America, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, assures every individual the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Embedded within this concept of liberty is our cherished freedom of speech. This poses a challenging question: How do we reconcile a business’s responsibility to its stakeholders with the protection of free speech, particularly when the speech is objectionable?

Freedom of speech is part of the national consciousness and legally protected by the First Amendment. This freedom is championed by media companies as a fundamental right that allows for the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and information.

Our first question. Should Americans boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech?

Freedom of speech represents protection from the government. Freedom of speech is not protection from consequences and judgement from fellow citizens. Further, Americans sometimes cross a line of acceptable speech. We might call this speech objectionable, or hate speech at its extreme. Hate speech has no clear definition across America.

When Americans cross this line, our national social contract comes into play. If media platforms fail to consider their consumers and allow what many consider is hate speech on their platform, consumers vote with their dollar and leave. If media platforms fail to consider their fellow corporations who pay them for advertising space, those corporations might judge the media company is untrustworthy and pull advertising dollars.

In this context free speech is a philosophical issue as much as a legal one.

If free speech is a philosophical issue in the realm of a social contract wherein consumers have the right to hold companies accountable for a failure to maintain civil discourse, Americans could boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech.

However, Americans also have a responsibility to respect the rights of others. The intricate balance between personal liberty and national division creates a resilient, enduring, free society. America relies on the individual liberty that empowers personal freedom, even while individual liberty creates division. This relationship demands we respect and fight for the liberty of others, even when they oppose our views.

Where’s the line between our right to boycott speech we don’t agree with and our responsibility to respect the rights of others?

Speech that calls for violence against others clearly violates the social contract as this speech disregards the lives and liberty of others. To uphold this social contract Americans should work to influence social media platforms to ban groups that have demonstrated a history of violence. We must take all calls for violence as a legitimate threat to others. Likewise, words enabling other criminal acts, such as human trafficking, pedophilia and other heinous activities, must be eliminated. These activities are threats to the lives and liberty of others, and those who support or enable this speech violate the American social contract.

However, when individuals or groups use social media platforms for offensive language that doesn’t call for violence and the group has no history of violence, we must tolerate their behavior. Using offensive language doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights. Those who would be offended can demonstrate their right to speech by responding, or they can demonstrate their right to refuse to learn from viewpoints with which they don’t agree and direct their attention elsewhere. Those who support the safe but objectionable views of others support the American social contract.

The American social contract extends to private companies. Businesses must balance the interests of all stakeholders, and stakeholders (like consumers) have the right to hold companies accountable when they fail to do so.

Our second question. How should companies that champion First Amendment rights above all else position themselves?

Let’s consider Dr. Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory again. Companies need to integrate stakeholder equity into the firm’s purpose to achieve survival. Freeman identifies many stakeholders, including customers, government, shareholders, owners, employees, and others. Social media platforms that seek to integrate stakeholder equity across this diverse group should take the American social contract into account—every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Media companies themselves only offer a platform. They are not the source of offensive speech. Social media companies that fail to ban threats to life and liberty are perceived to break our social contract and have no protection from individual Americans who could choose to boycott their brand. However, lacking calls for violence or a history of violence, social media platforms that enable free speech support our social contract.

Media companies should build equity among stakeholders by enabling individuals the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When speech calls for violence, or the group has demonstrated a history of violence, platforms must block these groups. If they fail to do so, consumers will boycott their brand. For anyone claiming a loss of First Amendment rights for these groups, consider—these groups could create their own platforms. Existing media platforms don’t owe anyone the right to post anything of their choosing.

However, if a social media platform fashions itself a defendant of free speech, speech that doesn’t call for violence must be tolerated. Some of the users will be criticized as “snowflakes, elitists, woke, misogynists, trolls, or fascists,” among other names. There will be calls from both sides to deplatform the other.

Though the two sides might fail to admit their commonality, they both share a belief that their freedom of speech is part of the American social contract. Removing one group’s ability to speak freely threatens a loss of free speech for us all.

Americans believe in free speech. We share a social contract of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Should Americans boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech?

Speech that calls for violence against others clearly violates our social contract. Americans should work to influence social media platforms to ban groups that have demonstrated a history of violence.

When individuals or groups use social media platforms for offensive language that doesn’t call for violence, we have a responsibility to tolerate their behavior.

How should companies that champion First Amendment rights above all else position themselves?

Social media platforms that seek to integrate stakeholder equity should take the American social contract into account—every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech is part of our national social contract.

When speech doesn’t threaten the lives and liberty of others, removing one group’s ability to speak freely threatens a loss of free speech for us all.

May God bless the United States of America.

Because Americans, like twelve black men in Arkansas in 1919, endured hardship, and individuals like President and Chief Justice Taft dedicated themselves to the constitutional rights of all Americans, more Americans today have the opportunity to be great.

We must dare to be great, and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage. — William H. Taft

Elaine, Arkansas, 1919. Black American sharecropper farmers were unsatisfied with the cotton crop payments they received from plantation owners who monopolized local agriculture during the Jim Crow era. The farmers met at a local church with the Progressive Farmers and Household Union of America to consider joining to seek higher revenues. 

Union organizers arranged for armed individuals to surround the church and protect the farmers during the meeting. The individual who fired the first shot is unknown. A white security officer from the Missouri-Pacific railroad died in the encounter, and a white deputy sheriff was wounded. 

The following day, the local Phillips County, Arkansas, sheriff organized a posse to round up the black individuals. The posse turned into an armed mob of “500 to 1,000” white individuals, both locals and individuals from surrounding states. The mob took matters into their own hands, indiscriminately killing their black neighbors. The Governor of Arkansas requested support from the then Department of War (now Department of Defense), who sent 500 troops to restore order.

In restoring order, the troops locked local black residents in enclosures until their white neighbors vouched for them. 

The event became known as the Elaine Massacre. Five white individuals died. The official death tally of black Americans by the sheriff was 26. Historian Griffin Stockley estimated the black American death toll between 100 and 200. In On the Laps of Gods: The Red Summer of 1919 and the Struggle for Justice That Remade a Nation, Robert Whitaker estimated the number of black Americans who died at 856. 

The sheriff brought charges against twelve black men for the deaths of the five white individuals. A mob surrounded the courthouse during the trial, shouting that if the judge didn’t sentence the men to death, they would lynch them. After deliberating for less than ten minutes per man, the jury found them guilty; Judge J. M. Jackson sentenced them to death.

The ongoing legal battles lasted several years. Among other procedural shortfalls, the state had denied the twelve men access to defense lawyers. No matter, the US Supreme Court and different lower courts denied their appeals on multiple occasions. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) lawyers finally won an appeal, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 

After serving as President of the United States, William H. Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Warren G. Harding. Taft oversaw the Moore v. Dempsey (1923) case involving the twelve black men. The lawyers of the twelve argued the state had denied the plaintiffs due process and the appeals failed to correct the deficiencies of the initial trial. 

In the unanimous decision, the justices ruled federal courts had the authority to review state court decisions if the state denied defendants a fair trial. The justices further found the state refused the twelve individuals their Constitutional rights. This ruling now helps protect individual rights against mob justice and racial prejudice​​.

The twelve won their Supreme Court case, but the state case wasn’t over. The high court ordered a retrial. Instead, the Arkansas governor commuted their sentences, and Arkansas released the twelve men on parole. 

President and US Supreme Court Chief Justice Taft’s quote again - “We must dare to be great, and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage.”

We should piece this statement apart.

We must dare to be great…

As a legal scholar and dedicated national servant, William H. Taft chose words with intention. His background in law and governance influenced his precise and deliberate use of language. His use of the term “must” suggests a sense of obligation or imperative. This word reflects Taft’s understanding of leadership and public service responsibilities, implying that striving for greatness is necessary for society and one’s purpose.

Greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice…

High levels of success are not the result of luck or talent. Success is the outcome of persistent effort and the endurance of hardship and failure.

Taft’s perspective underscores the value of commitment and perseverance in pursuing ambitious goals.

And high courage.

Taft’s views of race were complex and racially biased. In 1906, he supported Jim Crow laws and expressed beliefs that African Americans were not ready to use the vote effectively. He described black Americans as “not having the mental stature of manhood.” 

Despite his racial views, Taft as Chief Justice believed all Americans had constitutional rights. Many Americans at the time, who accepted that black Americans couldn’t eat in the same restaurant, use the same water fountains, and use the same bathrooms, disagreed.

Taft and the Supreme Court justices of his court demonstrated courage to set the legal precedent that, despite their distaste, black Americans had the same constitutional rights as white Americans.

It was not courageous of Taft to think lowly of black Americans. That was cowardice.

It was courageous of Taft’s court to accept their views of race were wrong, and demonstrate the fortitude to transcend personal biases to uphold broader principles of liberty and equality.

We won’t all achieve society’s view of greatness. We don’t all start from the same starting line. The fastest, strongest, or smartest don’t always win the race. Time and chance happen to everyone. Some choose not even to compete.

Some are unwilling or unable to make the effort or sacrifice. A sick child or sick parent might be a higher priority.

Some willing to make the effort might face nearly unsurmountable challenges because of their circumstances. Growing up in poverty presents challenges most don’t overcome. 

However, individual Americans decide their potential in life, not by choosing where to end up but by choosing when to quit. This decision is not due to the status of your birth. And even if we don’t achieve society’s view of greatness, we can be great for our communities and those we love around us. We can be great by choosing to help others.

Because Americans, like twelve black men in Arkansas in 1919, endured hardship, and individuals like President and Chief Justice Taft dedicated themselves to the constitutional rights of all Americans, more Americans today have the opportunity to be great.

May God bless the United States of America.

Collectivism is a social and political philosophy that emphasizes the importance of the common good — what’s best for society.

If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), writing a century after John Locke, is the foundational Western philosopher of collectivism. Rousseau starkly contrasted John Locke’s individualism (see John Locke: Ownership of Self, from last week).

While both critiqued the absolute authority of monarchs, Rousseau, in his 1762 The Social Contract, introduced the general will, which posited the community and not the individual was the basis of political legitimacy.

Rousseau’s main points: 

* General Will: Rousseau’s concept of the general will is central to his philosophy. Rousseau theorized that legitimate political authority doesn’t come from individual consent but from the “general will” of the people. Rousseau theorized the general will is about the common good – what’s best for society. 

* Social Contract Theory: Rousseau’s social contract theory differs from Locke’s in its orientation to an individual’s relationship with the state. Rousseau saw the social contract as an agreement between individuals to form a collective body, after which individuals surrender their rights to the general will for the common good. In contrast, Locke’s social contract represents individuals agreeing to form a government that protects their natural rights (life, liberty, and property, which Thomas Jefferson expanded to the pursuit of happiness). 

* Freedom and Autonomy: Rousseau saw true freedom as adherence to the general will. In Rousseau’s view, when one aligns with the general will, one is not being coerced but is instead participating in self-legislation.

* Natural Human Goodness and Corruption by Society: Rousseau posited that humans are naturally good, and society’s structures corrupt this innate goodness. 

John Locke’s ideas, not Rousseau’s, outline our US Constitution. But even though we didn’t structure our Constitution using Rousseau’s ideas, America hasn’t ever been able to wholly refute them either. On the surface, Rousseau’s argument seems beneficial. We might hear it described by some with a positive spin as “a rising tide lifts all boats.” It implies that policies or actions that help the greater good will benefit everyone, not just a specific group. Sometimes this is true. 

If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?

A key point of divergence is the term “general will.” Rousseau argued that the general will of the people, as opposed to the sum of individual wills, represents the true interest of the community.

James Madison and many founders of America wholly disagreed. They feared collectivism could suppress individual rights and lead to a tyranny of the majority.

Madison, writing Federalist No. 10, urged protecting the individual from the collective. He used the term majority twelve times in the short essay. He outlined that dividing power between groups protects the rights of individuals from the majority or general will of the people. This division of power included checks and balances at the federal level, power divided between states and the federal government, and a representative form of government rather than a direct democracy. 

In sum, Rousseau’s concept of the general will represents the common good – what’s best for society. While this sounds good, this same concept can potentially oppress the individual. 

Though American founders didn’t agree with Rousseau’s views as he wrote them, we should consider a couple of points about collectivism.

First, Rousseau’s theory that the general will is about the common good — what’s best for society — is sound when we acknowledge that the common good is preserving our rights as individuals. 

Sometimes, Americans try to take a collectivist approach and strip rights away from other Americans, such as the right to demonstrate free speech by some who would wear different clothes or read different books than others. Eventually, this gets resolved. Issues often get resolved in favor of the individual rather than the majority (represented by the government.) This process is not straightforward or swift. For example, the history of civil rights in the United States illustrates that protecting individual rights for marginalized groups requires prolonged legal and social struggles.

The crux of the matter regarding Rousseau’s general will begs the question—who decides what’s best for society? 

When we give the majority, represented by the government, the power to strip rights away from some individuals, we give the majority the ability to strip rights away from us all. When we fight for the rights of other Americans to maintain their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including the right to make decisions that support those rights, we retain our own rights. 

Second, individualism fails when individuals collectively fail. When individualism fails, society calls for collectivism.

This dilemma is the strongest argument in support of Rousseau’s theories. For instance, a US Federal Reserve study from 2018 titled, Are Millennials Different?, found young American generations have lower average earnings, fewer assets, and a different financial landscape compared to what previous generations experienced at similar stages in their lives.

These conditions faced by young American generations have individualists and collectivists posing solutions. A Roosevelt Institute position paper from 2015 titled Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy outlines various approaches to redirect the American economy. The paper includes ideas such as strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, and awarding government contracts only to corporations that meet high labor standards. 

While some might disagree with the proposals, these are individualist ideas. They are not collectivist policies. Individuals need to be able to succeed economically. We must pay workers high enough wages so they can provide for their own needs from the effort of their work. This premise supports individualism. If we can’t set conditions enabling individuals who go to work every day to have heat in the house and food on the table, the call for collectivist approaches will get louder. Collectivist approaches might be Universal Basic Income and more debt transfer from Americans into the federal deficit.

We don’t need to agree with all of the Roosevelt Institute’s ideas to recognize that the call for solutions results from real economic challenges.

Conservatives and progressives alike can build consensus around raising American workers’ wages. Improving the ability of individual Americans to provide for themselves strengthens our individualism society. Higher wages for workers reduce the need for social programs. Higher wages preserve American’s ability to demonstrate their rights to liberty.

Suppose we are going to set conditions that enable Americans to provide for their own basic needs, help individual self-motivated Americans to be great no matter their upbringing, and reduce the social program taxation burden on the American taxpayer. In that case, we must enable individual Americans to succeed economically.

If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?

Because collectivism can suppress individual rights and lead to the tyranny of the majority.

If we want to maintain the individualism that is the foundation of America, we need to enable individuals to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

How do Americans regard John Locke’s principle of self-ownership?

Across the political spectrum, Americans believe in an individual’s right to own themselves, their property, and the product of their labor. Conservatives might interpret self-ownership in terms of economic freedom and property rights. Progressives might focus more on personal liberties and rights in healthcare, reproductive rights, and freedom of expression. Libertarians might interpret self-ownership as the right to make decisions about one’s body, privacy, and personal life without coercion or control by the state.

Though we express this belief differently, we all believe in John Locke’s fundamental concepts of life, liberty, and property.

And we express this belief by voting.

Englishman John Locke (1632-1704) was a philosopher and physician. He is the original source of individualism and, therefore, American theory.

Locke penned his most influential works late in the 17th century. He wrote his seminal Two Treatises of Government (1689) while exiled in the Netherlands. Locke’s two treatises:

* Locke first refuted the concept of the divine right of kings.

* Locke then outlined modern representative democracy. He argued for social contract theory, positing that governments exist with the consent of the governed and must protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.

Locke’s influence extended beyond philosophy into political theory, education, and theology. His ideas on religious tolerance were particularly forward-thinking for his time, advocating for the separation of church and state.

Locke’s ideas became fundamental to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States Constitution.

Locke’s broad ideas are, in essence, an outline of the US Constitution. From Two Treatises of Government, they include:

* First, a foundation of natural rights, which Locke defined as life, liberty, and property. These ideas heavily influenced Thomas Jefferson when Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, where he famously wrote about “unalienable rights,” including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

* Second, our government exists as a social contract wherein the representatives serve with the consent of the governed. This concept underpins the Constitution’s provision for a government that derives its power from the consent of the governed.

* Third, we prevent institutional tyranny through the separation of powers. Our Constitution structure includes a system of checks and balances among the government's legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The structure of our republican representative democracy, which flows from our Constitution’s structure, flows from Locke’s theories.

Servants of the nation swear allegiance to our Constitution. Because Locke’s theories outline our Constitution, national servants (elected officials), intentionally or not, believe in John Locke’s ideas: natural rights, representatives serving their constituents, and preventing institutional tyranny.

If we as a nation structure our society based on Locke’s theories, do we support Locke’s theory of property as a natural right? Jefferson changed it in the Declaration of Independence to the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson broadened the scope of natural rights to a more holistic view of what it means to live a free and fulfilling life. By the time of the American Revolution, thinkers like Jefferson interpreted enlightenment ideas to emphasize not just material wealth and property but broader human well-being and fulfillment concepts. “The pursuit of happiness” reflects this more comprehensive enlightenment thought, focusing on individual fulfillment in a more holistic sense.

In contrast, Locke’s original premise was that everyone owned property. He argued that property is a natural right stemming from an individual’s right to own themselves and the product of their labor. According to Locke, people own themselves, and when a person works on something from nature, their labor is mixed with the resource, making it their property. Following this line of reasoning, since we possess ownership over ourselves, we inherently direct the autonomy of our bodies and maintain the right to make choices that serve our interests.

The government cannot grant natural rights; natural rights are inherent in the state of nature. The transition from natural rights to civil society, as Locke posits, involves individuals consenting to form a government. Citizens consent to governance with the understanding that the government’s primary role is protecting these natural rights.

Locke’s philosophy transforms at the transition point of joining natural rights and civil society. His principles become not just about individual rights in isolation but about how these rights are essential in the formation and functioning of a modern democratic society. This broader context is crucial in understanding Locke’s enduring influence on American political thought.

Because Jefferson changed the term “property” to “pursuit of happiness,” do Americans believe, like Locke did, that we own ourselves?

Yes. Americans believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership.

Conservatives might interpret self-ownership in terms of economic freedom and property rights. They emphasize the importance of individual responsibility and the freedom to pursue financial success without excessive government intervention.

Progressives might focus more on personal liberties and rights in healthcare, reproductive rights, and freedom of expression. They often advocate for a role of government ensuring individuals have the resources and opportunities to exercise their rights fully, viewing self-ownership as a matter of property and economic freedom but also of personal autonomy and social justice.

Libertarians stress the importance of individual autonomy in all aspects of life, advocating for minimal government intervention. They might interpret self-ownership as the right to make decisions about one’s body, privacy, and personal life without coercion or control by the state.

In sum, Americans believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership.

No matter the group you associate with (if any), the logic is that if we don’t own ourselves, we are not free to pursue our life goals, find happiness, and seek personal fulfillment. In American culture and legal understanding, this concept has evolved to include various aspects of personal autonomy, such as freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, and the right to privacy. We see these rights as integral to an individual’s ability to pursue their version of happiness.

Further, American voters believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership. Right now, American voters are expressing this belief by voting for other Americans to have the right to make their own healthcare decisions. John Locke’s theory of self-ownership, 319 years after his death, keeps winning elections. 

Conservatives, progressives, and libertarians alike believe in Locke’s theory. And why shouldn’t we? Locke’s ideas formed our national system. Though the Constitution framers didn’t adopt the language verbatim, we believe in natural rights, the social contract that exists between our representatives and the consent of the governed, and keeping in check the tyranny of the institution just in case the institution tries to tell us we can’t make decisions in line with our natural rights.

How do Americans regard John Locke’s principle of self-ownership?

Across the political spectrum, Americans believe in an individual’s right to own themselves.

The diverse interpretations of self-ownership across the political spectrum — from conservative to progressive and libertarian—highlight this concept’s dynamic nature in shaping American policy and law. Locke’s self-ownership principle will likely continue playing a critical role in American political discourse.

Further, we don’t just say we believe in Locke’s principle. American voters believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership and, by extension, the right to make their own healthcare decisions in line with this natural right.

May God bless the United States of America.

Could we create a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to incentivize builders to build small, affordable homes?

My grandfather and great-grandfather built my grandparents’ first house. It was a short distance down the lane from the ranch house. My grandparents were 18-year-old newlyweds; they would go on to be married until he passed away nearly 50 years later.

The house was two used chicken coops they pushed together. One chicken coop became a room for sleeping, the other for daily activities. It was cold in the winter and hot in the summer.

If you’ve never been inside a chicken coop, allow me to explain that they are not a structure you would want to live in. Chickens are not clean animals. They explore every inch of their nesting area, leaving droppings along the way. They are dirty and dusty. They bring in bugs of both the microscopic bacterial variety and the visible insect variety.

In short, you would prefer not to live in a used chicken coop. What’s more, in the 1940s, when my grandparents were married, there was no such thing as a pressure washer. Of course, they could scrub the floors, walls, and ceiling with soapy water. Maybe they had some money for paint, but if their first house was two chicken coops, they might not have had paint.

Even the ranch house itself wasn’t significant. It was a two-bedroom, one-bath house. My grandfather had a younger brother still living at home, along with my great-grandfather and great-grandmother. Given the choice to live in a two-bedroom house with your new spouse, brother, and parents, you might choose to live in a chicken coop house, too.

My grandparents went on to raise three children. He became the president of a small industrial manufacturing company, as well as a cattle rancher. She became a church pianist and organist. At different times, they owned two nice houses and had a hardworking, comfortable life.

But they started their lives together in a chicken coop house. That meant they didn’t have the burden of debt from renting an apartment while trying to save money to buy a home.

Small houses are a great way to build equity and save money to get a head start on financial security for the rest of your life. And America needs more of them.

Problem: The lack of small, affordable homes is both a market failure and a social issue that affects the well-being and financial health of young American generations.

Builders don’t make many ‘starter’ homes anymore. Factors such as land and material costs and regulatory fees encourage builders to build larger homes to recoup profits. Housing prices have grown four times faster than household income since 1960. The median cost for a house in 1960 was $11,900, while the median income in 1960 was $5,600. Those 1960s houses were smaller compared to today’s standards, but similar houses aren’t available anymore.

We need to incentivize builders to build small houses again--600 to 1000 square foot homes or condos with one or two bedrooms and one bath, a sitting room, and a kitchen. We don’t need to build these as investment properties; we need to develop them as homes that young Americans can buy for their first home. (And we need to give first-time homebuyers the one-time opportunity to buy a home at a 3% interest rate to put them on solid financial footing for the rest of their lives).

How are we going to do this? We need builders to compete. Competition drives innovation. Innovation drives change.

How would we create competition for home builders to build small homes?

Intent to achieve: America needs a healthy supply of move-in ready homes for first-time homebuyers that cost less than $150,000.

The median cost for a house in 1960 was $11,900, while the median income in 1960 was $5,600. So, the median cost for a home in the 1960s was approximately twice the median income. The median household income in 2022 was $74,580. $150,000 is twice the current median household income.

What’s our path? We need to create a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program for home builders to compete to drive innovation in the starter home market.

SBIR programs are federal government grant programs that encourage small businesses to compete to engage in research and development (R&D) with the intent of commercialization. SBIR is highly competitive and promotes firms to explore their technological potential. The programs provide the incentive to profit from innovation through commercialization. The SBIR model succeeds in several industries by offering grants or contracts to small businesses to carry out research and development with commercial potential. An SBIR program can kick off the competition by pushing the envelope. Continued SBIR programs keep driving innovation.

One approach won’t solve all housing problems. Systemic problems require systemic fixes. An SBIR program geared towards building small, affordable homes must be part of a significant push to improve innovative construction materials, energy-efficient designs, affordable building techniques, and modular or prefabricated homes. We must further partner with state and local governments to ensure supporting planning and administration, such as permitting and zoning, to achieve beneficial long-term results.

There’s already an existing SBIR grant program that could apply to building small, affordable homes in rural America. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sponsors an SBIR grant program for Rural and Community Development. The Request for Applications (RFA), Topic 8.6, pg 19, identifies:

The objective of the Rural and Community Development topic area is to improve the quality of life in rural America by creating and commercializing technologies that address important economic and social development issues or challenges in rural America. Projects must explicitly discuss the specific rural problem or opportunity that will be examined and how the proposed science-based technology will successfully address the problem or opportunity.

The USDA RFA further states:

The applications need not be centered on agriculture but may be focused on any area that has the potential to provide significant benefit to rural Americans. USDA seeks a balanced portfolio that appropriately mixes high risk, high reward innovations with new applications of existing technologies.

USDA anticipates applications will be due next year by September 17, 2024.

USDA needs to expand its scope and earmark some of this SBIR money specifically for small, affordable homes in rural America.

What about urban areas? America could convert empty lots and warehouses, no-longer-used parking lots, and dilapidated housing into small, affordable housing. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development can lead the way.

Unfortunately, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development does not sponsor an SBIR program.

We need legislative action to establish an SBIR program that earmarks funds for small, affordable housing in urban areas under the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

We must tailor the SBIR model to the construction industry. For instance, an SBIR Phase I award could fund the conceptualization of affordable small home designs, and Phase II could support the building of prototypes. We must reward the most innovative designs and the use of already available materials such as reclaimed shipping containers or other previously used materials.

We need federal, state, and local governments to be on board. We need officials to fast-track zoning and permitting.

We must implement rules to ensure these homes are sold to owner-occupiers, particularly first-time homebuyers, to prevent them from being snapped up by investors.

Could we create a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to incentivize builders to build small, affordable homes?

SBIR for small, affordable houses could be part of a systemic solution to the systemic problem of small, affordable housing that impacts the well-being and financial health of young American generations.

May God bless the United States of America.

If we’re serious about reducing carbon emissions, we need to address a significant source of emissions: wildfires.

What do we think causes more carbon emissions, thinning trees from the wilderness landscape or letting them burn?

Wilderness fires release significant carbon emissions. Scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and the University of Chicago analyzed greenhouse gas emissions from just California wildfires in 2020. They found California's wildfires that year ranked as the state's second-leading source of carbon emissions, thereby counteracting the progress made by decreases in emissions from other sectors.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Forest Service states that “overgrown forests, a warming climate, and a growing number of homes in the wildland-urban interface” increase wildfire risk. The National Forest System (NFS) estimates between 5 million and 11 million acres need immediate attention across the western United States. Many other agencies and groups share a stake in the wildland fire mitigation strategy, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, The Nature Conservancy, the Intertribal Timber Council, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.

Of the nearly 13 million acres across ten forest landscapes identified in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, NFS plans to treat around 1.3 million acres through 2026. After 2026, there has yet to be a currently identified plan for treatment. Future administrations will have to consider funding for the remaining treatment needs. The NFS plan states, “In coordination with other Federal agencies, Tribes, States, and other landowners, the goal remains to treat 20–40 percent of these landscapes.” The plan further states, “the Forest Service and our partners are still well short of the resources necessary to complete the work called for in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy.”

As a nation, we must consider at least three questions regarding the mitigation of wildfires and reduced carbon emissions.

* Are we committed to reducing carbon emissions?

Wildfires counteract the progress made by decreases in emissions from other sectors. In other words, if we take steps that we think will cut emissions, such as incentivizing electric vehicles and other measures, but fail to mitigate the impact of wildfires, what do we accomplish?

Suppose we decide we are committed to reducing carbon emissions. Does it logically follow that we would apply social and legislative pressure to support activities such as mechanical thinning and logging of forests? Consider Bureau of Land Management activities. A Google search for “BLM logging” yields several returns similar to:

A legal challenge to the commercial logging of…has prompted the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to delay two timber sales there and to put off related fuels-reduction work aimed at reducing fire danger…. - Shaun Hall, Rogue Valley Times, June 7, 2023

Environmental groups aiming to protect the environment and threatened species, such as the spotted owl, are inadvertently increasing carbon emissions by taking legal action against federal agencies responsible for forest treatment. This legal action delays forest fuel reduction efforts, leading to more intense wildfires when that fuel ignites.

There is no easy solution. The wilderness firefighters have a valid perspective, and so do the environmental groups. As a result, the question “Are we committed to reducing carbon emissions?” doesn’t have a simple answer. If the answer is ‘yes,’ we need to increase thinning of national forests. This answer would mean accepting some damage to soil and habitat.

* If we are committed to reducing carbon emissions, would we justify using taxpayer dollars to reduce the emissions that result from wildfires?

Old-growth forests have the most valuable trees, both from a wood product standpoint and a carbon reduction standpoint. Removing the financial incentive for logging companies to take the most valuable trees off the landscape could necessitate taxpayer dollars to incentivize the companies to perform mechanical thinning. Mechanical thinning removes small trees, deadfall, and other smaller objects, but it is not profitable.

Logging makes money. Mechanical thinning costs money.

Suppose we restrict logging companies’ financial incentives by barring the take of the most valuable wood, and we still want to reduce forest fuel to mitigate the impact of wildfires. In that case, we must pay for thinning with taxpayer dollars. As noted above, the Wildfire Crisis Strategy identifies that “the Forest Service and our partners are still well short of the resources necessary to complete the work called for in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy.”

When we commit to reducing the fuel load of our forests and perform the treatments, the results are long lasting. The fire risk could go down for decades, depending on fuel type.

* How will we pay for it?

Suppose we are committed to reducing carbon emissions, and we choose to primarily mechanically thin and not log wilderness areas (except in overgrown regions). How will we pay for the mechanical thinning and other necessary forest treatment?

The Wildfire Crisis Strategy states the forest areas in question would “receive an investment of $131 million in fiscal year 2022 from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.” This funding is well below the level necessary for treatment that would significantly mitigate the impact of wildfires.

In contrast, the federal budget directs orders of magnitude more funding to other climate and clean energy sources. The March 9, 2023 fact sheet providing details of the federal budget outlines:

The Budget provides $16.5 billion to support climate science and clean energy innovation, proposing $5.1 billion to fund a broad portfolio of research to improve understanding of our changing climate and inform adaptation and resilience measures across multiple agencies, including the Department of the Interior, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, National Science Foundation, and others.

Suppose we make substantial gains in reducing carbon emissions through changing energy production sources, improving heavy industry emissions, and streamlining transportation but fail to mitigate wildfires. In this scenario, we would make little progress towards reducing carbon emissions.

The reality of the situation is, of course, murkier than this analysis. Carbon emissions from wildfires are challenging to separate from emissions from other sources, as highlighted by UC-Irvine professor Steven Davis:

Analyzing the amount of carbon dioxide released during wildfires is difficult for Earth system scientists for a variety of reasons. Rugged, smoke-enshrouded terrain hampers satellite observations during a combustion event, and space-based measurements are not at a sufficiently fine resolution to reveal details of CO2 emissions. Models used to simulate fuel load, fuel consumption and fire efficiency work well under ordinary circumstances but are not robust enough to represent extreme wildfires, according to the researchers.

But no matter the view of this muddy situation, Dr. Davis also found wildfires are setting records for carbon emissions:

Steven Davis, UCI professor of Earth system science, led a study of carbon dioxide emissions from forest fires in recent decades. In a paper in the journal Science, he and his colleagues shared some shocking findings. “According to our measurements, boreal fires in 2021 shattered previous records. These fires are two decades of rapid warming and extreme drought in Northern Canada and Siberia coming to roost, and unfortunately even this new record may not stand for long,” he says.

To reduce carbon emissions, we must mitigate the impact of wildfires. If we don’t reduce the effects of wildfires, carbon emissions from wildfires overcome any gains we make in other carbon emission reduction areas.

To mitigate wildfires, we need to reduce the fuel load across our national forests and other timbered regions. This reduction will improve wilderness firefighters’ ability to contain wildfires.

To reduce the fuel load across our forests, we must thin our forested regions mechanically.

Mechanically thinning forested regions is not profitable. As a result, we will have to use taxpayer money. If we refuse to use taxpayer money, we could make the treatment of forested regions possible by approving logging.

We must move taxpayer funds for mechanically thinning forests from climate science or other experimental efforts to wildfire mitigation. While climate science is essential, we can’t ignore the immediate need to mitigate wildfire emissions.

May God bless the United States of America.

Thanks to Bill Casey, wilderness firefighting living legend, for his time and perspective out in the mountains! At 78, you’re an inspiration to us all for still carrying your heavy ruck.

How will we unify America and achieve our grand vision?

It’s not enough to say why we believe in the American ideal. Though inspirational, it’s a broad brush vision that lacks decisive substance. A united America is only achievable when we set the cornerstones to support the structure.

We need a framework for the vision. To frame our discussion, let’s reconsider our American ‘why.’ Our vision is threefold:

We are all created equal, and we can all become great. We take pride in the fact that greatness can sprout from any circumstance in America. But it’s not enough to celebrate the exceptions. We must create a society where success is not an anomaly for the disadvantaged but a tangible possibility for all.

We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our rights are not the offering of a government. Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inherent to our human condition. We establish a government to secure these rights.

We believe in our constitutional republican democracy. Liberty is the cloth of our republic. The intricate balance between personal liberty and national division creates a resilient, enduring, free society. America relies on the individual liberty that empowers personal freedom, even while that individual liberty creates division. This relationship demands our active engagement to respect and fight for the liberty of others, even when — especially when — they oppose our views.

The unanswered question is: how? How will we unify ourselves and achieve our vision? We need to look at the commonality of our statements.

Individuals from all backgrounds must be able to achieve their view of the American dream. Individuals need to be able to demonstrate the personal liberty inherent to our human condition. Individuals elect representatives who, on their behalf, advocate for their interests at the local and national levels. We form a government to secure these rights.

If we form a government to secure our rights as individuals, we need to establish rules for individuals to achieve their goals. It’s not enough to develop rules that only support businesses. When our policies fail to work for everyone, it’s not enough to rely on other Americans for assistance. If Americans have to rely on the aid of others through social programs or other means, our efforts to help individuals failed.

When we unite to set the cornerstone with the premise that individuals must be able to succeed, we will achieve our vision. Not by focusing solely on businesses. Not by passing assistance from other taxpayers through the government.

How would we set the ground rules for both individuals and businesses to succeed? Likewise, what changes would we make with a standard that social programs represented a failure for individuals to advance?

To unify America, we must recognize that a pro-business approach isn’t inherently wrong. Nor is reducing poverty through social programs. Neither conservatives nor progressives who advocate for these approaches are out to destroy the nation.

First, a pro-business approach does benefit both business owners and workers. Business owners need the incentive to take personal risk and put in the effort to establish and maintain their business. America needs a strong business culture. Further, growing worker wages relies on increasing revenue. This culture benefits individuals who, for one reason or another, don’t have their own business. These individuals need jobs.

Conservatives are not out to destroy America.

Pitting business owners against workers divides us. We need policies that support individuals who own businesses while at the same time supporting individual workers.

Second, social programs do reduce poverty. A business-first approach doesn’t reduce poverty for all. We don’t all start from the same starting line; some have insurmountable disadvantages.

Progressives who advocate for these programs are not out to destroy America.

Both approaches focus on something other than the premise that individuals must succeed to achieve the American ideal. Rules that support businesses first fail to meet the needs of all workers. Likewise, rules that support individuals with additional benefits from taxpayer dollars fail to meet their needs.

Our ‘how’ to achieve our breathtaking vision of the American ideal is straightforward. Rather than focusing our efforts primarily on businesses or social programs, we must focus first on individuals.

If we are to achieve our grand vision by enabling success for individuals, what would we do to set the ground rules that allow individuals to provide for their own needs?

We could raise the minimum wage with constraints that support leveling the playing field for businesses in a way that also supports state’s rights. As a viable alternative to this approach, we could achieve a similar goal by incentivizing companies that pay higher wages with tax breaks that increase business revenue. And we could consider modifying the fiduciary responsibility of businesses to include the business, the shareholders, and the workers. Achieving this goal would additionally reduce the need for taxpayer-funded social programs.

We could improve the ability of young Americans to buy homes in safe neighborhoods. Young Americans need to be able to compete with those who are buying homes as investment properties. This approach sets young generations on solid financial footing early, promoting stability for individuals.

We could promote educational and job training programs achievable for all, even the 100 million working-class Americans who don’t graduate from college. We could enable those who do attend college to be able to pay for their own education.

We could support policing that focuses on serving individuals first, promoting dignity and respect for everyone regardless of race or background. We can do this while maintaining the integrity and dignity of our proud officers.

We must continue to support individuals expressing their right to demonstrate their liberty, such as the right to speak freely or bear arms for protection. We must solidify the right of every American of sound mind to make their own healthcare decisions.

How will we unify America and achieve our grand vision?

Our ‘why’ is threefold: We are all created equal, and we can all become great. We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe in our constitutional republican democracy.

To achieve this vision and unify America, we must focus on the foundational bedrock of the nation: the individual.

May God bless the United States of America.

Today marks a year of weekly editions, the 52nd edition of “I Believe.” I’d like to thank you for reading. I learn a great deal from writing every article, and I hope you learn from reading (or now listening to!) them.

The name of this publication is “I Believe” because I believe in America. This journal isn’t just a history lesson. America has some big problems, and we need to think through options to address them. Many essays have recommendations for what we should, or at least could, do to improve the nation. We need real solutions to make tangible improvements, and the way to arrive at real solutions is to think through potential options.

America was the first essay in this publication. I learned a great deal about America this year, and I failed to include some key points, so I’m re-writing it.

I believe in America.

I believe in our America, born at war, that threw off the chains from its oppressive British government. For more than 3000 days we fought for freedom from the King’s oppression. We were farmer citizens who fought “Redcoats” (we didn’t fight the British because we were still British) because we were jailed for speaking out against the king. We were forced to house and feed soldiers without our consent and with no pay. We were forced to practice the official religion of the government. We were forced to pay taxes to the king with no representative for discourse. We were prohibited from trading with other nations—everything had to go through the King’s coffers.

The historic Gadsden Flag, yellow with a rattlesnake, portrays one of the nation’s earliest mottos, “Don’t Tread on Me.” It was a motto of our unity. A unified call for protection from tyranny. From Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Franklin, Founders touted the statement, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The United States of America is not perfect. There are stories of injustice for every example of someone rising to greatness. Slavery. A sitting US Vice President who killed a man. A civil war fought over slavery. Suppression of women’s rights. We fought foreign wars to overthrow governments, killing thousands to protect US business interests. And that was all before 1900.

But America is more than our history of achievements or failures. It’s more than the people or the land.

America is an ideal.

We are all created equal, and we can all become great.

We don’t all start from the same starting line, but we all share opportunity. Some Americans grow up in safe neighborhoods and attend high-performing schools. Others grow up in trailers or project housing. It’s not easy for either group, but even the kids who grow up in trailers can achieve their view of greatness.

Many Americans who come from humble beginnings dream of buying a house in a safe neighborhood with a good school for their kids, and they achieve their dream. They can heat the home and put food on the table. Some realize far beyond their expectations. Even refugee immigrants can start their own companies and become billionaires.

Your societal class at birth does not decide your endpoint. Even self-educated Americans can hold our highest office. Consider President Lincoln, the epitome of the self-made leader. With little formal education, he ascended to the highest office, a testament to the unyielding power of self-belief and perseverance.

“I happen, temporarily, to occupy this big White House,” Lincoln told the 166th Ohio Regiment in the summer of 1864. “I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.” *Taken from Excerpt from Soul of America, by Jon Meacham

Changing your social class in America is difficult, but it is possible.

These stories of aspiration and success against all odds inspire us. They should also prompt us to action. To uphold equality, we must work tirelessly to dismantle structural barriers. We must invest in policies that level the playing field:

* Improving educational opportunities.

* Making college education more affordable.

* Reforming the criminal justice system.

* Ensuring equitable access to healthcare.

* Creating economic policies that uplift the impoverished.

We take pride in the fact that greatness can sprout from any circumstance in America. But it’s not enough to celebrate the exceptions. We must create a society where success is not an anomaly for the disadvantaged but a tangible possibility for all.

We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These aren’t just words. They are the foundation of the nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These immortal words from the Declaration of Independence aren’t a gift from the government. They are humanity’s inherent rights.

Life isn't within the power of government to bestow. Regardless of our spiritual convictions or the absence thereof, we stand united in the truth that life precedes the authority of man-made institutions.

Nor does liberty or the ability to pursue happiness come from a ruling body. These are not concessions handed to us; they are our birthrights. People create governments to secure these rights. The Constitution echoes this purpose in its preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution is not a grantor of liberty but its guardian. We have the privilege to demonstrate personal liberty for the duration of our lives. Freedom of speech and expression. Freedom to worship in the manner we choose, even if we choose to reject religion. Freedom to vote for our elected representatives. Freedom to choose to serve the nation or not.

Our rights are not the offering of a government. Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inherent to our human condition.

Our democracy. Not “democracy.”

It's pivotal to delineate our governmental structure: we don’t operate under a pure democracy. We are a democratic constitutional republic. As stated in our Constitution,

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union: a Republican Form of Government…

The distinction isn’t semantics.

Pure democracy can devolve into the tyranny of the majority. If we had a pure democracy, our rights would change with the changing political party in power. Our republic, with its representative democracy, defends against momentary passions, securing rights in the long term. For instance, consider the public debates and legislative battles over issues such as healthcare, immigration reform, or climate change. In a pure democracy, these decisions would be made directly by popular vote, marginalizing the voices of others. However, in our constitutional republic, we elect representatives to deliberate on our behalf. This system ensures we hear diverse voices, allowing minority groups and less-populated regions to influence national policies.

In times of intense polarization, as we’ve witnessed recently, our republican structure is tested but proves its resilience. It frustratingly encourages coalition-building and compromise, often requiring leaders to reach across the aisle to advance policies. It’s a living, breathing system that shapes our daily lives, protects our rights, and continues to adapt to the will and needs of the people, albeit not without challenges and debate.

This condition is not a recent phenomenon. Our founders knew this to be true. In the revered 1787 Federalist Paper No. 10, future President James Madison wrote of factions in America. These groups, ignited by their passions, had the potential to inflame societal division, especially if their objectives encroached upon the liberties of others.

Madison's words resonate with enduring truth:

Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.

To extinguish liberty to quell factionalism would be as absurd as renouncing air to extinguish fire, disregarding that it’s also essential for life. Though it may fuel factions, liberty is the lifeblood of a vibrant, free society.

Liberty enables factions to survive. But removing liberty violates a self-evident right that is the basis for what it is to be American.

As a result, we face a perpetual challenge: liberty, the heart of the American ethos, creates the existence of factions. Factions, in turn, cause profound disagreement.

However, in our republic, liberty is sacred. It allows us the privilege of personal expression, the right to dissent, and the duty to respect divergent exercises of these same freedoms by others, however contentious they may be.

So we navigate the delicate balance, knowing that America relies on the liberty that empowers personal freedom while simultaneously creating division. This relationship demands our active engagement to respect and fight for the liberty of others, even when — especially when — they oppose our own views.

Liberty is the cloth of our republic. The intricate balance between personal liberty and national division creates a resilient, enduring, free society.

I believe in America. I can see a united America despite our current divisions. America isn’t just land or a collective of individuals. It’s an ideal that resonates through the ages—liberty, opportunity, resilience.

We share harsh truths. Though we fall short of the ideal, we press on. We drift apart and come together again because we all believe in the American ideal.

We are all created equal, and we can all become great.

We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We believe in our republican democracy.

May God bless the United States of America.

Do government officials, such as a school board, have the right to restrict a student’s education in the school library?

Do parents have the right to dictate their child’s education?

New York, 1975.

An activist group named Parents of New York United compiled a list of books they deemed offensive due to “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” speech (Pico, 1982 at 857). The school board stated, "[i]t is our duty, our moral obligation, to protect the children in our schools from this moral danger as surely as from physical and medical dangers."

Students objected and filed legal action on First Amendment grounds for free speech against the school board. Though the school board reversed their decision and restored the books to the library, the case went to the US Supreme Court anyway.

The Supreme Court deliberated the merit of the free speech argument in light of precedent. They looked at previous cases such as West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), which considered whether a student could be forced to participate in the pledge of allegiance. That case found:

Boards of Education . . . have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

And Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589 (1967), which found "students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding."

In the end, the court was divided. Four justices voted in favor, with two concurring in part, while four justices voted against. This split decision favored the students on the grounds of First Amendment rights within school libraries. On the other hand, it also supported the school board's authority to prepare students for citizenship and to uphold the values intrinsic to being American.

On the grounds of First Amendment rights in a school library, the court found for the students.

Judge Sifton’s opinion stated, "political views and personal taste [were] being asserted not in the interests of the children's wellbeing, but rather for the purpose of establishing those views as the correct and orthodox ones for all purposes in the particular community."

A school board removing a student’s right to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech, demonstrated by learning from multiple viewpoints, is not permissible. School authorities cannot take away books simply to limit exposure to the political views or societal viewpoints they contain.

On the grounds of a school board’s authority, the court found for the school board.

In the ruling the court strongly supported a school board’s responsibility to prepare students for citizenship and preserve the values that make us all Americans. They found school boards may remove books deemed “educationally unsuitable or pervasively vulgar”.

Although the Pico case sheds light on the tension between students' First Amendment rights and a school board's authority, it's just one facet of a broader debate on educational rights. Another pivotal case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, introduces an equally compelling dimension: the extent of parental rights in determining their child’s education.

The boundaries of educational content, especially in school libraries, are a contentious subject. While the courts upheld students’ rights in the Pico case, the Wisconsin v. Yoder case demonstrates that parental rights also hold significant weight in the eyes of the law. Many parents and educators might have deeply-held beliefs and concerns that challenge the court's viewpoint on student rights.

As an opposing view, the Wisconsin v. Yoder case underscores the question: don’t parents have the right to dictate their own child’s education? What if a parent disagrees with the court’s ruling? Some believe their child shouldn’t be exposed in a school library, or anywhere else, to topics such as sex education, race relations, and LGBTQ+ rights. They argue that these subjects are not core purposes for schools, and that they should have the ultimate say in preventing their child's exposure to them.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), supports parental rights. This case looked at the right of Amish parents to remove their children from public schools for religious reasons, even though the state required school attendance until age 16. The Court sided with the Amish parents, ruling that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was more compelling than the state’s interest in educating their children.

Proponents of home schooling use Wisconsin v. Yoder as a precedent for parents being able to dictate their own child’s education. Further, courts have repeatedly found for home education as a viable pathway to citizenship.

Part of America is a choice. We can choose to tolerate others expressing rights with which we disagree. Or we can choose to isolate ourselves from others and preserve our own dignity. America is too broad in population and diverse in background to have agreement on everything.

Individual rights and institutional authority in education are no different.

We ought to allow students to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech and read the books they feel compelled to read.

Thanks for considering my perspective.

May God bless the United States of America.

What would be the worst-case outcome of the ongoing United Auto Workers (UAW) and looming Kaiser Permanente strikes?

What would be the ideal outcome?

To conceptualize the labor dispute situation, we must first identify the stakeholders. When we understand the stakeholders and their motivations, we can think about ways ahead.

The first stakeholders are…

* The workers

They want more pay and better benefits. They put in arduous labor for their product and deserve to be respected and well compensated.

Workers need job security in the long term to keep providing for themselves and their families. In the context of the labor dispute, job security means the workers need to be able to keep their jobs. The corporations must be successful to stay viable long-term and continue to need workers.

* The unions

We need to separate the unions from the workers. Though the unions represent the workers in negotiations, they are not themselves the workers. The unions are separate companies that earn their living from union dues paid by the workers. The union representatives partner with the workers but don’t work for the corporations.

This unique arrangement is notable because the unions may achieve significant raises for the workers, and the raises aren’t sustainable in the long term for the corporations in the event of a downturn. The workers could be laid off, but the union representatives still have jobs. The unions don’t intend to break the corporations, but their task is first to achieve raises for workers. If they consider the corporations at all, it’s a secondary concern.

In the case of the UAW strike, the UAW union now seeks a minimum 30% raise for the auto workers, as well as a 32-hour work week with 40-hour work week pay. UAW represents 46,000 employees at General Motors, 57,000 at Ford, and 43,000 at Stellantis.

The Kaiser strike could be the “largest ever health care worker strike in the United States.” The union representing the Kaiser employees seeks better pay and benefits, as well as increases in staffing. Kaiser employees say the COVID pandemic highlighted the lack of staffing across the healthcare industry, and they need more support.

The workers and the unions represent one side of the negotiating table. The other side starts with…

* The corporations

The automakers are public corporations. Kaiser is a privately held medical nonprofit institution. This distinction is interesting because the automakers have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their shareholders, while Kaiser does not.

The automakers have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 required directors and officers of publicly traded corporations to act in the corporation’s and its shareholders’ best interests. However, corporations have no requirement to act in the best interest of the workers. 

In contrast, Kaiser is a nonprofit institution. The Kaiser Foundation Health Plan CEO in 1997 said, “Unlike a for-profit, the nonprofit is not obligated to balance fiduciary responsibility to shareholders with responsibility to patients.” 

The contrast between the two types of institutions, highlighted by the difference in fiduciary responsibility, is fascinating. What’s the impact on the shareholder if the corporations give too much in negotiations and the labor agreement isn’t sustainable in the long term? If profits stagnate due to the labor agreement, does that mean the corporation failed to honor its obligation to the shareholder? Or would higher worker pay incentivize workers to be more efficient and result in higher profits?

The fiduciary responsibility is a definite wrinkle in the situation. Corporations are legally obligated to act in the shareholder’s best interest, not the worker’s.

In the Journal of Law and Social Change, Volume 10, Haig Panossian advocates for fiduciary consideration of workers. He wrote:

However, just as a common goal of profit maximization has led to different classes of stock being successfully protected by the same fiduciary duties, it is likely that workers' shared interests in job security, safe working conditions, and fair wages will also allow them to feasibly be protected by fiduciary duties extended to them as a group.

Another consideration for the corporation is modernization. The automakers need to invest in infrastructure and modernize equipment while remaining profitable to move to changing production lines. Automakers need the capability to transition to increasing production of electric vehicles, depending on the market's future potential (EV sales have lagged expectations). A labor agreement needs to enable the automakers the capability to invest in this changing market.

Just as the unions represent the workers, another stakeholder represents the corporations. They are…

* The executives

The executives guide the corporation to profitability and long-term success. One of the principles executives consider is payroll-to-revenue ratio. A good guideline for many businesses is a 15-30% payroll-to-revenue ratio. 

Let’s look at General Motors (GM).

*Note* Below are hypothetical calculations based on some assumptions! The analyses include the available published data and assumptions when data was not available.

GM’s lowest recent annual revenue was $105,000,000,000 (Billion) in 2009. GM’s highest recent annual revenue was $156B in 2022. Since 2009, GM’s annual revenue has exceeded $150B in five years. 

GM employs 155,000 workers, 92,000 of whom are in the United States.

If GM had a payroll-to-revenue ratio of 15% (and assuming annual revenue of $150B), payroll would be $22.5B. Divided by 155,000 workers, GM would pay an average of $145,000 per employee in salary, health care, pension or 401K contributions, and other benefits. At a payroll-to-revenue ratio of 16%, GM would pay $154,000 per employee, at 17%, $164,000. At 20%, GM would pay an average of $193,000 per employee.

Comparably.com says GM’s median salary is $135,000. Adding an assumed $25,000 for healthcare and other benefits results in a median salary package of $160,000 annually. One could reasonably guess GM’s payroll-to-revenue ratio is 15-20%. A pay increase at the UAW desired 30% level would mean a median salary package of $208,000 annually. 

Based on UAW representing 46,000 GM workers and UAW’s desire to achieve a minimum 30% raise, the payroll-to-revenue ratio of UAW-represented employees would be slightly above 20%.

In a “down” year where GM earns an annual revenue of $120B, assuming all 155,000 workers averaged $208,000 yearly, the payroll-to-revenue ratio would be 27%.

Executives need to consider other factors in addition to payroll and revenue. Another principle executives have to consider is profitability. GM made just under $10B in profit in 2022. In the same year, GM paid profit-sharing bonuses of just over $500 million to workers at $12,750 per worker.

Assuming all 46,000 UAW workers made the new median income of $208,000 per year, the new proposed salary level would represent an additional $2B annual cost to GM. In a down year, this could significantly cut into corporate profits.

*Note* Above are hypothetical calculations based partly on assumptions!

Some might say the workers should get the majority of the profits. They are a big part of the team and deserve to be paid. In theory, this is a noble statement. In practice, the corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to return these profits to the stockholder. Corporations exist to deliver profitability to shareholders. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote in 1970:

There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.

Executives must ensure long-term viability and profitability for stockholders, taking into account payroll and revenue.

The workers, unions, corporations, and executives are not the only stakeholders. There are two more. First is…

* The corporate stockholders

Stockholders have no role in the corporation’s performance, but if corporate profitability falls, the stock price falls. As stockholder confidence wanes, the long-term viability of a corporation comes into question.

The Impact of Strikes on Shareholder Equity, a study published in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1986, by Cornell University, found strikes reduce the stock value of a corporation by roughly 4%. At a value of $45B, a 4% loss in the value of GM represents a loss of $1.8B.

Another component of stockholder equity is that shareholders currently support worker rights. In an extreme example, Starbucks’ shareholders recently sued the corporation, claiming labor concerns violated the corporation’s fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by threatening operations and reputation. 

This support for worker rights affects shareholders and reverberates throughout the nation.

And the final stakeholder…

* The American people

The final piece of this muddy picture is the American people. We depend on the goods and services the automakers and healthcare companies provide. A prolonged strike could significantly impact the economy and the lives of millions of Americans.

The American people support unions and labor activities. We depend on the goods and services the automakers and healthcare companies provide.

In sum:

Workers want more pay and better benefits.

Union representatives represent the workers in their negotiations for more pay and benefits but have little regard for the corporation.

The corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders but no obligation to its workers. Corporations need resources to invest in infrastructure and modernization.

Executives need to maintain the long-term viability of the corporation and deliver profitability for stockholders.

As stockholder confidence wanes, the long-term viability of a corporation comes into question. Shareholders currently support worker rights.

The American people support unions and labor activities. We depend on the goods and services the automakers and healthcare companies provide.

What would be the worst-case outcome of the ongoing United Auto Workers (UAW) and looming Kaiser Permanente strikes?

There are two terrible outcomes of the labor disputes.

The first would be an agreement between the corporations and workers that isn’t sustainable in the long term. Everyone loses in that case. The corporation loses because it fails to exist. The executives lose. The shareholders lose as the stock value plummets. The workers lose their jobs. The American people lose.

A second would be a prolonged labor dispute. The automakers have already started laying off workers at supply plants. The American people support laid-off workers with taxpayer dollars funding unemployment benefits. A prolonged labor dispute results in significant economic damage to the corporations and the country. This scenario could lead to job losses, higher prices for goods and services, and a decline in the quality of life for millions of Americans.

What would be the ideal outcome of the ongoing United Auto Workers (UAW) and looming Kaiser Permanente strikes?

The ideal outcome would be a fair negotiated agreement for workers and the corporations. This outcome would mean that workers receive a fair wage and benefits package while the corporations can remain profitable and continue to invest in their businesses.

Workers, and the unions on their behalf, should negotiate for wages to be 25% of annual revenue. The agreement should also include provisions to address workers' concerns, such as staffing levels, working conditions, and job security. The contract should also include provisions to protect the long-term viability of the corporations, such as investment in infrastructure and modernization.

In short, the agreement should be fair to all stakeholders, including workers, the corporation, shareholders, and the American people.

This proposal supports innovation and competition as executives and workers share a goal to increase revenue. It aligns the interests of workers and shareholders, as both groups benefit from increased revenue. As the businesses succeed, workers make more money. As businesses have lean years, workers keep their jobs.

Workers should negotiate for recurring pay slightly below the 25% revenue mark, with quarterly bonuses paid to meet the 25% revenue mark. Though the concept is similar to profit sharing, salaries would be revenue-based, not profit-based.

Thanks for considering my perspective.

May God bless the United States of America.