Paradox of Value

Featured

The Importance of Organizational Culture

Culture is vital to all organizations. A poor culture not only reflects badly on an organization, it can negatively affect a variety of aspects within an organization. From employee engagement to financial health, culture plays a major role in organizations.

If culture is so important, it’s probably best it be clearly defined. Campbell and Göritz (2014) defined culture as, “a set of shared meanings, assumptions, values, and norms” (p. 293). While culture may be difficult to actually define, this definition represents organizational culture very well.

Think back on a past job for a moment. What was the culture like? Was it a place at which you enjoyed working? Or, was it a place you dreaded going to every day. Now, try to describe what about that organization you either liked or disliked. Culture influenced those aspects of the organization.

Campbell and Göritz (2014) said that culture guides “employees’ behavior within an organization via explicit structures and implicit conventions” (p. 293). Culture influences employee behavior. It impacts how organizations perform. It’s an extremely important aspect of an organization. But, if culture is so important, then someone must be responsible for it within the organization, right? If so, who is responsible?

Leadership is responsible for an organization’s culture. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella (2017) explained it like this, “the CEO is the curator of an organization’s culture.” Nadella’s statement emphasize the importance of leadership’s role in culture. It is leadership that sets the cultural tone of an organization. It is leadership that is responsible for fostering a positive culture.

Culture is vital to an organization’s health. In an ever changing global economy, it is important that organizations understand the value of a positive culture and leadership’s role in fostering that culture. It is not enough for leaders to know the importance of culture, they must also understand how to foster a positive culture in their organization.

References:

Campbell, J.-L., & Göritz, A. (2014). Culture Corrupts! A Qualitative Study of Organizational Culture in Corrupt Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 291–311. https://doi-org.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1665-7

Nadella, S. (2017, October 10). Satya Nadella: The C In CEO Stands For Culture. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/40457741/satya-nadella-the-c-in-ceo-stands-for-culture

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

The First Non-Peaceful Transition of Power

On the twentieth of January, President-elect Joe Biden will be inaugurated, making him the 46th President of the United States. Thousands of National Guard troops are flocking to the nation’s capital city in preparation for inauguration day. President Trump is planning to skip Biden’s inauguration. While this is unusual in recent history, it is not unprecedented.

The second President of the United States, John Adams, also skipped the inauguration of the incoming president, Thomas Jefferson. This, the inauguration of the third US president, was the first time in US history that a president did not attend the inauguration of an incoming president.

The End of a Friendship

Before Adams and Jefferson became political rivals, they were good friends. The two founders met in 1775 as Continental Congress delegates. In 1776, Adams selected Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence. While the two were different in many ways, they became close friends over the years.

The two served as diplomats to Europe, where their friendship continued to grow. Upon their return to the United States (US), things began to change. The two had very different visions for the direction of the country. Jefferson favored a small central authority with a focus on state governments, while Adams favored a strong central government.

Another point of conflict was the French Revolution. Despite the bloody acts throughout the French Revolution, including the execution of King Louis XVI, Jefferson remained a supporter. However, President Washington’s policy, supported by Vice President Adams, was one of neutrality toward the French Revolution.

Jefferson’s anger regarding Washington’s policy on the issue led him to resign as Secretary of State and move back to his Virginia estate. During this time, Adams began to gossip about Jefferson in letters to his son. At this point, the friendship was on the brink of destruction.

Jefferson and Adams Run for President

In 1796, Washington stepped down as president. Jefferson emerged from his estate to run for president against Adams. Jefferson lost by a small margin. After rejecting Adams’ request to join forces in his new administration, the friendship had officially ended.

Adams moved on with his push for a large central government. In 1798, with the support of Adams, Congress passed a series of four laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The reasoning was a fear that a war with France was imminent. The laws both restricted the activities of foreign residents and limited freedom of speech and the press. Jefferson was against the laws and feared that they would be used against him, as he was an outspoken opponent of Adams’ administration.

In 1800, the two once again competed for the presidency. It was a fierce run full of slander by both parties. There were smear campaigns, false media stories, and all-out low character blows throughout their campaigns. The tactics used didn’t make for a smooth run. It is still considered one of the closest elections in US history.

A Not so Peaceful Transition

After a close election, Jefferson had finally won the presidency. With the Sedition Acts, the slander, and the destroyed relationship, Adams was now uninterested in sticking around for Jefferson’s inauguration. Adams fled the White House, taking the early stagecoach out of Washington on the morning of Jefferson’s inauguration.

The two did not speak for 12 years before finally reuniting thanks to Benjamin Rush, another signer of the Declaration of Independence. Thanks to their mutual friend, the two reignited their friendship, exchanging letters until the day Adams died.

During Jefferson’s inauguration, he spoke of unity and how the country was one nation, regardless of differences that divide political parties. A nation by the people, for the people. He went on to become a great US president, even compromising his own beliefs about the power of the federal government to purchase Louisiana from the French.

The 2021 Inauguration

Regardless of different political beliefs, the US is still one nation. Biden’s inauguration theme is supposed to be about unity. Whether a united nation is spoken about during Biden’s inauguration, or it’s more political divisiveness like we saw on both sides throughout the campaigns, the US will survive.

It always survives. Because in the end, the US is one nation, untied by a shared set of values. No matter how bad it gets, history has shown us that, in the end, the people of the US always find a way to look past the divisiveness and unite.

A Look Back at the Carnivore Challenge

Today I will discuss how the 30 day carnivore challenge went. As I wrote about earlier, I attempted the 30 day carnivore challenge with two other people. It didn’t go as expected.

Overview of the Challenge Progress

I started off eating three meals a day. This fairly quickly progressed to only two meals a day, then to one meal a day. My portions dropped dramatically over the time as well. By the end, I was eating between a half-pound to a pound of meat a day, generally on the lower end.

About half way through, I began craving a lot of fish. This may have been my body’s way of telling be to eat more Omega 3. Salmon became a pretty common part of my diet. I also ate a lot of home smoked meats, as this increased the flavor profile.

My portion sized dropped, likely because of flavor fatigue. Eating only meat became a chore. By the end of the challenge, I had to force myself to eat. Even steak, which is one of my favorite foods, became about survival rather than enjoyment.

During the challenge, I lost a total of 13 pounds. This is not a particularly great number. At the same starting weight, I’ve lost more on the Atkins diet.

Ending the Challenge

By the end of the challenge, I didn’t feel as good as I would have liked. I had very little energy, was almost never hungry, and began feeling sick. This, coupled with an injury, led me to go see a doctor.

I pulled a muscle during the challenge (unrelated to the diet), which led to swelling and high levels of discomfort. I was already feeling low in energy, so I decided to get the muscle looked at and get some blood work.

At the doctors, my blood pressure was high. This turned out to be a one time thing, as it has been steady ever since. However, my blood work showed my cholesterol was high, and the doctor suggested I change my diet.

I cut the diet a few days short because my health is more important than this challenge. I’m not positive if the diet was the leading factor in my cholesterol levels, so I won’t blame it. However, I felt it was best to change diets just in case.

I will know more once I’m on a different diet for longer. What I do know is, all my other blood work was good, so the diet didn’t seem to impact anything else.

What I’m Doing Now

I’ve begun to eat a more balanced diet. Particularly, I’ve added fibrous carbs, mostly from vegetables and oat bran, into my diet.

Currently, I’m in a strange balance between a calorie focused diet and Atkins. However, I will likely focus on a calorie diet for a few weeks to see how it goes, then decide from there.

Overall, my energy levels are way better and I feel really good. The carbs, while few, seem to have made a big difference in my energy levels.

Final Thoughts

I’ve said this before and I truly believe it. Everyone’s body is different. One diet may work for one person but not another. It is important that you find what works best and is sustainable for you.

While I don’t believe such restrictive diets as the carnivore diet are the best choice for most people, I do see the benefits for some people. If you do try it, like with any extremely restrictive diet, just make sure to be carful.

Even more than weight loss, eating healthy and being healthy is important. This will likely come with weight loss, but the biggest focus should be on health.

Have a great day and stay healthy.

The World Through Cuisine: Tomatoes

Trade is a amazing thing. It has given the world access to goods and services once unknown in many areas. This advancement in human interaction has made our world a better place. One example is in cuisine, both traditional and modern. This series will examine the origins of ingredients found in cuisine from around the world and show that the world is more connected than we may have first realized.

Tomatoes

Today, we are going to examine an ingredient used in many traditional dishes. From traditional Italian dishes to traditional African dishes, the tomato is a widely used fruit, or vegetable, or plant, or whatever. Ok, it’s a fruit.

Cuisine with Tomatoes

There are many dishes globally that use the tomato as an ingredient. This article will discuss two regions of the world that utilize tomatoes in their cuisine, but there are many more. So, if you think of a country, culture, or dish that uses tomatoes, you will at least know where the tomato originated.

Italian Cuisine

When you think of Italian cuisine, what dishes do you think of? At least one likely has tomatoes in it. There are many delicious Italian dishes. Some of these popular dishes feature the tomato.

Pizza is a favorite dish of many children growing up, as well as adults. People probably have fond memories of birthdays with pizza, enjoying a slice with family and friends, as well as other wonderful experiences surrounding pizza. But where did pizza originate? That’s pretty easy, right? Italy.

Well, it’s not that simple. Several countries and cultures, including the ancient Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks all enjoyed some form of flatbread with toppings. However, what we think of as the modern pizza derived from the Campania region of Southwestern Italy, the home of Naples. So, for the purpose of this article we’ll talk about modern pizza.

Modern pizza comes from Italy. But, what’s a major ingredient in many pizzas? Tomatoes. This ingredient is also used in other Italian dishes. For example, Italian tomato sauces are used in pasta dishes. So, are tomatoes indeginouse to Italy or somewhere else in Europe? No. Tomatoes did not originate in Europe.

West African Cuisine

When you think of West African cuisine, what do you think of? Maybe some delicious Ghanaian dishes? Among these dishes is likely one that features tomatoes. There are many delicious West African, and Ghanaian, dishes; some of which utilize tomatoes.

Other countries and cultures that use tomatoes can be found on the Continent of Africa. This Continent is home to many countries and a variety of unique and delicious cuisines. One dish that is popular throughout West African countries is Jollof.

Jollof is a rice dish cooked in a wonderfully flavored tomato-based broth. While the exact country of origin for jollof is debated, the dish did come from West Africa. If you haven’t tried this delicious dish, I would highly recommend it.

So, this tomato-based rice dish came from West Africa. That must mean that tomatoes are ideginous to West Africa, or somewhere on the Continent, right? No. Tomatoes did not originate in Africa.

The Origin of Tomatoes

Many amazing countries and cultures have delicious foods that utilize tomatoes. But, if tomatoes didn’t come from these areas, where did tomatoes originate? Well, tomatoes originated in Central and South America. The tomato didn’t become popular in Europe until around 1880, when the pizza was invented in Naples, Italy.

Interestingly, the tomato was feared in Europe for a long time before it began to be used in dishes. For a fascinating story on why tomatoes were actually feared in Europe for over 200 years, check out this Smithsonian Magazine article.

Tomatoes are a delicious fruit used globally in traditional dishes, from Europe to Africa, yet they originated in Central and South America. This fruit has gone from a modest life in the Americas to one of the most popular ingredients across the globe. That’s pretty amazing.

Day One of the Carnivore Diet

To start the day off, I went to the vitamin store and purchased Omega 3 Fish Oil. I’m taking Omega 3 and a multi vitamin every day to help prevent any potential unnecessary damage, and to just maintain a healthy intake of vitamins and minerals.

I can hear the hardcore carnivore people now saying, “you don’t need supplements!” And maybe that’s true. But the research on this diet is virtually nonexistent, and I’m only doing a 30 day challenge. The goal is just to attempt the diet and gain any potential benefits from a short-term restrictive diet.

Meals, Energy, and Other Updates

For a late breakfast, I had 3 eggs and 2 pieces of sausage. This held me over until a late lunch, where I ate some smoked pork (an average size bowl). Then, for dinner, I had 1 1/2 grilled chicken breasts.

My energy levels seem fine thus far. The day went pretty well and, so far, I’m not having any carb withdraws.

I’m still trying to decide on how often to write progress updates. However, I plan on at least writing a weekly progress report discussing daily meals and any energy and weight changes.

For now, have a good evening and stay safe.

The 30 Day Carnivore Challenge

Tomorrow, me and a couple other people start the 30 day carnivore diet challenge. Basically, we will be eating nothing but meat for an entire month.

I’ve been somewhat discussing my health journey on this website. Lately, discussing it has taken on the back-burner. With covid, education, and other things going on in my life, time has just gotten away from me. So, I’ll give you a brief update before discussion the challenge.

Overall I lost around 40 lbs on the Atkins diet. I started off attempting a high protein diet and gradually, or even naturally, went into the Atkins diet. It seems to work well for me, and the maintenance phase of the diet is very manageable with many food options.

Once I lost around 35 lbs, my weight began to plateau. I fasted for five days, and lost an additional 5 lbs. I maintained this weight loss for a while.

Unfortunately, I ended up cheating one too many times in a row and gained some weight back. I not only feel this gain in my waistline, but it’s also beginning to mess with my energy levels.

Tomorrow starts the 30 carnivore challenge. I fully expect to lose a significant amount of weight, and start feeling better again. I do not plan to continue this diet after the 30 days. Instead, I am considering moving to a keto diet after this; however, my mind is not fully made up.

I plan to try and post updates on my carnivore diet progress. Until then, have a great day and be safe.

A Case for Insider Trading

When we think of insider trading, we likely think of it as a bad thing. An unfair advantage or even a detriment to the market. But what if insider trading wasn’t all that bad? What if it was actually a market solution for something?

First, it’s important to know what illegal insider trading is. Investor.gov (n.d.) describes it as the buying and selling of securities with the use of nonpublic information while in breach of a fiduciary duty, other trust, or confidence. Insider trading regulations prohibit leaders and officers of companies from buying or selling company stock based on nonpublic information (Smith & Block, 2016).

In a paper titled “The economics of insider trading: A free market perspective,” Smith and Block (2016) bring up some very interesting points regarding insider trading’s role in the marketplace.

Why Insider Trading is Regulated

The securities industry is the only market where it’s considered unfair and inequitable for transactions to be made with unequally distributed information (Smith & Block, 2016). It is particularly unique in that it’s considered so unfair that regulations must be put in place to prevent it form happening. But is asymmetrical information really a market failure in this instance? Maybe not.

Before there were insider trading laws,

“early common law, publicly traded corporations, and stock exchanges”

all allowed insider trading (Smith & Block, 2016, para. 2). What was the reasoning? This kind of trading was not seen to violate the rights of non-inside investors (Smith & Block, 2016).

Regulations emerged,

“on the false premise that insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities market” (Smith & Block, para. 2)

Today, regulators see insider trading as an unfair advantage to non-inside investors. Regulators believe insider trading must be regulated to protect investor confidence and maintain market stability. However this is not necessarily true.

Advantages of Insider Trading

Insider trading actually has many advantages that regulations have hindered. A few of these advantages, according to Smith and Block (2016), include increased transparency, improved market price stability, earlier fraud detection, and efficient employee incentive compensation.

Basically, everything regulations are supposed to protect, they may be hindering. Insider trading is the market’s solution to price volatility, transparency concerns, fraud, and employee incentives.

But how can this be? How can insider trading help with, lets say, employee incentives and market stability? It’s simple, really.

Lets give an example. If you went to work for Microsoft, and insider trading was legal, an obvious incentive would be nonpublic information for trading purposes. The organization could supply the more private information, or tips, to employees as performance incentives.

The employees would then use this information to make investing decisions. If the company is going to have a bad quarter, employees may decide to sell some shares. The market would begin to react, adjusting to the sell offs. Investors would see this in the market, react, and the market would adjust accordingly.

This would give the market more time to adjust to both bad and good information, creating a more informative and stable market. It would also signal investors much earlier, giving them the opportunity to react earlier. This could help investor confidence and reduce loss potential.

When we look at insider trading as a market solution, rather than a problem, we begin to see the potential benefits. We also see the downsides of regulations. Smith and Block (2016) found insider trading regulations to be both costly and ineffective. They do more harm than good and are inequitable and unfair to average traders (Smith & Block, 2016).

Final Thoughts

Whether or not you believe that insider trading is actually a good thing, it is always nice to read another point of view; particularly as it relates to markets and the economy. When I first read this Smith and Block’s paper, I was somewhat surprised. It goes against all conventional thought. But, to be honest, I hadn’t really thought that much about the subject. I just accepted that insider trading was illegal, and thus likely bad.

What I really gathered from this, and many other finance related research, is that it’s important for regulators to understand both the costs and benefits of regulations. Sometimes it’s impossible to know the full impact of regulations before they are implemented. However, it would be beneficial if regulators would examine the effects of their regulations as time goes on and make adjustments accordingly.

Disclaimer

The author and publisher of this article are in no way condoning the practice of illegal insider trading.

References

Investor.gov. (n.d.). Insider Trading. Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/insider-trading

Smith, T., & Block, W. (2016). The Economics of Insider Trading: A Free Market Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2621-5

Happy 244th Birthday, America!

The struggle for Independence, for liberty, for freedom started more than 200 years ago with a push against a major colonial power. Many men and women, of all races and walks of life, sacrificed everything so this country could be free.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence,

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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Quoted in the French Contributions to America (1945) by Edward Fecteau, Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette is noted as saying,

Humanity has won its battle. Liberty now has a country.

While it took many years for all Americans to be freed, the course was set in 1776.

In the famous speech, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” Frederick Douglass condemns the nation for the crime of slavery. He then goes on to say, referring to the Constitution,

Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.

Douglass ends his speech with hope for the future. Hope that this great country would realize its potential, its destiny, its purpose. That the country would embrace its founding principles.

President Lincoln helped the nation push further toward this goal. Yet, none of this would have been possible without the sacrifice many made for independence from Britain.

The history of this country is not a perfect one. However, the U.S. has been almost consistently regarded as the best the world has to offer. This is directly related to its founding principles of liberty and opportunity for all.

When pondering the bad and what needs to be fixed, it becomes easy to forget the good. This country is a beacon of hope.

Thomas Sowell said,

America symbolizes, above all, freedom and opportunity for ordinary people. That is what makes it a beacon to those in other lands who are seeking freedom and opportunity.

I’ll leave it with this final thought – In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote,

I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.

While the history of America is not a perfect one, the founders vision for this country made it a shining beacon of hope to the world. Millions of people strive to get here because they understand the opportunities this country has to offer. While there’s still work to be done, still room for improvement, the U.S. remains a shining beacon of hope to the world.

So on this Independence Day, let’s thank the individuals who risked everything and fought to make this country a reality. Let’s thank the individuals who continued to fight to advance the goal of liberty, freedom, and opportunity to all Americans. And remember, we are the only ones who can make this more than 200 year old dream even more of a reality.

Happy birthday, America!

Adapt or Die: The Evolution of Corporations

If there’s one thing that the current pandemic has taught us, it’s the sluggishness of big corporations. For years, companies have been pushing back on innovation that would improve worker satisfaction and profit. This, of course, isn’t every company, but it is a big enough issue that corporations need to start taking notice.

Life in a Corporation

I’ve worked several positions throughout many companies in America. From the bottom up. I also know many people who work for corporations. I know accountants, managers, and associates throughout many large companies.

The one thing they all have in common, except for a few who work for a select group of companies, is the desire for change. It’s not that they hate their jobs, or that they’re unappreciative of the opportunities. They are hard working Americans who just want to make a good life for themselves and their families.

The issue is, corporations have a difficult time changing and adapting. For example, to a large extent, accountants should be able to work remotely. Unfortunately, before this pandemic, some large corporations refused to give their employees this opportunity. Instead, the organizations would hire people from the other end of the world to do accounting work, and anyone in the States would have to work in office.

I’m not against hiring people from other countries. At one company, many of these accounting jobs were outsourced to India. Well, they need jobs too. The issue is, if you can outsource jobs, why can’t you be more flexible with where your U.S. employees work?

Corporate Culture

I wrote an article on corporate culture last year, and it really summed up the importance of culture. It is everything to a company. It’s the difference between employees loving or hating their jobs. It can even be the difference between employees working hard or hardly working.

But the main issue I see with corporate culture is its difficulty moving downstream. For example, a company can have great aspirations for culture, but the further down the corporate hierarchy the cultural aspirations travel, the more diluted they become. If they’re not careful, it can end up being almost non-existent in the front lines of the company.

However, the company has to change their culture to create an environment where employees want to work, first. This can be very difficult because the process of changing the culture must start at the top. Ultimately, it is the CEO’s responsibility, and he, she, etc. is to delegate that to management.

Human Resources

Another issue is, the top still have leaders who haven’t realized the importance of their human resources, or employees. A happy employee is a hard working employee. This may sound strange to some, but it’s true. Humans are an asset more than they are a cost, if you treat them right.

Companies like Google, and even Microsoft, have found this out and are evidence of how improving their relationship with their human resources can improve profitability. We know this is true, it’s even taught at university, but why is it so difficult to transfer this knowledge to the real world?

The Problem

There’s many reasons why transferring knowledge to the real world can be difficult. However, I think the biggest reason is humans. We don’t like change. In fact, many humans fear change. Corporate leaders look at the potential costs and close their eyes to the potential gains.

It’s easy to do, and very difficult to blame them for it. What would you or I do in this situation? Not only is it your livelihood in jeopardy if it fails, every employee that works for the company is also at risk of losing their livelihoods if it fails.

It’s easy to make corporate leaders into the bad guys. But if you really think about it, many of them are probably just trying to protect the company and its employees. The amount of stress one must be under when they are responsible for thousands of people paying their rent, or feeding their family, must be difficult to handle. So, they play it safe.

Risk and Reward

This is where a very important concept comes into play. The relationship between risk and reward. This is a fundamental concept in finance. Everyone has a different risk tolerance level. Thus, finding a balance between the risks and potential rewards is important.

CEOs, managers, and corporate leaders must be willing to take on some level of risk for the betterment of the company and its employees. Sometimes, change is good. The risk, and uncertainty, that comes with change can be difficult to deal with. But ultimately, you either adapt or die. This is also true for corporations.

The current pandemic has shown us that change is necessary. The corporations that will get through this will need to adapt, evolve, and innovate. They will need to accept change. If they don’t, competitors may rise up and eventually push them out of the market.

A Summary on the Immortality of Racism

Racism is a vile belief that poisons the mind of those with whom it resides. It is an irrational, immoral and unintelligent ideology. It seeks to destroy the humanity of those for which it takes aim.

Racism is practiced by those who were taught it, sheltered from the realities of life, and weak enough to continue practicing it upon adulthood. It is the ideology of the uneducated, irrational and the individual with a propensity toward hate. Racism is immoral at its very core because it aims to deny the human that which both God and nature bestowed upon them; the sovereignty of individual choice.

Humans, by the laws of God and nature, have the right to make their own choices, as long as those choices don’t infringe on the rights of others. Humans are the sovereign of their own selves. Among other things, this includes both the content of the mind and ability to make choices. Racism, however, claims that a human is not the sovereign of their own self. That, instead, a collective of their ancestors predetermined their future choices, capacity for reason, and even the very content of their mind.

As Ayn Rand said, racism is a primitive form of collectivism. It denies the human their inherent individual characteristics, and replaces it with a predetermined (and often wrong) assumption of the characteristics of a collective. Racism refuses to accept an individual’s humanity by denying them that which separates humans from animals, the capacity for reason. Racism is an immoral and unintelligent ideology.

A Brief History of US Environmental Protection and a Case against Pollution

If there’s one truth about the environment, it’s that the environment impacts us all. We are all reliant on the environment for our survival. Meaning, we should all care about the health of the environment. This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue.

There does seem to be a stereotype about libertarians and Republicans not understanding the importance of natural resources or caring about the environment.

In my experience, that is sometimes the case. But more often than not, these groups are more understanding than given credit for. Libertarians want limited government, but many see the benefit of government in various situations.

Some Republicans may not care about the environment. However, more often than not they do understand the need for conservation.

The most notable Libertarian argument for government involvement is when the transaction of two parties impacts a third party without their consent. A great example of this is pollution.

Historically, Republicans have been on the forefront of environmental issues. From Theodore Roosevelt to Richard Nixon, many environmental actions have been taken by Republicans.

It’s not only Republicans that have had an interest in environmental issues. Democrats have also implemented environmental regulations. Environmental protection is truly a bipartisan issue. The main difference being what each side feels should be done to protect the environment.

This discussion will mostly focus on the Republican side, because some of the major environmental actions and regulatory agencies were founded by Republicans. It will then discuss a Libertarian argument for government involvement in environmental issues.

Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt was known for his conservationism. He believed that we should take our natural resources seriously and conserve them. There are many famous quotes of his on the subject, but the following is a good example of his stance on the issue.

We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation.

Theodore Roosevelt’s record speaks for itself. He saw the environmental impact of over hunting, overgrazing, and the general overuse of natural resources on the environment and his own wealth. This led him to take several measures as president to protect the country’s natural resources.

President Roosevlet established many public lands as a measure to protect and conserve resources. His conservation legacy shows in the 230 million acres of public land he played a part in establishing. Of the public land he helped establish, 150 million acres became national forests.

Among the many quotes of Roosevelt describing his dedication to conservation, this next one exemplifies his views on the protection of the environment.

It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds and mammals — not to speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements. But at last it looks as if our people were awakening.

Richard Nixon

Another champion of the environment may be somewhat unsuspecting to some. The cloud that hung over Richard Nixon upon his resignation as President of the United States seems to have covered all his achievements.

Like any president, Nixon did some good and some bad during his administration. After all, presidents are only human. Nixon did go too far and paid the consequences for his actions.

Nonetheless, President Nixon also did some good during his time as President of the United States. One of the most notable environmental actions taken by President Nixon was the founding of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The conversation about environmental protection began to emerge in the 1960s. In early 1970, the public began to have heightened concerns about environmental pollution. City air, natural areas full of debris, and urban water contamination were all concerns of the time. Due to this, President Richard Nixon presented a 37-point message regarding the environment to the House and Senate.

During this time, President Nixon also created a council to find ways to organize federal government programs whose goals were to address environmental concerns. At the council’s recommendation, President Nixon sent Congress a plan to consolidate the federal government’s environmental responsibilities into one agency, the Environmental Protection Agency. This was the beginning of the EPA.

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman may be one of the most notable libertarian economists in recent history. He was a champion of free markets and fought against the economic fallacies of his time. What many may not know about Friedman, however, is that he made a case for government involvement regarding environmental pollution.

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Phil Donahue:

Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?

Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate airbags, because airbags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this, that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

Friedman’s argument is a very libertarian one. He believed that there is a case for government involvement regarding pollution. Why? Because pollution is an instance where the actions of two parties affect a third party without their consent.

Friedman did not believe the most efficient way to create change was through regulations, however. A very brief history of governmental regulation failures could lead many people to this conclusion. Instead, Friedman believed that a pollution tax could help curb consumer behavior.

Friedman’s argument is one of the more rational ones when it comes to a case for the government doing something about pollution. He maintained his libertarian beliefs while also explaining why governments are within their ability to get involved when it comes to pollution.

Photo by Gianluca Grisenti on Pexels.com