Category: Business and Society

Jennifer Roback Morse takes a look at The War Between the State and the Family, a book that examines some of the family unfriendly social policies of the United Kingdom. The state, she finds, is in the process of atomizing the family into a loose association of persons with easily separated relationships. “Decomposing society into nothing but a collection of unattached individuals has been destructive of individuals and society alike,” Morse writes.

Read the full commentary here.

New postal rates went into effect yesterday, but the biggest impact of the new rates and policies hasn’t yet been felt.

A new set of policies governing the delivery of magazines through the mail has been postponed until July. That’s a bit of needed good news for small magazines that will face rather hefty price increases.

The increases have even got The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel complaining that “the Postal Service is a monopoly.”

Maybe it’s time for magazines that can’t afford to meet the new rates without untenable price hikes or layoffs (or both) to consider alternative delivery methods.

One option would be to go to a completely digital format, like Salon or Slate.

Another might be to partner with groups other than the Postal Service that already deliver to customer’s doors. The latter might be local delivery people who contract for daily or weekly newspapers.

It might be in the interests of both parties to partner up or combine their delivery efforts, in the same way that papers like The Wall Street Journal or the New York Times are delivered nationally.

Perhaps the local newspapers could get a boost to their profits by charging a small fee to deliver the magazines along with their daily routes.

Update: Much more on the postage increase at the Logos blog.

This week’s ACT 3 weekly essay, “Why Christians Ought to Make a Difference in the Marketplace,” by David L. Bahnsen:

I have heard it said in my life on more than one occasion that God sent his Son to save souls. Indeed, for evangelicals, that is certainly true. However, for the professing believer who talks of a deep concern for individual souls my question and answer will either be a gigantic disappointment or it may be a true experience of edification. While all Christian men and women ought to be interested in the salvation of individual souls—God is truly in the redemption business—I contend that, as Leslie Newbigin masterfully argues in his gem of a book, Foolishness to the Greeks, the souls of individuals have been spiritually ravaged as a result of our complete surrender of the key institutions and spheres within our society. Newbigin wrote this a generation ago in reference to the inexplicable surrender of modern science and advanced analytical philosophy to secular humanists. His argument actually simple—in a short-term effort to prioritize souls over spheres and people over institutions, we actually lost both. My belief is that where Newbigin was astutely right decades ago, today’s sphere of surrender from the covenant community of God has actually taken place in the marketplace of our day.

Read the whole article at the ACT 3 website here.

Jesus of Nazareth, the new book by Pope Benedict XVI, has been described as an attack on capitalism. But Rev. Robert A. Sirico offers a closer reading and finds that no such thing is true. The book, he says, “is explicitly a spiritual reflection on our own interior disposition toward those who are ‘neighbors’ to us and for whom we have some moral responsibility.”

Read the full commentary here.

…at least not yet.

Check out this disheartening AP story, “Judge: Cleaner owes me $65 million for pants; 2 years of litigation x 1 pair of trousers = headaches for family business.”

The US court system shouldn’t be a venue for the pursuit of a personal vendetta. This case clearly shows how lawsuits can be used to bring incredible expense and stress on the defendant, regardless of his or her guilt or culpability. And unless things change, like moving to a loser pays system, the plaintiff risks nothing.

All too often the real victims in these kinds of lawsuits are hardworking small business-owners, whose livelihood is threatened. And when small businesses suffer, the entire community suffers with them.

Is the neighborhood being made better off by Pearson’s lawsuit? Is Pearson protecting them from a business that engages in false advertising? If Pearson drives the Chungs back to Korea, the neighborhood will be made worse off, not better, and Pearson will have settled a petty grudge.

When business enterprise and successful entrepreneurship makes you the target of predatory lawsuits seeking only deep pockets, there’s something deeply wrong with the tort system.

In this monograph, Ronald Rychlak argues that the tort system needs to be reformed with a view toward the common good.

Let’s hope in this case Pearson doesn’t get off scot-free. It seems like that even in the absence of a formally-instituted loser pays system, the arbitrating authorities should have the power to dismiss Pearson’s case with extreme prejudice and require him to pay all the court costs and legal expenses for the defense.

Could the early socialists have envisioned an organization such as Wal-Mart or predicted the thousands of jobs created by such a firm? In this week’s Acton Commentary, Rev. Robert A. Sirico examines the “common good” and free markets in this excerpt from a recent speech at the first annual Free Market Forum, sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Center for the Study of Monetary Systems and Free Enterprise.

Read the entire commentary here.

Blog author: jballor
Thursday, April 26, 2007

Biotech giant Monsanto has added its considerable influence to the push to restrict or ban labeling of dairy products as free from added rBST, a hormone commonly used to induce cows to produce more milk.

Christopher Wanjek, a columnist at, reports that Monsanto thinks that such advertising practice “scares consumers into thinking there’s something unhealthy about its human-made recombinant bovine growth hormone.”

As I related earlier this year, Julianne Malveaux headlined a similar campaign against such labeling. The claim is that the labeling is deceiving people into buying something more expensive that doesn’t have any added safety. From the perspective of Malveaux and Monsanto, companies that use “no rBST” labeling are profiting from fear-mongering. (Fellow HuffPost blogger and progressive Kerry Trueman lambasts Monsanto here. No surprise that Trueman picks on a “multinational biotech behemoth” like Monsanto rather than Julianne Malveaux and the National Organization for African Americans in Housing.)

But as Wanjek’s (and Trueman’s) piece points out, the potential harm to humans caused by added rBST hormones isn’t the only relevant factor: “For animal welfare reasons alone, consumers have the right to know how their milk is produced.”

The ultimate in natural milk is of course untreated, unpasteurized, straight-from-the-udder, “raw” milk. The FDA and various local and regional governments have been cracking down on the sale of raw milk, arguing that the threats to consumer safety necessitate such harsh action.

Perhaps the most famous case recently came to media attention last year when an Amish farmer got into trouble over violations of a milk ordinance. Arlie Stutzman was busted in a raw milk sting operation, but claimed that his religious beliefs required him to share the milk he produces with others.

“While I can and I have food, I’ll share it,” said Stutzman. But a spokeswoman from the Ohio Department of Agriculture said, “You can’t just give milk away to someone other than yourself. It’s a violation of the law.”

That seems like a classic case of the government overstepping its boundaries and insinuating itself into a relationship characterized by free exchange and association. From Stutzman’s perspective, he’s simply fulfilling his divinely ordained responsibility to be a productive and obedient servant of God, helping others by the fruit of his labor.

Maybe Stutzman should have to disclose in some fashion, perhaps via a sign or a label, that his milk is raw, just in case some unsuspecting and rather silly city slicker should unwittingly buy milk from him thinking that it is treated.

But that’s precisely the sort of disclosure about the source and production of the milk that Malveaux and Monsanto want to prevent companies like Land O’Lakes and Stonyfield Farm from making. To be fair, Stonyfield isn’t in an any more admirable position, since it (contra Monsanto) wants the FDA “to immediately withdraw approval of rBST.”

The FDA shouldn’t be siding with major milk producers to squash competition from Amish farmers. And neither should it be taking sides in corporate marketing disputes about the merits of using or not using rBST. Let the customers have the information and decide for themselves.