Time after time, we are faced with clear evidence of how economic regulations hurt people, benefiting some at the expense of others. Mostly, people shrug and turn away, or turn back to their sports channel.
The latest episode that brought the issue into sharp relief was the Jones Act as it relates to Puerto Rico. The Jones Act (the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) requires all goods shipped between American ports to be on ships built, owned and operated in the United States. The idea, obviously, is to grant a quasi-monopoly status to American shipping, allowing them to raise rates (and pay) by limiting competition. Those hurt include those shipping items and those buying shipped goods.
It is customary, in times of great distress, for the government to suspend the law for a while. However, after Puerto Rico was hit by the latest hurricane, the government refused to waive it. Howls of protest went up – and rightly so. It is unconscionable to add injury to the devastation that had already happened. Senator McCain complained that the Jones Act was doubling the cost of recovery. After a short while, President Trump did allow the law to be waived, but only for a short while.
But why is it any more ethical to take money from consumers in Puerto Rico and give it to the American maritime forces during good weather than it is immediately after a storm? Both cases are acts of theft, pure and simple, regardless of what term the government uses.
The same thing happens when an area is made a tax-privileged zone. It is a clear admission by the government that their taxes are a harmful, destructive force against business and workers. Taxes are lowered or eliminated for a while until a business can get established, then they are raised. It reminds one of a vampire guzzling less blood from its victim for a while, allowing the victim to regain some strength, then resuming its efforts to suck the life blood from the victim. But again, few care, as long as the “bread and circus” continues.
The Bible and ethics demand that neither the rich nor the poor be granted special privileges, a “favorite status.” It’s time the law caught up with a correct interpretation of ethics.
Askance Eye Miniblog 