post

Anchorage Diner Defies COVID-19 Orders

Kriner’s Diner is a small, family-owned business. They’re a staple of Anchorage Alaska, where people can grab their delicious food any time of the day. But like most small businesses, they were hit hard by the initial wave of government-mandated COVID-19 closures. As Anchorage mayor Ethan Berkowitz continues to impose ever more draconian measures on the populace, diner owner Andy Kriner has decided that he’s had enough. Now this Anchorage diner defies COVID-19 orders, both to continue serving food and to thumb their nose at the tyrannical government.


Kriner refused to bow to the newest order to shut down dine-in service, and made no effort to discriminate against customers not wearing masks. When word got out, customers flooded into Kriner’s—not only to enjoy their delicious food, but to support them against the government. Many people, seeing the dining room full, left a monetary donation rather than wait to eat. “The people have spoken!” announced a waitress, brandishing another donation. So many people started donating that the employees set up a special donation receptacle so they had more time to serve customers.

Anchorage diner defies COVID-19 orders
The "stop work" order, fastened to the front door of Kriner's Diner.

The Municipality of Anchorage, furious that people are thinking and acting for themselves, issued a stop work order to the diner on 4 Aug, threatening fines and imprisonment if the Kriner family and their employees returned to work without the government’s permission. Kriner’s cheerfully announced on their Facebook page that they would close early on 4 Aug to prepare for opening on the next day—which they did, to a packed house.

After attempting to call for comment and receiving a busy signal all day, I finally dropped by the diner to investigate the situation and their food (the burgers are great!). The employees had taken the phone off the hook, because there’s nobody available to answer it during the day. When businesses in Anchorage were allowed to reopen, some of Kiner’s employees realized they could make more money at home collecting the government’s new unemployment checks. “People just aren’t coming in to work,” Andy Kriner, the diner’s founder and owner, explained.

Anchorage diner defies COVID-19 orders

Currently, the diner is only open from 9AM to 3PM, and is not offering to-go orders. “I only have one cook now,” Kiner said. “He can’t cook dining room and carryout. I can’t do that to him.” This is just one more example of how the ostensibly well-intentioned actions of the government inevitably end up hurting the most vulnerable people.

Anchorage diner defies COVID-19 orders
Andy Kriner outside his diner. Image credit: Kriner's Diner

Despite the difficulties that Kriner’s faces, the people of Anchorage who are sick of the tyranny of their government have rallied around the small diner. Other businesses, like the Little Dipper Diner (also of Anchorage) have also refused to comply with government mandates and subsequent “stop work” orders. Hopefully, more people and businesses will begin to emulate Kriner’s Diner and the good people of Anchorage in taking back their rights from oppressive governments.


The best part is that people who are concerned about contracting COVID-19 are free to stay away from Kriner’s. The experience of Sweden shows that coercive government mandates like the Anchorage establishments are rebelling against are not necessary to “flatten the curve.” As this Anchorage diner defies COVID-19 orders, Kriner’s is standing up for people to do things voluntarily, without immoral coercion from the government. As we say here at VIA, good ideas don’t require force.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
post

Is Capitalism Voluntary?

Depending on your views, capitalism is one of the most hated or loved economic systems in the world. When you ask “is capitalism voluntary?” the answer depends on what the person thinks “capitalism” means. The primary factor to consider is the level of state intervention—or force—that is being considered.

What most detractors of capitalism are typically against is the union of big business with the government. That union is actually better defined as state capitalism or corporatism—a form of syndicalism that was the basis for the economic policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This brand of “capitalism” is a system where the government grants special privileges to certain corporations, unions or other groups.

These privileges could be anything from outright monopoly, to tariffs and subsidies, to burdensome policies and regulations that drive small businesses out. But all these tactics have one thing in common: through the force of the government, people are being prevented from voluntarily choosing their economic actions. Essentially, the government picks which companies are winners and losers—and the citizens are stuck with what the government decides.

In free-market capitalism, it is customers, rather than the government, who picks winners and losers—and the winners are the ones who provide people the product or service they want.

I’ve found that most people who support capitalism are typically thinking about free-market capitalism, also called “laissez-faire” economics. Championed by classical liberal economists like Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman, this emphasizes the right of people to freely and voluntarily exchange goods and services. Under this free-market capitalism, the government is not involved in the economy at all, except to protect private property.


In free-market capitalism, it is customers, rather than the government, who picks winners and losers—and the winners are the ones who provide people the product or service they want. Often what people want is the product that’s the best quality for the lowest price, but not always. People who want to protect the environment can buy environmentally-friendly products. People who care most about supporting small and local businesses can do so. People who only want to buy “Made in America” products are as free as people who only want foreign goods.

What most detractors of capitalism are typically against is the union of big business with the government.

Most importantly from the producer’s viewpoint, people who can find a better way to produce a product or provide a service are free to try, without the weight of government regulations throttling them down. Most importantly from the consumer’s viewpoint, producers must compete for their purchases, resulting in higher quality and lower price.

It’s clear that state capitalism (fascistic corporatism) is not voluntary, since government intervention in the economy is involved by definition. But some people (particularly communists and socialists) declare that even free-market capitalism isn’t truly free or voluntary. They say it involves coercion, because if a person doesn’t work they starve—therefore people only consent to employment under the implicit threat of starvation.

To the extent that this has any merit, the criticism is actually still of state intervention into the market, for without regulations barring their way a dissatisfied employee could start their own business, or at the extreme even homestead a piece of property and start a farm—or choose a subsistence lifestyle.

You can imagine how long a modern communist would last on a deserted island, wailing that he's oppressed because he has to find food to stay alive.

However, I strongly suspect that what is being objected to by the communists and socialists is the plain fact that people must work (in a general sense) to live. They view this as oppression and ascribe it to capitalism, but it’s a fact of reality that the stuff to sustain life does not come automatically—this is not a unique trial of humanity. You can imagine how long a modern communist would last on a deserted island, wailing that he’s oppressed because he has to find food to stay alive. At the same time, the communists and socialists are ignorant that the bounty around them in developed countries is largely the result of human freedom—and therefore, they have a profound ingratitude for both the bounty and its source.


So, the answer to the question “is capitalism voluntary?” largely depends on what you’re talking about when you say “capitalism.” If you mean the fascistic corporatism of most modern states, then the answer is no—and giving more power to the state will only make it worse. But if you’re referring to the ideal of a free-market capitalism, then the answer is yes—and giving more freedom to individuals to make voluntary economic actions will only make it better.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
post

Pokemon GO Players Help Businesses Recover

Pokemon GO is a game focused on getting out and doing things. In the wake of COVID-19 lockdowns, along with protests and riots that rocked the world, businesses were left in ruins. Niantic (the developer of Pokemon GO) is getting the Pokemon GO community involved in the recovery efforts. But how can Pokemon GO players help businesses recover?

For those who don’t know, Pokemon GO is an augmented reality smartphone game that allows players to catch in-game monsters (the Pokemon) by traveling to real-world locations. Two big mechanics of the game are PokeStops, which allow players to acquire items and quests, and Gyms, which players can conquer for their team and place their Pokemon to guard.

Naturally, these real-world locations attract many Pokemon GO players. Many of the locations are civic or cultural landmarks such as parks and churches, but Niantic has also allowed businesses to pay a fee to make their operations into “sponsored” PokeStops, thereby drawing Pokemon GO-playing customers.

Pokemon GO Players Help Businesses Recover
Image Credit: Niantic

But now Niantic is taking a different approach—one that will let Pokemon GO Players help businesses recover. “At Niantic, we are passionate about bringing communities together and lifting one another up, through the good times and the challenging times,” the company said on their blog. “We understand that many local businesses have experienced unprecedented hardship over the past few months, and we want to help.”

It’s one thing for a big company like Niantic to help businesses, but where to the players come in? The blog continued: “We are inviting Pokémon GO players to nominate their favorite small, local businesses to participate in the Niantic Local Business Recovery Initiative. As part of our efforts to assist the economic recovery of local businesses, we are committed to supporting 1,000 nominated businesses by providing them complimentary promotion in Pokémon GO for one year.

In other words, Niantic will turn the winning storefronts into PokeStops and Gyms in the Pokemon GO game. The businesses will even have access to exclusive in-game promotions. This will raise awareness of the small businesses, draw more traffic to the stores, and help them on the road to economic recovery.

The nominations are open until 31 July, so if you’re a Pokemon GO player head on over and nominate your favorite local business that’s in need of a boost! If you don’t play Pokemon GO, then take a moment to appreciate how people voluntarily help each other in new and innovative ways.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
post

Why is Housing So Expensive?

Something that VIA frequently gets requests for is help with rent payments. Why is it difficult for so many people to afford housing? Why is housing so expensive? The standard answer is that it’s those lazy landlords, sitting on piles of money and smoking cigars, who are to blame. This seems to make sense at first glance—after all, aren’t the landlords the ones who are charging the rent? But lets take a closer look by examining a case from a simpler time: that of Pa Ingalls in Little House on the Prairie.

Pa Ingalls, though frequently short on luck, was an entrepreneur at heart. Anticipating that a thriving town would one day stand on the rolling grasslands, he picked a deserted spot nearby and started building a farm. This is called homesteading—in the words of John Locke, Pa Ingalls had “mixed his labor” with the land, and in doing so made it his property. He had built a nice little farm when disaster struck—worse than a prairie fire or drought. The United States government decided that it owned the land that Pa Ingalls had built on, and he had to leave to make room for indigenous Americans (who were, incidentally, forced to moved from other land that the government had also decided it owned—but that’s another story).

Fast forward a hundred and fifty years, and we see that the cause of the Ingall’s housing crisis is the same as our own: the government. At the simplest level, a person who needed a house could simply go to an unowned spot of land and build a shelter—not an ideal long-term solution, but everyone has to start somewhere. This simple expedient is forbidden, however, because the government has decreed that it owns all the land in America. Why, when it has not done anything at all to the land to make it the property of the government? Because, that’s why—and if you build a house on it, you’ll only be kicked off and have your house stolen—if you’re lucky.

In a free market, the high price of housing would cause people to want to build more housing—because they want the profits.

Fortunately, in a complex economy, there are people who are much better at building a house or apartment than the average person. In a free market, the high price of housing would cause people to want to build more housing—because they want the profits. But with more housing available, the price would decrease, since renters would have more options. So what stops that from happening? Again, the government. In addition to directly increasing the cost of housing—such as through property tax—the government indirectly increases the cost. Zoning laws, building codes, and other rules and regulations prevent new housing from being created when it is needed. Not coincidentally, this makes some people demand that the government Do Something, which usually leads to more government control over people’s lives.

That’s where voluntaryism comes in. Right now, all we who are more fortunate can do is help people pay the high costs that government has imposed on everyone. But in a truly free society—one without Big Brother telling everyone what to do—how would housing be provided for the less fortunate? The possibilities are nearly endless. Simple charities—to build new housing or pay bills—would be one way. Subsidized or even no-cost housing could be made available by businesses—people are much more likely to shop at a store they live right next to than one across town. Microliving in low-cost rental living pods, house-sharing agreements, and other creative voluntary arrangements would flourish. The answer to “why is housing so expensive?” can be summed up in one word: government. But in a voluntaryist society, the solutions to the housing problem are limited only by human imagination and initiative.

This article was originally published by Being Libertarian.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
post

Voluntarily Funded Police Agencies

The killing of George Floyd sparked another debate about the power of the police in the United States. Although the focus was quickly turned to race, with accompanying rioting and looting, the fact is that police violence continues to be inflicted on Americans regardless of skin color. While racial disparities due to racism and other factors certainly are a component of the problem, it’s not the root of it. The root is in the imbalance of power between the police and the people.

The police have what’s called “qualified immunity,” meaning that you can’t sue them when they violate your rights. They’re subject to internal police discipline—the discipline of other cops who have every incentive to go easy on the offender. In essence, police form a class that is protected by the government from direct consequences of their wrongdoing, being allowed to get away with crimes that anyone else would be arrested for.

Not only do government police enjoy protection from direct consequences of their actions, but their method of funding completely dissociates them from indirect consequences of their actions: police are paid with tax money. You do not have a choice about paying the police, no matter how poorly they protect you, and no matter how many times they mistreat and kill people. The police are paid with funds that are forcibly taken from you—and if you try to withhold your money, the police come to take it, or to put you in prison. There are currently no voluntarily funded police agencies. What this means is that the government police have a virtual monopoly on the provision of police service.

Would you want to finance the people who killed George Floyd? Because you do. Without your consent, your money is taken from you and given to them, enabling more of the same behavior.

It’s a fact of economics that when an organization has a monopoly the quality of the good or service decreases and the price increases. This is no less true in the area of defense and law enforcement. With no competition, there is no incentive to provide better service. It’s true that there are alternatives to police—there are private security agencies. However, due to the nature of government police, this is not true competition because you have no choice but to pay the government’s police.

When you hire someone to perform a service and they do not perform the service as expected, or they’re too expensive, or any other reason, you can hire someone else. In the last instance, you can attempt to either perform the service for yourself or do without. But no matter how bad the government police are, you cannot truly choose another service—or even choose to stop paying them.

Together, the virtual monopoly, the immunity from prosecution, and the forced funding mean that the police are almost totally insulated from the natural consequences of their decisions. It also enables activities that benefit the police but do not protect the citizens, like civil asset forfeiture (theft), detainment (kidnapping), “reasonable use of force” (assault), and as we see over and over, killing.

But the most likely scenario is that with private police agencies George Floyd would not have died, because police officers would see people as customers and potential customers instead of as criminals and potential criminals.

The question should now be asked: what are the natural consequences on the market of the actions the government police engage in? Ask yourself: would you want to voluntarily pay an agency whose employees could pull you out of your car and beat you without any repercussions? Would you want to support an organization that, when you ask them to check if your neighbor is alright, they shoot and kill her?

Would you want to finance the people who killed George Floyd? Because you do. Without your consent, your money is taken from you and given to them, enabling more of the same behavior.

If the Minneapolis Police Department had been one of several voluntarily funded police agencies competing for business, the officer responsible for Floyd’s death would have been immediately arrested. If the (private) MPD had any business sense, they would have arrested him themselves to demonstrate their trustworthiness and try to salvage their reputation with their customers. But the most likely scenario is that with private police agencies George Floyd would not have died, because police officers would see people as customers and potential customers instead of as criminals and potential criminals.

While racism certainly exists in the government police force, it’s not the core problem. The ultimate issue is that police officers are protected from the consequences of their actions. No amount of government action will make them accountable. No new government oversight committees or investigative powers will reform the police, because those bodies will have the same problems of immunity and involuntary funding. The only way to reform the police is to break the government monopoly: remove their immunity, remove their involuntary funding, and allow private agencies to freely compete for the honor of keeping Americans safe.

It’s time for voluntarily funded police agencies.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
post

Dolly Parton Donated 130 Million Books to Children

Dolly Parton donated 130 million books to children, and the number continues to climb. As an award-winning singer and songwriter, Parton is well known for her work in the entertainment industry. But she’s less well known for her philanthropic work—especially when it comes to books.


Parton was born in a one-room cabin in Tennessee, the fourth of 12 children. She described her family as “dirt poor,” and although her father was business savvy he could neither read nor write. As Parton achieved more and more success, she began to think of ways to help others, particularly in poor rural areas like where she grew up.


As Parton said, “When I was growing up in the hills of East Tennessee, I knew my dreams would come true. I know there are children in your community with their own dreams…The seeds of these dreams are often found in books and the seeds you help plant in your community can grow across the world.” And so in 1995, she launched Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library in her childhood home of Sevier County, Tennessee.

Dolly Parton Donated 130 Million Books to Children
Parton said “It is an honor for me to share the incredible talent of these authors and illustrators. They make us smile, they make us laugh and they make us think.” Image credit: Dolly Parton's Imagination Library

The idea for the Library was simple: because a lot of families don’t have the means to purchase books, each child who joins the program is mailed an age-appropriate book every month from birth to five years. If the parents sign the child up right after birth, that’s a total of 60 books by the time the child turns six. And multiple children from the same family can sign up—meaning that a four-child family could potentially receive 240 free books, and a 12-child family like the one Parton grew up in could receive a staggering 720 free books.

Families responded to Parton’s generosity. By 2003, Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library had mailed one million books. In 2004, the program expanded to the entire state of Tennessee. Nationwide coverage followed soon after. The program launched in Canada in 2006 followed by the United Kingdom in 2007, Australia in 2013 and the Republic of Ireland in 2019. With growth like that, it’s no wonder Dolly Parton donated 130 million books to children.

"I think it is pretty clear that now is the time to share a story and to share some love.”

As government lockdowns during the coronavirus crisis drag on, Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library has started a new program of weekly bedtime story videos. “Goodnight With Dolly” launched on 2 April, with Parton herself reading the books. Regarding this new program, Parton said: “This is something I have been wanting to do for quite a while, but the timing never felt quite right. I think it is pretty clear that now is the time to share a story and to share some love.” She couldn’t be more right, and during this crisis people all over the world are willingly helping each other.


One of the objections often raised to a purely voluntary society is that not enough people will voluntarily pay for things like public libraries, and so poor children will never be able to read books. As of this writing, there are over 1.5 million children registered with Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library, and over 133 million books have been mailed. Parton’s amazing example not only shows that there are other methods to meet literary needs than the archaic model of the public library, but that those needs can be met by people acting voluntarily.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
post

Private Entities are Combating Government Enforced Boredom

The government’s belated response to the coronavirus has been to force everyone they can to stay indoors—sometimes at gunpoint. In addition to the economic impact, many people are getting a serious case of cabin fever. People stuck at home need something to do before they start weaving baskets. But as usual, voluntary efforts take over when the state fails, and private entities are combating government enforced boredom. There are too many people helping to count, but here is a quick rundown of some highlights of the efforts being made.

In addition to donating millions of dollars to medical coronavirus relief efforts, Amazon has made much of its family-friendly movies and TV shows available for free, including classics like Arthur and Reading Rainbow. They have also altered their Audible audiobook streaming service to make hundreds of titles in multiple languages available to listeners for free—even such apropos titles as “Brave New World” and “Atlas Shrugged.”

Amazon is far from the only player in the digital media industry. Not to be outdone, Apple has added a limited-time “Free Books” section to its Apple Books app. Nonprofits are not being left behind. The non-profit online library Internet Archive has created a National Emergency Library where books can be read without the main site’s lending restrictions.

Pokemon Go is a game beloved by millions across the world. Unfortunately one of the main mechanisms in the game is walking around outside—a great form of exercise that, in some areas, the government will arrest you for nowadays. But the creator of Pokemon Go have altered the game’s mechanics temporarily to make it possible to catch Pokemon easily from your home and making it easier to interact with other players—even giving away free in-game items.

Private Coronavirus Relief is Better than Government
"We are committed to the safety and well-being of our community," the development team of PokemonGo said.

Individual creatives are also acting to meet the mental and emotional needs of people imprisoned in their own homes by the government. Award-winning children’s artist Mo Willems is holding virtual “lunch doodle” sessions from his home. Using the hashtag #OperationStoryTime, authors of children’s books are using social media to provide free readings of their books for families. You can even find Julie Borowski reading her modern classic “Nobody Knows How To Make A Pizza,” and Connor Boyack reading “The Creature from Jekyll Island” from his Tuttle Twins series.

Neither are the finer aspects of entertainment being left out. World-renowned actor Sir Patrick Stewart is tweeting out daily readings of Shakespeare’s sonnets. “When I was a child in the 1940s, my mother would cut up slices of fruit for me (there wasn’t much)”, Stewart said, “and as she put it in front of me she would say, ‘An apple a day keeps the doctor away.’ How about, ‘A sonnet a day keeps the doctor away’?”

The Metropolitan Opera was forced to cancel its live presentations, but is re-airing its Live in HD series for free.  “We’d like to provide some grand opera solace to opera lovers in these extraordinarily difficult times,” said Met General Manager Peter Gelb. “Every night, we’ll be offering a different complete operatic gem from our collection of HD presentations from the past 14 years.”

Headlines all over the world have focused on the medical impacts of the coronavirus, and the financial impact of the government’s actions. Often overlooked has been the emotional an psychological impacts on individuals and families. But as we can see, private entities are combating government enforced boredom, demonstrating again that people will voluntarily help each other—and that help is always better than what the government offers.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
post

Private Coronavirus Relief is Better than Government

The government’s forced quarantines and work restrictions have had a terrible economic impact. To try to correct the problem they caused, politicians are starting their dollar-bill printing presses, creating money out of thin air like a magician—and like a magician, hoping that nobody will notice the trick.

That news is dominating headlines, so you almost certainly know about it. But what isn’t making as many headlines is the news that voluntary, private coronavirus relief is better than government action. What follows is just a small sample of what’s happening every day all over the world.

Government regulations prevent markets from meeting demand as they otherwise could, and that’s been seen in a shortage of medical supplies as the coronavirus spreads. Prudential Financial contributed towards fixing that shortage, donating 153,000 face masks and approximately 75,000 respirators to hospitals across New Jersey.

Private Coronavirus Relief is Better than Government
A Prudential employee prepares stored medical supplies for donation. Image: Prudential Financial

Generous people aren’t just thinking about the safety of healthcare workers, but also their basic needs—like coffee. Starbucks has said that through 3 May, all customers who are hospital staff will receive a tall brewed coffee at no charge. In addition, Starbucks is donating $500,000 to charities that support hospital workers.

But treating COVID patients takes more than caffeine—it takes calories. So Krispy Kreme has joined in as well, pledging to donate a dozen donuts to all healthcare workers every Monday. They’ll continue through National Nurses Week (May 6-12).

Private Coronavirus Relief is Better than Government
Healthcare workers pose with donated donuts. Image: @cappiern

Hospital employees are working very hard to help people sick with COVID, but they are fortunate to still have jobs. The government’s restrictions shut down a lot of businesses, and put a lot of people out of work. Hardest hit are wage-earning employees. That’s why Kent Taylor, the CEO of Texas Roadhouse, has chosen to donate his year’s salary to help his front-line hourly workers.

Taylor is not the only one supporting employees affected by the government’s orders. Gene Lee, the CEO of Darden (the parent company of Olive Garden and LongHorn) is not taking his salary. Rather, he’s investing it and other company resources in an emergency pay program to cover hourly employees. They’re also adjusting their business model to meet the crisis. Lee explained that “what we’re focused on right now is ramping up and using our team members to be able to keep them on our payroll and develop our own delivery capabilities.”

Private Coronavirus Relief is Better than Government
Darden, the parent company of Olive Garden, is adjusting to a delivery-based business model to keep people employed. Image: Olive Garden

And it’s not only employers who are helping with finances. Business are voluntarily helping their customers with financial difficulties. Some financial institutions, such as USAA, are choosing to waive fees, reimburse deductibles on coronavirus-related healthcare, and offer loans at reduced rates.

Utilities are choosing to help as well. In the frozen north, Alaska Waste has said that they “can accommodate payment arrangements; and will work with you individually to meet your needs.” They have also pledged to not stop garbage collection services for people who cannot pay during this crisis.

The outpouring of care from all over the world has been tremendous. We’ve covered additional voluntary relief efforts previously, but as the government-created crisis continues, people keep helping each other. Politicians will continue to bicker about how to distribute your own money back to you, as they hope you forget that it’s they who are driving the economy off a cliff. But everyone else, from huge corporations to private individuals, have stepped up to voluntarily help. Like in everything, private coronavirus relief is better than government efforts.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
post

Private Businesses Are Helping Coronavirus Victims

While politicians are shutting down stores and endlessly debating about how to spend your tax money, private businesses are helping coronavirus victims. There are too many stories for use to document them all, but here’s a quick selection.

After Governor Herbert closed the government schools, Fat Daddy’s Pizzeria in Provo, UT felt awful about the children who relied on the school lunches. Similar to us at Voluntaryism in Action, the good folks at Fat Daddy’s decided to do something about it. That something was a free lunch—to any school-aged child who needed it.

Private Businesses Are Helping Coronavirus Victims
Fat Daddy's Facebook post announcing their voluntary charity.

They weren’t expecting the volume of responses—not just from people wanting help, but from people offering help. Donations of money poured in. People called up to volunteer to serve food. In defiance of the callous unconcern of the government to people grown dependent on them, Fat Daddy’s brought the community together to help voluntarily.

Private Businesses Are Helping Coronavirus Victims
Fat Daddy's did not expect such an amazing response from their community.

Unlike pizza, one thing that’s difficult to find in Provo, UT is a stiff drink. With the government’s wave of restaurant and bar closures, it wasn’t just people in UT having a hard time feeling the Irish spirit(s) this St. Patrick’s Day. Hardest hit were the bartenders who depend on the revenue for their livelihood. Enter Jameson Irish Whiskey, who has pledged to donate $500,000 to support bartenders affected by this crisis.

Private Businesses Are Helping Coronavirus Victims

Not all help has been as urgent as feeding children and paying bills. Lives have been upset by the shutting down of college an university campuses, with many students left in a painful state of limbo. U-Haul has offered these students 30 days of free self-storage to help get them through the crisis, in addition to reduced rates for truck and trailer rentals.

Private Businesses Are Helping Coronavirus Victims
U-Haul adds their efforts to help mitigate the fallout from the government's response to coronavirus.

With government grade school closures, a lot of parents have found themselves at home with their children for multiple weeks. These parents, made dependent on the state for education, are lost when it comes to teaching their own kids. Yet again, private businesses are helping coronavirus victims. The Facebook page Amazing Educational Resources compiled a list of 30 education companies offering free subscriptions due to the failure of the government schools in this crisis. Here is a link to the spreadsheet, so you can check it out yourself: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t3r618pd8MAi6V87dG2D66PtiKoHdHusBpjPKXgm36w/htmlview?sle=true&usp=gmail#gid=0

These are only a few of the examples that voluntaryists shared in the VIA Community Group on Facebook. There must be dozens—or even hundreds—that I don’t know about. What’s really amazing is that all of these businesses and people helping others have also been affected by the government’s draconian measures. But they looked around, saw people less fortunate, and reached out to help—as people always do, and always will. That’s why voluntary aid works.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print
post

Boxer Donates Winnings To Charity

Instead of spending his money on sports cars and swimming pools, this boxer donated his winnings to charity — specifically, to fighting homelessness.

British Boxer Tyson Fury has championed many charitable causes since his own battles with drug abuse and mental health problems. The Sun reports that when he traveled to an event in LA and saw the homeless crisis that the government has caused, he vowed to do something.

Boxer Donates Winnings To Charity
Tyson Fury has said he gave away his money to help people, not himself. (Credit: DAVID GARCIA - KONG EVENTS)

There was more than sentiment behind the boxer’s promise. Following his bout with Deontay Wilder, Fury donated his entire paycheck of about $9 million to charities that provide housing for indigent alcohol and drug addicts in his home country of England.

But Fury claims that knowing he’s been able to help people is worth more than any publicity that might come from his actions. “I did give away my last purse but I don’t do charity work for a pat on the back,” Fury said. “I do it to help people but I do not want praise for it, I don’t want to be called a do-gooder.”

Boxer Donates Winnings To Charity
Tyson Fury gave away his $9 million Wilder fight money to charity. (Credit: DAVID GARCIA - KONG EVENTS)

Fury’s fight against his newest rival—homelessness—is a great inspiration to all of us who believe in voluntaryism. People want to help others. And from boxers donating their winnings to charity to a neighbor providing a helping hand, they will.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print