Author: Joey Crawford

"We live in a society where people are not even trusted to take care of themselves, let alone take care of others."

One of the common critiques levied against libertarians is that we are heartless, cold and self-
interested. We really do bring this upon ourselves; we frequently advocate for the tearing down
of “public” programs and infrequently offer acceptable replacements. This is a fault of our
own communication skills. However, it seems to me that a deep sense of humanitarianism is
complementary to, if not essential to, libertarian sympathies.

On a tangential note, I should disclose that it is rather difficult to be a spokesperson for
libertarianism. One of the fundamental concepts of the ideology is that people should be
treated and respected as individuals unless they voluntarily allow themselves to be grouped as
a collective. As such, speaking on behalf of other libertarians is a moral conundrum. I intend,
therefore, to speak for myself and allow others to compare their thoughts and feelings to mine on
their own accord. I hope that the tyranny of my voice over “libertarian” values does not become
oppressive.

I find that I often live intellectually in a theoretical world. The vocabulary of my worldview
consists primarily of “should” and secondarily of “does.” I find this to be a more fulfilling
approach to intellectual pursuits. For instance, I believe that people should treat others the way
that they themselves would wish to be treated. I believe that people should take responsibility
for actions and decisions that are principally the creation or perpetration of their own volition.
I believe that people should give credit to others for success when credit is due. I believe that
people should care for others unless and until given a reason not to do so. I engage society with
the assumption that others share my sentiments.

Unfortunately, our society does not always, perhaps not even usually, operate based on these
morals. I find that most of the problems we face as a collective are not problems rooted in
our political interactions, nor in our economic interactions, but rather that our problems
are symptoms of greater societal rot. We live in a society where half of (supposedly sacred
heterosexual) marriages end in divorce, class divisions drive newspaper headlines and citizens
increasingly distrust the intentions of others, especially when money is involved.

I do not believe that the incivility that underlies this decomposition is anything new. We have
not yet sufficiently evolved to live properly in permanent settlements with large numbers of
other people. I do think, however, that the issue needs to be addressed by every individual in our
country.

I suspect that some libertarians may be wondering, “So what? People can choose how they
want to deal with others. They just have to be willing to live with the consequences.” While I
sympathize with this notion, the culture that currently prevails makes many people reluctant to

trust anyone to do just about anything. We live in a society where people are not even trusted to
take care of themselves, let alone take care of others.

I view this rot as a threat to liberty. While I do not believe that the government has just authority
to legislate morality, I do very much believe that we should have a societal expectation that all of
our fellow citizens treat each other with respect and care. As long as politicians can point to the
incivility of their constituents, politicians will treat their constituents as uncivil. As fantastically
cliché as it sounds, all of us need to make an effort to be and to produce better people if we
have any hope of retaining our right to self-government. In the words of the French monarchist
Joseph de Maistre, “Every nation gets the government it deserves,” and we should ensure that we
deserve better.

Dear Dean Sauls,

I have just spent a wonderful summer interning with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit First Amendment advocacy organization in Philadelphia.  Throughout my time there, I learned a great deal about both the moral value of and the legal principles behind freedom of speech, especially as they relate to nationally leading colleges and universities like UNC.

I have come to understand that freedom of speech and expression is vital not only to civil life in America, but also to the pursuit of truth and knowledge in higher education and elsewhere. Therefore, I was troubled to learn that UNC maintains three policies (all located in the Instrument of Student Governance, and highlighted on FIRE’s page for UNC) that unnecessarily restrict free speech on campus.

Fortunately, these would be easy to remedy, and I would be very pleased if UNC could earn a “green light” from FIRE. FIRE does a great job of publicizing the schools that do this, like they did for our neighbors at the University of Virginia and at William & Mary. (FIRE also gave some publicity to UNC’s change from “red” to “yellow” back in 2008.) Most of all, though, this is about students’ fundamental rights at UNC and the creation of the most open intellectual environment possible. Below are the problematic policies, with a few recommended amendments.

(1)  II.C.1.b.iv

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that expressly or implicitly imposes conditions upon, threatens, interferes with, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for an individual’s (I) academic pursuits, (II) University employment, (III) participation in activities sponsored by the University or organizations or groups related to the University, or (IV) opportunities to benefit from other aspects of University life. [boldface in original]

This policy is very similar to the harassment policy found unconstitutional in the case of Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989), one of the first of many court decisions striking down public university harassment policies on First Amendment grounds. The court in that case held that the phrase “involve an express or implied threat to an individual’s academic efforts” was too vague because “it is not clear what would constitute a ‘threat’ to an individual’s academic efforts.” UNC’s policy contains nearly identical language, prohibiting conduct that “expressly or implicitly … threatens, interferes with … academic pursuits,” as well as the yet more general “opportunities to benefit from other aspects of University life.”

This policy can easily be used to punish important protected speech, such as the discussion of sexual roles in a provocative or controversial work of literature. Such academic discussion, above all, should not be suppressed under a flawed understanding of sexual harassment. Many students (including me) and even faculty members likely censor themselves rather than risk punishment, stifling valuable discussion and dialogue.

Fortunately, it should not be difficult to amend UNC’s policy, because the U.S. Supreme Court has established a clear definition of student-on-student sexual harassment in the educational context. The Court, in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999), defined peer harassment as unwelcome discriminatory behavior, directed at a person because of their gender, that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”

By the way, Fayetteville State University also used to have the “express or implied threat” language in its harassment policy and has since revised that policy to be consistent with the Davis standard. Fayetteville State’s sexual harassment policy now says:

Sexual Harassment shall mean unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit or alters the conditions of the victim’s employment and creates an abusive working environment.
I would urge UNC to adopt a similar definition. I should add that the standard for harassment in the employment context is different from that in education, as it probably should be, so I just want you to be aware that language from a source like the EEOC wouldn’t pass muster with the Davis standard.

(2) II.C.1.c

Harassment or intimidation that abuses, disparages, or otherwise interferes with another so as to adversely affect their academic pursuits, opportunities for University employment, participation in University-sponsored extracurricular activities, or opportunities to benefit from other aspects of University life.

This policy leaves students’ free speech rights at the mercy of the most sensitive person on campus. Naturally, some people may more easily feel “disparaged” or negatively “affect[ed]” than others, and may consider even the mildest of unfortunate circumstances to be an adverse effect. For example, an atheist student’s assertion in a philosophy class that “God does not exist” might upset a Christian student so badly that he or she feels distracted for the rest of the class. Under this policy, the atheist student could be punished for this assertion, since it adversely affected the academic pursuits of the Christian student, however slightly. This is unreasonable for the same reasons that the first policy is unreasonable: there is no objective standard used in harassment law, and there is no requirement that the behavior actually be severe and pervasive enough to count as harassment under Davis.

With respect to harassment, this policy has the same easy fix–just make this policy consistent with the other one, using the language from Davis.

With respect to intimidation, which is a different kind of offense, the University can easily use the Supreme Court’s definition in Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003): intimidation, in the constitutionally proscribable sense, is a “type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.”

(3) Appendix A.I.f

In order to ensure effective functioning of an Honor System worthy of respect in this institution students are expected to: … Treat all members of the University community with respect and fairness.

While most of the time I am glad that UNC encourages students to treat each other respectfully, UNC cannot actually require us to do so when it comes to speech, since a lot of “disrespectful” speech and expression is protected by the First Amendment. Because it is so unclear whether students can be disciplined for violating the terms of this Appendix, students will likely hold back from engaging in protected speech rather than risk punishment, which leads to an unacceptable chilling effect on student speech. On the one hand, the Appendix states that “The offenses set out in Section II of this Instrument, not this listing of responsibilities, shall be the basis for determining chargeable offenses under the Honor Code.” On the other hand, the Instrument itself states that “specific responsibilities of students are set forth in this Instrument and elaborated upon in Appendix A … These responsibilities are the minimum expected of members of the student body and the faculty.”

Because so many of the obligations set out in Appendix A clearly look like real (and legitimate) requirements–such as the requirement that students comply with faculty efforts to reduce cheating and comply with disciplinary investigations–the easiest way to fix the free speech concerns with this policy would simply be to remove letter F–“treat all members of the University community with respect and fairness”–from Appendix A. The other option would be to further clarify that students cannot be punished for violating the terms of Appendix A, but given the other obligations listed there, this seems less appropriate. It is strange to put things that look like disciplinary requirements in Appendix A but then to say that they aren’t in themselves punishable. I think letter F in the context here just confuses students into self-censorship.

I understand that all of these policies were written with the best of intentions to create a healthy and safe environment for students on campus, but they are unnecessarily detrimental to academic and personal freedom. UNC is very close to achieving a “green light” rating from FIRE, which would allow it to join an elite group of 14 other schools nationwide, including Carnegie Mellon, Dartmouth, William & Mary, Penn, and the University of Virginia. With the simple changes I have illustrated above, UNC can recommit itself to freedom of speech, improving both student life and public relations.

I look forward to hearing from you about this. In an interview with the Daily Tar Heel last February, you said that “[t]o come here and feel comfortable is to not enjoy a liberal arts education.” I agree wholeheartedly. Let’s fully protect free speech and make those uncomfortable times into learning experiences, not occasions for unconstitutional discipline.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

David Deerson
Class of 2013
Vice President
UNC-CH College Libertarians.

Every first Saturday of the month in Carroboro, North Carolina, (Chapel Hill’s  own little hipster outgrowth), an event called “Really Really Free Market” takes place.  Essentially, the event is a flea market, but everything is free.  People congregate to give away used retail goods, services like haircuts or massages, and goods they have created themselves.  In return, they ask for and expect nothing.

Supposed alutrists at the RRFM

But then, if they want nothing in return, why do they do it?

According to their website,  these are the reasons why:

“Because there’s enough for everyone

Because sharing is more fulfilling than owning

Because corporations would rather the landfills overflow than anyone get anything for free

Because scarcity is a myth constructed to keep us at the mercy of the economy

Because a sunny day outside is better than anything money could buy

Because “free trade” is a contradiction in terms

Because no one should have to do without food, shelter, entertainment, and community

Because life should be a picnic, but it only will be if we make it happen

BECAUSE THERE IS TOO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!”

Some of these are based on clear misunderstandings (“scarcity is a myth,” “there is too such thing as a free lunch”), some are hyperbole (corporations don’t want anyone to get anything for free? Can anyone lend me some money to pay for a Google search so I can find out if this is true or not?), and some are simply poetic (“because a sunny day outside is better than anything money could buy”).  One, however, is very enlightening: “sharing is more fulfilling than owning.”

Aha! They say they don’t want anything in return – but they do!  They want fulfillment. They get more utility from giving things away than from keeping them.  One assumes, then, that the corporations and capitalists who take and take and take and never give are saints or angels, allowing others to be fulfilled and yet denying their own fulfillment in some saintly asceticism. The really-really-free-marketeers, on the other hand, are avaricious and predatory, giving away items or services that are not worth  the intense fulfillment they get in return.  Talk about unequal trade:  you get fulfillment and all I get is a haircut?

I’m not here to talk about the economic principles that show why capitalism is in the best interest of everyone, nor am I trying to prove that free-market capitalism is the only moral economic system.  Instead, I am just trying to illustrate a simple point: no one does anything selflessly. Ayn Rand called altruism evil; I am calling it fictional.

Ayn Rand called altruism evil; I am calling it fictional

Trade is ubiquitous in our lives.  Consider having friends over for dinner; they eat your food, use your shelter, and don’t clean their dishes.   But it isn’t out of selflessness that you have them over – you enjoy their company.  In return for the dinner, they give conversation, humor, and companionship. My friends and I are trading.

Consider also charity.  If you give money to a cause (Students For Liberty, perhaps?), it is because you have a desire to see the cause promoted.  Giving to charity is very simply an act of satisfying your desires.  Of course, it most likely satisfies the desires of others to a greater extent than it satisfies your own.  And it is probably the case that you desire it only because it satisfies the desires of others.  But in no way do these things diminish fact that you give to charity because it is what you desire.  Satisfying one’s own desires is not selfless – it’s downright selfish (I am not in want of a better word; there are plenty, but none that make the point quite so strongly).

None of this is meant to bash the Really Really Free Market.  I think it’s a brilliant and beautiful event. It just isn’t what it claims to be.  There is trading going on. Some people get tangible goods, like lampshades or food.  Others get intangible goods, like satisfaction and fulfillment.  I love it for the same reason I like all free trade – everybody wins.

courtesy of newsone.com

The College Libertarians’ very own David Deerson was recently featured in New Voices, a Jewish student magazine, in an article that highlights libertarian-leaning Republican candidate Ron Paul’s broad appeal. It’s true that people of many different faiths are attracted to Paul’s commitment to individual rights and Golden Rule common sense that he would apply to foreign policy. His broad appeal also comes from his deep respect for the right of the individual to practice his or her religion (or lack thereof) and that it is no business of the state to prescribe morality; a quality notably lacking amongst other Republican candidates.  Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, the irreligious and others are all attracted to the ethics of Paul’s message and to the ethics of the greater liberty movement.

courtesy of newvoices.org

David Deerson went to Jewish day school, attended and worked at a Jewish summer camp and he has been to Israel multiple times. He also thinks the Jewish State might as well be in Wyoming. And he’s voting for Ron Paul in 2012.

Deerson is a regional campus coordinator for Students for Liberty, a Libertarian college activism organization, and the vice president of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill College Libertarians. His love for the limited government philosophy has made him an avid Paul supporter, but Deerson is a calmer advocate for libertarian values than his bombastic political hero.

When it comes to Israel, Deerson says his views match up completely with Paul’s. He thinks foreign aid is inefficient and easily lost in bureaucracy, and he understood when Paul allegedly said Israel should be given to the Palestinians when a viable Jewish state could be implemented anywhere other than the “hornets’ nest” of the Middle East, even in the United States or Africa he said.

“I think it [a Jewish State] has an absolute right to exist. The question is: Is it wise or prudent to exist in that specific area of the world, given the sort of geopolitical conditions of today?” Deerson said in a telephone interview.

Despite all of the negative press Paul has been getting, Deerson has been advocating for him on campus, at parties and anywhere else he can find someone willing to listen. Deerson said Paul could not possibly be racist or anti-Semitic. Racism, he said, defies libertarianism’s love for individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Plus, Deerson pointed out, Paul’s economic superhero of choice is Austrian Jewish economist Ludwig von Mises.

“The heroes of the liberty movement have largely been Jewish, so the idea of somebody in the liberty movement who respects these people but is secretly anti-Semitic seems a little bit silly to me,” Deerson said.

Deerson’s politics have less to do with his religion than with Westen political thought.

“I would say, maybe in some ways our culture is based on Judeo-Christian values, but our political system is much more based on Enlightenment philosophy of government,” Deerson said.

But that doesn’t mean the two sides of his personal philosophy are completely separate. Deerson regularly writes about the connections between Judaism and libertarian principles. On the UNC-CH College Libertarians’ blog and on the Students for Liberty website, Deerson used Maimonides to defend libertarianism’s definition of charity, saying, “According to Maimonides, those who provide employment are the most charitable people. It isn’t the politicians and the bureaucrats who have the moral high ground, but the innovators and the job creators.”

Deerson also posted an excerpt from the biblical book of Samuel, where the eponymous prophet warns against the Hebrews’ desire for a king, equating that desire with the overbearing government influence that libertarianism stands in opposition to. Deerson quoted Samuel: “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.”

“As far as Judaism goes, it’s an incredibly ancient religion, and I think one of the beauties of it today is that you can really interpret it in any way you want,” Deerson said.

Also read it here on newvoices.org.

The College Libertarians promote liberty during the school year and have a great time doing it, so why stop in May?

As the liberty movement grows and strengthens, enormous summer opportunities for students arise.  Below is just a short list of resources to help you make the best of your summer.

If you want to recommend or discuss these or any other summer opportunities, let us know in the comments!

Seminars

IHS:  “IHS provides programs tailored to a wide variety of backgrounds. Whether you’re a seasoned libertarian or just getting curious about individual liberty, attending an IHS Summer Seminar geared toward your interests will connect you to rich resources, engaging people, and enriching ideas.”

I have participated in a seminar with IHS each of the past two summers, and plan to attend a third this summer.  Some of my biggest intellectual breakthroughs and most fruitful networking connections have been made at these seminars.  I cannot recommend them highly enough.

FEE: “The mission of the Foundation for Economic Education is to “inspire, educate, and connect future leaders with the principles of a free society.” One of the primary ways FEE works to achieve this mission is through our annual summer seminar series. Since 1962, FEE has graduated over 10,000 students from our various summer seminars, educating students from all over the world.”

Atlas Society: “Each year The Atlas Society and the Free Minds Institute jointly present a week-long summer program featuring presentations by some of the top minds in the country. The topics range from Objectivist epistemology to artificial intelligence, cognitive science, psychology, physics, economics, and law.”

The Independent Institute: “Our five-day series of lectures, readings, films, multimedia presentations, and small group discussion teaches students what economics is, how it affects their lives, and how understanding it can help them achieve better lives for themselves, their communities, and the world at large. Informative, inspiring, and fun, The Challenge of Liberty is an ideal way to make the summer break intellectually rewarding.”

Mises University: “The Mises University is the world’s leading instructional program in the Austrian School of economics. Since 1986, it has been the essential training ground for economists who are looking beyond the mainstream. The program offers courses, seminars, and reading groups on the whole range of the discipline. A core curriculum presents economic foundations, and more than fifty elective classes explore the entire range of economics, in all levels of advancement. The program ends with a Mündliche Prüfung, an optional exam for an honors certificate.”

Internships

Koch Summer Fellows Program (KSFP): “The Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program combines a paid public policy internship with two career and policy seminars. Fellows gain real-world experience, take a crash course in market-based policy analysis, and acquire the professional skills necessary to effect change. Participating internship hosts include more than 80 think tanks and policy organizations across the United States. ”

Koch Associate Program (KAP): [KAP isn't actually a "summer opportunity"; it's a year-long employment.  But it starts in the summer, so I've included it here]: “Associates spend one day a week immersed in Market-Based Management^® curriculum while working full-time at a non-profit partner organization in Washington, DC, through a collaboration with the Charles Koch Foundation. It’s a unique chance to combine your profession with your passion while expanding your knowledge, skills, and network.”

Koch Internship Program (KIP): “Want to build your resume while advancing economic freedom? The Koch Internship Program is an opportunity to not only work for a think tank or public policy organization in Washington, DC, but also receive valuable professional education and hands-on experience. Designed for students and recent graduates who are passionate about economic freedom, the program offers a chance to develop your knowledge and skills, while building a valuable professional network and understanding of non-profit career paths. During the program, each intern works at a non-profit 501(c)(3) partner organization through a collaboration with the Charles Koch Foundation and spends every Tuesday at the Charles Koch Institute engaging in reading discussions, group projects, lectures, and Market-Based Management^® workshops. Roles vary, and include policy research, communications, operations, donor relations, and more. ”

Libertarian National Committee: The Libertarian National Committee is now accepting applications for our summer internship program. Primarily, the program is focused on expanding communication between the national office, party members, and potential members. This is accomplished by addressing questions about the party platform, participating in grassroots events, and online activism. In addition, interns assist with fundraising, social media, marketing, blog writing, research, video’s, and administrative tasks.

Local

John Locke Foundation:”Student interns are paid on an hourly basis, and perform a variety of tasks, including administrative and web site work, events, research, writing, and general office duties. They interact almost daily with the public and the media, both at guest speaker events and through phone and in-person contacts at our offices. These internships are particularly suitable for students interested in political science and government, economics and business, history, journalism, leadership, and non-profit organizations and management.”

Civitas Institute: “The Civitas Institute is proud to offer one of the most rewarding and competitive internship programs in North Carolina. Students concentrate on public policy in Raleigh while learning in a professional environment. In addition, interns learn the fundamentals of state government while working hand-in-hand with state leaders, think-tankers, and policy experts — discovering along the way how the lawmaking process works. In particular, interns will also have the unique opportunity to work with our policy department drafting and publishing their own public policy reports. Interested, well-qualified candidates may contact the Institute for further information. The Civitas Institute offers competitive compensation for work performed.”

Other Resources

Listed above are the opportunities that came immediately to my mind.  Either because I have experience with them or have simply heard good things about them.  But the list of Summer Opportunities goes on and on.  Here are some resources for you to poke through, and see what looks interesting to you.

KSFP Host Organizations: The Koch Summer Fellows Program works with dozens of pro-liberty organizations.  You can use their database to get an idea of what kinds of organizations offer internships.  Even if you don’t apply to them through the KSFP, you can apply for an internship with many of those organizations independently.

Cato on Campus: Cato on Campus is a great place to check once in a while if you want to stay up to date on the latest opportunities for students.

Courtesy of reason.com

Less than a day after falling four thousand votes shy of winning the Iowa Caucuses, Ron Paul is still hardly mentioned in the media. Third place is evidently not good enough to have your existence noted by American news and print media. But fourth, fifth and sixth places – the respective results of Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann – the media continuously report on the future of their campaigns. The mind-numbingly stupid cable news coverage has focused their reports on Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman in New Hampshire, how Perry is focusing on South Carolina and how Bachmann has called it quits. But Ron Paul? There is no mention of him. He is not a serious candidate. He is not a serious candidate. He is unelectable. He is crazy. He is not a serious candidate. He is dangerous. If the media repeat themselves enough, maybe they believe it will become true, or perhaps at least dissuade the viewer from thinking about Paul’s ideology. The only time the media or the herd of pundits mention Ron Paul is to assure themselves and the viewers that he is not a viable candidate.
Although you may have not even noticed, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson was once a Republican candidate for President, but he disappeared months ago. It started when CNN did not invite Johnson to one their early debates, citing national poll numbers as the reason. Johnson, one of the most popular governors in recent history, was just too obscure for them. Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, however, was not deemed too obscure for the media to acknowledge his candidacy and invite him to debates. Because the media for ignored him for so long, Johnson has now declared his intention of running for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. So why are the media so reticent in mentioning candidates with libertarian beliefs? Some believe the medias’ reticence is merely based on the fact that Paul and Johnson stray so far from the Republican platform that their candidacies are nullified because they are unelectable to Republican primary voters. If that were the case, however, then why the rising popularity and mainstreaming of their views that distinguish them from Republican orthodoxy? If their views are so farfetched and damaging to their electability as the media claim, then why did Ron Paul come so close in the Iowa Caucus? The answer, I fear, lies within the relationship between media conglomerates and government.
It is well known and widely understood that the political parties controlling government are highly stable and not subject to much change. The two-party system has existed in its current form since the dissolution of the Whig Party in 1856. Occasional third parties have sprouted up – namely the Bull Moose and Progressive Parties – but their purpose was little more than supporting and individual candidate, like Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette respectively. Thus, two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, have dominated the control of American government for over a century and a half, meaning legislation comes from one of the two parties and very little input comes from outside this two-party duopoly. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are both monolithic in their influence in government. The lack of diversity in political ideology is similar to that of media conglomerates that are owned and controlled by a few select mega-corporations. These select few corporations control most of what is printed on newspaper and broadcasted on television news. The journalists of these news corporations must get their information from government sources: the bureaucrats and politicians. According to Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, a study by University of Rochester economists William Meckling and Michael Jensen found “government had become so big and pervasive that your average journalist – even local news reporters – relied on government itself and all of its politicians and bureaucrats for most of the information that they “report”… Consequently, any news reporter who is too critical of the government agencies that he is reporting about risks being cut off from his information sources, the lifeblood of his career, which will then be ruined.”

Courtesy of blogspot.com

The same relationship helps explain the medias’ ignoring of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. When Ron Paul talks about the unsustainable foreign wars and the secretive Federal Reserve cabal and its disastrous effect on the economy, those ideas are not representative of the Democratic and Republican duopoly. The potential Ron Pauls and Gary Johnsons of the political world thus represent a threat to the Washington two-party establishment and neither the Democrats nor Republican can afford these “outside the mainstream” ideas being addressed and debated in the media for fear of people supporting them. The relationship between big media corporations and big government has been articulated by many scholars, from social anarchist Noam Chomsky to Thomas DiLorenzo of the Mises Institute, and by conservative political consultants like Jack Burkman. It is important to keep this relationship in mind as the presidential election progresses and as news media essentially “pick” candidates by virtue of whom they choose to acknowledge.

Interesting links:

Jack Burkman on Ron Paul and the media

Thomas DiLorenzo on the media

Courtesy of cnn.com

They are at it again. The Neo-Cons of the Grand Old Party have decided to remind us that Iran and Islamists pose an existential threat to the United States of America. The lunacy went full throttle last Thursday during the Republican Presidential debate with GOP hopefuls scolding Iran in what can only be compared to high school football coach rallying his players before the game against the punier, albeit still threatening, away team. Rick Santorum would like to remind us that, “Iran is a radical theocracy,” and that, “their principal virtue is martyrdom…. They believe that it is their mission to take on the West.” Ron Paul on the hand, reasons that, “If we lived through cold war, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us, we ought to really sit back and think, and not jump the gun…. That’s how we got involved in the useless war in Iraq and lost so much.” Mitt Romney rejects anything less than pre-emptive military aggression, however, as a foreign policy of “pretty please.”

So the picture is set for you. On one side, we have the United States government. Everything it does is in the name of freedom and liberty. And on the other, we have the Islamic Republic of Iran, an aggressor country seeking nuclear weapons to enforce its seventh-century fundamentalist ideology on the world in an attempt to create what Michelle Bachmann calls an “Islamic Caliphate.” The Neo-Cons want to make it even simpler: our government is good. Theirs is bad. Everything we do is just. Everything they do is unjust. The problem, however, is that the situation with Iran is just not that simple. And even though the Neo-Cons would prefer to not take our historical relationship with Iran into account, that is precisely what one must do to better understand the situation beyond the black-and-white myopia of good versus evil.

The U.S.’s fractious relationship with Iran began in 1951 when the social democrat Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister on the premise of nationalizing Iran’s oil industry from control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Before he could proceed, however, he was overthrown by a joint operation between the U.S. and U.K. led by the Central Intelligence Agency. The overthrow was justified on unfounded fears that Mosaddegh was a secret communist determined to turn Iran towards the communist camp led by Russia. To this day, Mosaddegh remains one of the most popular Iranian leaders and his overthrow came to serve as a rallying point around the 1979 Revolution. After the Mosaddegh debacle, the Iranian government, led by Shah Pahlavi, set up an intelligence agency SAVAK to repress, torture and execute political dissidents of the Pahlavi regime. SAVAK was created at the behest of the British government with the help of the CIA. According to Time magazine, SAVAK had, “long been Iran’s most hated and feared institution” and had “tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah’s opponents.” The political repression of the Pahlavi regime led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which saw the installation of a theocratic government ruled by the Ayatollah, an Islamic scholar in the Twelver Shi’ah tradition. To counterbalance the rise of the new government, the United States supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980’s. The U.S. government gave Iraq billions of dollars of support including economic aid, technology, intelligence, weapons and training. In 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report showing the US government exported pathogenic and toxigenic research materials to Iraq that were reproduced to make chemical and biological weapons. Also according to the report, seventy shipments of anthrax chemicals were sent to Iraq and concluded that, “…these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.” Hussein then used these weapons to his advantage on the less well-armed Iranians and then on the Kurds in his own country.

No one likes to think of the upsetting misdeeds of their government, but if an honest debate over foreign policy is to be had, we must take these past actions into account when dealing with other nations. To act upon the beliefs espoused by Neo-Cons, without regard for history, is dangerous and a threat to our liberty. Whether the Iranian government’s actions and rhetoric are justified or unjustified is irrelevant because they are a predictable reaction to years of foreign intervention in Iran. Thus, it is ludicrous for the US government to call Iran inherently evil because it chooses to forget it own past misdeeds contributing to the current situation. The United States cannot control how other countries’ governments behave; therefore it is of paramount importance that the US government acts in a way that reduces the amount of animosity from foreign nations, instead of focusing on the subjectivity of justified versus unjustified and good versus evil. These actions would include non-intervention, free trade and allowing self-determination. Before it sounds off war drums against a foreign country, the United States would do well to keep its history and limitations in mind.

Interesting links:

Time on SAVAK

Senator Riegle’s Report

CS Monitor on Republican debate

courtesy of guardian.co.uk

Here is UNC-CH College Libertarians President Alexander Lopez’s take on the current Eurozone financial crisis, originally published in the Carolina Review :

Not since World War II has Europe stood so closely to the precipice of calamity as they do now. Excessive amounts of sovereign debt in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (the PIIGS) threaten to send the entire Eurozone into an economic tailspin from which recovery is highly unlikely. Past attempts to remedy the debt crisis have only served to temporarily delay the inevitable while simultaneously digging the hole ever deeper. However, before one can understand the crisis, it is important to have an understanding why the Euro was doomed to fail from its inception.

The common currency for all Eurozone members (17 of 27 European Union countries), the Euro, was created in 1992 with the inception of the Maastricht treaty and fully adopted in 2002. With the Euro came the European Central Bank (ECB) and a centralized monetary policy. Additionally, fiscal (taxing and spending) limits were also placed on governments in order to prevent them from taking on too much debt which, under a common currency, can significantly harm other member countries. Now here’s the kicker – the words written to place fiscal restraints on individual countries were just that, words. No serious enforcement mechanisms were put in place to punish countries that disobeyed. Any person that has spent time with a small child knows that a rule with no enforcement is not really a rule at all.

As can be expected, certain countries lacked the political will to restrain spending (sound familiar?) and currently find themselves under a massive pile of debt. Cue the finger pointing and ignorance claiming of the oh-so innocent politicians in Brussels (the capital of the EU) and respective national capitals. In this case, however, ignorance is a tough sell. Economists from such ideological polar opposites as Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman both foresaw the problems that would arise from having a monetary union without one single, enforceable fiscal policy.

The PIIGS have taken on so much debt that they threaten to bring the entire Eurozone down if they default. The most immediate threat comes from Greece, which after converting to the Euro went on a debt-fueled binge of public spending. Sadly for them, the market has come to the realization that they will likely never be able to pay back their debt, which also means a credit rating downgrade and higher interest payments on debt moving forward. That being said, the phenomenon of enormous borrowing is not limited to Greece. Many other countries, such as the other PIGS, U.K., France, and the United States (yes, you read correctly) have all spent beyond their means and are sitting on piles of debt that are ever increasing in size and interest payments. The only difference between Greece and the other debt-ridden countries is that the “(stuff) has hit the fan” first for Greece, putting them in the spotlight. Know that soon enough others will fall directly in their footsteps.

As early as 2009, credit ratings agencies saw the problem with Greek debt and proceeded to downgrade their credit rating. Soon thereafter in April 2010, the call for Greek bailouts started to flow. Instead of attacking the core problem of bloated government spending, by May 2010 the EU and International Monetary Fund (IMF) put together a 110 Billion Euro (146.2 Billion Dollar) bailout package. The conditions of the bailout were that Greece would take large strides towards austerity and make “great sacrifices” as said by PM George Papandreou. These ‘loans’ were meant to assure the markets that Greek bonds had the full support and stability of the EU/IMF. They were essentially saying, “We promise we won’t let them default, so keep buying their debt.” Yes, because when you are in a hole, digging deeper is the obvious solution. Artificial injections of confidence rarely fool markets for any significant period of time, and this was no exception.

Predictably, Greek politicians made promises they could not deliver on—big surprise – and, once again, Greece is nearing default on its debt obligations. Cue bailout preachers. “We need it! We deserve it! Everyone will suffer!” The bailout is not only being lobbied for by Greeks along with other Eurozone countries, but additionally, many (pseudo)private banks are in the queue. The banks are in line because if Greece defaults on their debt, the bonds they purchased will never be repaid.

These largely French and German banks bought very large amounts of high risk sovereign Greek debt (bonds) and now find themselves heavily financially exposed with the possibility of a Greek default looming. They are now coming to the table begging for bailouts to save their own behinds (sound familiar?) If they had turned a profit, they surely would not have shared it with the taxpayer, right? Yet, since they made massive unsound investments, taxpayers are expected to foot the bill. Sounds a lot like “heads I win, tails you lose” to me. The point being is that bailouts encourage risky behavior and eventually beget more bailouts. Moral hazard, anyone?

The tone of this article may sound like I am ganging up on Greece, however, I am not. I refer back to my earlier caveat that they are only the tip of the iceberg, and as we all learned from the film Titanic, 90% of an iceberg’s mass lies below the surface. Paul Krugman recently wrote that Greece is,”… no more than a grim sideshow,” while Italy, and to a slightly smaller extent Spain, pose the true, largest threat. They are the third and fourth largest economies within the Eurozone, and if they were to default on their debt – which looks increasingly likely – the whole system could not avoid a collapse.

Well, the second bailout everyone clamored for came in the wee hours of October 27th, when Greece was given a new 130 Billion Euro (184.7 Billion Dollars) check form the EU/IMF. Additionally, private bond holders (banks) agreed to a 50% writedown, or popularly known as a “haircut”, in the value of the Greek bonds they own. This, in layman’s terms, is a default on half of its debt. A provision to increase the European bailout fund by four to five times, which would be near one Trillion, was also included.

Great! They stemmed the crisis, and Greece is not going to default. Correction – Greece will not default today. What about the future? What happens when Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and France, which suffer from the same basic problems as Greece, come for their bailout? There simply will not be enough money to go around.

This leads to the obvious question – where should we go from here? Well, the EU was onto something with the semi-default of Greek debt, but they failed by not taking the sound logic to its conclusion – full default. As Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron poignantly wrote in the BBC, “The question for Greece is whether to continue its recent path – continued attempts at austerity, which do little to tame the deficit, followed by just enough bailout from the EU to avoid default – or whether to finally admit the obvious: it should default on its sovereign debt, abandon the euro, and go its own way.”

Mirons’ solution addresses Greece’s two main problems: crushing debt and an improperly valued currency. In what world does it make sense to have such vastly different economies as Germany and Greece under the same currency? The simple answer is never. Leaving the Euro would also mean that less risk will be born by other countries if Greece continues with their reckless spending ways. Are there negatives to this approach? Yes, Greece will be largely excluded from international credit markets for the immediate future, but this, however, seems like a reasonable alternative to writhing under the pain of austerity measures and slow economic growth for years to come. The bottom line is that if Greece is allowed to exit the Euro, it will return to a competitive currency, and the EU will have trimmed off some of the deadweight, making them both stronger.

Sadly, I do not believe this exit will happen soon. The EU is first and foremost a political union, above an economic union, and the Europhiles will be damned if they are going to sit idly by and let their creation break apart. No, they will support their vision of a unified Europe until the problem is so large no one can stop it.
Now we return to the question of “where should we go from here?” Continuing down the path of bailout to bailout has taken us this far with no end in sight. The only way to stop the problem at its root is to allow Greece and other countries the option to default, putting the costs not on European taxpayers but the financial institutions that took the risk and letting them abandon the ill-fitting Euro if they see fit.

courtesy of post-gazette.com

Much has been talked about lately concerning the Occupy movement and its participants’ relationship with the police. Across the country – from New York to Chicago to Oakland and places in between – occupiers have been arrested for their activities. Many of these charges relate to illegal camping in urban areas and blocking traffic; legal nuances and intricacies of which every American is surely aware. What citizen isn’t aware of what constitutes a legal campground? These tensions recently came to national attention in Oakland, California when the police shot a veteran in the face with a rubber bullet.

Police Shoot Videographer

The disturbing video shows Scott Olsen, a twenty-four year old Marine veteran, getting shot by riot police with no clear provocation as he was filming the police. As of late October, he is in critical condition with a fractured skull. Some news observers, however, have criticized the Occupy movement, accusing them of vandalism and inciting unrest. While destroying property is a ground for legitimate police intervention, shooting potentially deadly projectiles at protestors is not the appropriate remedy. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild seem to agree, as they have both called for an investigation into police brutality. While sporadic unrest in the form of a thrown rock or vandalized sidewalk may occur at Occupations, they are not representative of the movement’s activism as a whole. Debate what you will about the Occupier’s ideology – as there is plenty to debate – the movement is peaceful and non-coercive. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of the government to which the Occupiers address their grievances. Violence and coercion, in fact, play a significant role in the movement’s motivations. People are angry that the government has taken hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to bailout private banking industry giants. This money alone is a form of government vandalism of its citizens’ hard-earned income. People are also angry that the government has jeopardized the economy by spending trillions on military misadventures and dictatorships in the name of promoting “freedom” in foreign lands. Those who would criticize the Occupy movement as “violent” fail to realize the pandemic violence the government has unleashed upon Iraq and Afghanistan. An exact number of civilian deceased is unknown, but estimates range from sixty thousand to 1.2 million in Iraq alone; a figure of death that should make any individual ashamed of his or her government. In this light, the hypocrisy of the government cracking down on supposed “violence” is nauseating. No movement is ever perfect as the people in them are inherently flawed and susceptible to rash behavior, due to the often-contentious nature of protest. However, to call the Occupy movement “violent” or a “threat to democracy” is unfair. Over the past ten years of bailouts, corporatism and war, dissatisfaction with the political system has reached a new level that has manifested itself with both the Tea Party and Occupy movements. In the kind of political environment of the past ten years, the government cannot claim surprise when people react en masse to its grave misdeeds.

The following is republished from a post I did over at the Students For Liberty blog

Moses ben Maimon

“But what about the poor?”

It’s a question that libertarians are very often asked.  The inquiry is usually made by someone who believes that libertarianism works well for those with the means but ignores those who, through no fault of their own, are not in such a fortunate position.

There are really two challenges within this question– first, that libertarianism isn’t good for the poor, and second, that libertarians don’t care about the poor.

While there is a wealth of empirical data and inductive theory proving that libertarianism is good for everybody, including the poor, it will not be my topic here.  Instead, I seek to exonerate libertarians from charges of cold-heartedness.

Libertarians are not cold and uncaring. Our hearts bleed, we just prefer different band-aids.

The truth is that there are different ways to be charitable.  This fact was recognized by the great 12th century philosopher Moses ben-Maimon (aka Maimonides, The Rambam).  Writing in the Mishneh Torah (an authoritative discourse on the legal principles of the Torah), Maimonides elucidated a hierarchy of charitable acts called the “Eight Levels of Giving.”  In order of most noble to least, these levels are:

1. Giving a poor person work so he will not have to depend on charity
2. Giving charity anonymously to an unknown recipient
3. Giving it anonymously to a known recipient
4. Giving it to an unknown recipient
5. Giving it before being asked
6. Giving adequately after being asked
7. Giving willingly, but inadequately
8. Giving unwillingly

Note that the absolute lowest level is to give unwillingly.  That is precisely how charity is given when it is done by the state: unwillingly.  The money for state-run anti-poverty programs comes from tax money, which was taken from people under threat of criminal punishment.

Now notice that the absolute highest level is giving to a poor person work so he will not have to depend on charity.

It’s not much more than the basic “give a man a fish, teach a man to fish” argument, but it seems to be too commonly overlooked by those who think that capitalists are evil and that government is good. According to Maimonides, those who provide employment are the most charitable people.  It isn’t the politicians and the bureaucrats who have the moral high ground, but the innovators and the job creators.  They are the ones who make the world a better place and give people the tools to improve their own lives.  They are the ones we ought to praise.

Don’t get me wrong, there is still an enormous place for charity in the traditional sense– that is, giving time and money to support another and asking nothing in return.  But charity should be given willingly; it should be private, not public.

And the moral dubiousness of taking resources through force is not the only problem with government-run charity.  This article from the Cato institute illustrates the many ways in which private charity is more effective in addition to being more ethical.

So, the next time you hear someone claiming that libertarians don’t care about the poor, flip it around on them.  According to Maimonides, the libertarian solution is the most caring, and the statist solution the least.

You can see Peter Schiff make claims along a pretty similar line of logic in this video: