The Effects of a Pandemic on the US

    Through the year 2020, we have bared witness to some significant historical events within the world. The events we will be talking about today however are pertaining to the U.S. in particular and some of the responses to the Covid-19 pandemic and their effects on free societies. With the reaction to this virus spreading around the country, there had to be a reaction by the inhabitants of the country in defense of their people to ensure public safety. When the Virus was first beginning to see record numbers of spread across the country, this caused the United States to react with their first, and certainly, most severe response to Covid-19, this being the Lockdown we experienced in March of this year. With this lockdown, we saw a government restriction of the freedoms of all people of the US. All over the country, we saw works close down, schools close down, and since then we have slowly seen the world shift and adapt to this new world we must live in, with new formalities formed by our circumstance. 

    As for the actual Lockdown, this event has massive implications in a historical sense for the United States. As an initial effect, we saw the stock market hit massively by the loss of workforce as it quickly downturned early on in the pandemic. At the same time this is happening, as we have discussed business are shutting down left and right which ultimately forced layoffs which spikes the unemployment rate in the country. This has been one of the most major impacts of the pandemic in terms of free society, being the access to labor. As we have seen, unemployment numbers have spiked, which conversely means that the number of opportunities have dwindled as a result of the essentially stalled market. This is problematic as we have a willing labor force that wants to participate in the workforce that are actively being told they cannot participate in the workforce at the moment as they are not deemed "essential". There is a problem however to paint this issue as being so simple as in reality there is very sound reasoning behind not allowing workers to return to the workforce which has a very reasonable expectations one could argue may be enforced in a free society. In all reality, this jobs are closing down because all work conditions would be deemed unsafe at the moment however some goods and services are deemed irreplaceable in a time of crisis. The logic behind not allowing workers to return to the workforce is seemingly a violation of freedom, however does the act then of knowingly participating in dangerous activity not then violate the rights of freedom of others? Ultimately, there certainly be deliberation either way, however I come to the conclusion that the violation of restricting the work force by deeming businesses essential is less of a violation of one's freedoms than it would be to knowingly place a society in more danger. 

    Another effect of the Pandemic, was the implementation of a new social norm which many groups have called to as yet another restriction of one's freedom. This of course is the normalization of mask wearing throughout the pandemic. At the beginning of the pandemic, mask wearing was seen as something that was done only by those who were at serious risk for illness, flash forward to now where many states have mask mandates requiring them be worn in any sort of public gathering location. Overall, these masks have had a massive impact on society, one crowd seeing them as a potential risk limiter to be used in order to slow the spread of this virus, while others see this item as a symbol of the loss of their freedom. See, many believe that the wearing of masks signifies the loss of ones rights potentially in some kind of gesture of conformity to government regulation. This seems to be yet another situation where it could certainly be argued that masks themselves are in some way a restriction of one's freedoms,  my opinion is that it is a far greater violation of rights to potentially endanger another individuals life through the act of essentially ignoring safety guidelines for seeing those guidelines as a restriction of one's own freedoms. In a somewhat paradoxical manner it may seem, I do believe it is devaluing of others freedoms to ignore this request to participate in this act that one may see as a minor restriction of freedom. 

    

Bitcoin: Is it the freest financial asset?

 Robert Beamish  

Economic Freedom 

Blog 4 

Eubanks 

Outside of mining the cryptocurrencies, owning an understanding this asset is relatively simple. Bitcoin is a network that runs on blockchain system. The large appeal for Bitcoin is the decentralized aspect. The lack of banks, the lack of government, and low fees are a large appeal for Bitcoin. After Bitcoin debuted, many crypto currencies and block chained systems were made in a copycat fashion. Bitcoin remains king at a market cap with over 300 billion. Many investors now include cryptocurrencies in their portfolio because it is new and exciting, but it also breeds a high-risk and high reward environment. I believe there is a lot of potential in this asset, but it still has a long way to go.  

Some people hoped Bitcoin would replace the fiat currency system. Fiat currency has some advantages over Bitcoin. Fiat money has value because the government says it does, but it has more liquidity and works better with monetary and fiscal policy keeping the economy in equilibrium. The negatives of Fiat currency are the transfers fees and inflation. Bitcoins value is effective from its scarcity as an asset. It has low fees for huge transfers of wealth and is based on the trust of blockchain technology.  

I do not think Fiat currency is going away any time soon, but I do think we will find and see a use for more value based crypto currencies. Bitcoin is a very new technology, but people we are proponents of free society will choose Bitcoin because it is made for the people. It is a bank-free, government free way of transferring wealth without needing a third-party.  

What Makes Capitalism Work?

     Many Americans today do not fully understand the concept of capitalism. Both its supporters and its opposition are guilty of this. Dierdre McCloskey believed that what many see capitalism as is the “immense accumulation of commodities,” as Karl Marx put it. McCloskey sees many Americans taking up this view and considering capitalism as “the accumulation of capital.” This is not the fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it is a prominent feature of society in general. People have been accumulating capital in greater quantities throughout all of history and this has been largely independent from any specific economic style. McCloskey believes that the most central characteristic of capitalism to be innovation.

    One of Dierdre McCloskey’s most famous economic notions is that of the “ hockey stick.” It is known that for many thousands of years humans lived in collective poverty. When accounting for inflation, the money that most Americans were earning per day back then does not even come close to what they are receiving today, and this was the case too only about two-hundred years ago. She believes that this occurred for most of history, and just recently, a spike in prosperity occurred, this is the immediate and sharp spike on the graph, or the “blade” of the hockey stick. This same innovation which has brought most Americans, and the world, out of poverty is what she believes the key characteristic of capitalism to be. The reason many people may misunderstand capitalism is because of this spike. They simply have a different theory about what has made capitalism successful, and this same thought has twisted their view on it entirely.

    Some critics believe exploitation to be the cause of capitalist success. Some others believe that investment, or the accumulation of more capital, to be the reason for success. McCloskey argues that both things have been present for all human history and the sudden boom of prosperity has occurred just in the past two-hundred years. So, it cannot be those things that make capitalism what it is and make it successful. She believes innovation to be the driving force behind capitalism. “Trade tested betterment,” McCloskey writes is a feature of capitalism, and has innovated the market and brought up many great ideas. This is what has made capitalism work and is its primary attribute. Another argument against the accumulation of capital being the primary attribute is that capital is inherently useless without innovation. Poverty cannot be reduced, and the economy cannot grow simply due to investment in capital. If businesses continue to accumulate capital without innovating and coming up with new ideas and technologies, the benefit will quickly begin to subside, and the blade of the hockey stick will begin to flatten.

BackWordz Statism

You might be interested in BackWordz. How many of the ideas in the course come up in their lyrics?

Fact-Checked on Facebook and Twitter, Conservatives Switch Their Apps

 

Jordan Silva

Economic Freedom

Dr. Eubanks

Blog 5

 

Fact-Checked on Facebook and Twitter, Conservatives Switch Their Apps

(https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/technology/parler-rumble-newsmax.html)

 

This article was of particular interest to me because of our First Amendment right to free speech. Social media outlets Twitter and Facebook have been fact checking and censoring posts by taking them down completely or labeling them as misinformation. According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (constitution.congress.gov). Twitter and Facebook being private companies have rules and regulations that every user agrees to and therefore give these companies the right to censor what they believe is misinformation such as the many post stating that the election has been stolen from President Trump and that he has actually won! “The companies have denied censoring conservatives and typically point to their terms of service when an account breaks the rules. And while many conservatives are upset about their content being labeled or hidden, they are less willing to acknowledge that their posts can often clash with Facebook’s guidelines around disinformation and harmful content.” (NY Times). Many conservatives are switching from the mainstream social media apps to others that have a much looser stance on censoring its users posts if they are misleading or false.

Parler is one of the new apps that many conservatives are switching to. “Over the weekend, Parler shot to the top of Apple’s App Store in downloads. As of Monday, it had eight million members, nearly double the 4.5 million it had last week.” (NY Times). If certain people are upset with Twitter and Facebook’s stance on censoring or labeling information as false or misleading here is your alternative.” On Parler, users can see posts about MAGA fodder and QAnon, the pro-Trump conspiracy theory that asserts that some top Democrats are satanic pedophiles. Anti-Semitic theories abound.” (NY Times). People should always have the right to say whatever they please but, if certain companies have rules that slow or stop the spreading of misinformation, they have the right to do so! 

Rothbard: Compulsory Education

According to Rothbard, the reason that the education system in the United States (and, indeed, in most modern societies as well) is deemed as wholly displeasing and continues to be a subject of heated public debate in its reformation is because it is compulsorily financed and administered rather than conducted in an institutional setting of freedom. Rothbard states that it is one of the most critical facts regarding human nature that we all exhibit an extremely high degree of diversity among individuals. Not only do we have different physical features, but we also express unique imprints within our own personalities. This individuality, it is argued by Rothbard, tends to be the cause and the effect of societal progress. When everyone learns to think differently and act in their own unique ways, then the variety of the talents and individual interests allows for specialization and division of labor on which every civilized economy is dependent on. It follows naturally from logic, then, that mandatory schooling from early childhood to early adulthood in which the curriculum and instruction methods are forced upon students is violence against their ability (or, by extension, the ability of the parents) to voluntarily obtain education that suits the individual best as would (and should) be guaranteed in a free society. Why should we force students that do not excel in mathematics to take a prescribed amount of algebra when they would not voluntarily do so? The popularity behind compulsory schooling laws as well as their consequences is rooted in tyranny and despotism because education is essentially controlled by the state. Would it be consistent with free society, such as the United States claims to be, if the state were to establish a newspaper and compel all the kids in the country to read them? Furthermore, what if the state removed production of all newspapers it deemed to be unfit for the children to read? If not, then it is time to reevaluate where the schooling system stands with respect to free society. In this essay, I will discuss two consequences that arise from a compulsory, standardized education system: the first is that it destroys the child’s individuality in favor of principles such as equality and uniformity, and it results in a curriculum that has been politicized to represent the interests of the state in control of it.

As briefly mentioned above, each individual child has a different level of intelligence, aptitudes, and interests. Because of this, the methods of instruction that are best for each individual child will be different. Thanks to the phenomenon of compulsory, standardized education, there has been a direct shift in emphasis of schooling from merely the “individual” to the collective “group” thanks to the popularization of and appeals made by egalitarian principles. Rather than individual, one-on-one teaching that Rothbard claims is the most adequate to ensure that the educational needs of each individual child is met, the principle that no one child can fall behind or pull ahead of the rest makes it so that individuality is directly suppressed by teaching all students to adjust to that of the group. Rothbard states that one of the primary problems with this is that the standards of education are consistently dumbed down to the point where the content is adequate only for the least common denominator of intelligence among students, a concession made in recognition of the fact by the state that the “dullest” students will not be able to comprehend simple topics, let alone the most difficult ones. In turn, the brightest students are hamstrung by the fact that they are not allowed to excel, while the middle of the road students might become frustrated that they are simply cogs in a machine, and not on the same level of excellence as the bright students. Due to the fact that the standards of education are consistently reduced to reflect an “equality” among students in regards to their learning, the division of interests and labor that has resulted in an economically enriching, free society is systematically being diminished in each subsequent generation. The only concept of “equality” that could apply to education policy in free society is one that recognizes each individual should have freedom of scope for the development of his faculties and personality. In a free society, let’s aim for education policy that allows individuals to excel at what they are best at (so that they know that’s what they are best at), and deviate from activities in which they do not excel. 

The second problem with compulsory education laws in regards to free society is that they are designed and executed by the state, meaning that the state can intertwine its monopoly on tyranny and coercion with its monopoly on education. By enforcing policy that mandates a child attend school and pass a specific curriculum, the rights of parents are violated in the sense that the “ownership” of their child is being seized by the state, and the rights of the child are violated in the sense that their learning is being subject to the unloving hands of the state that preaches collectivism rather than individuality. Indeed, the homogenous nature of compulsory education makes it so that education becomes a political machine in which the children being subject to such an education will be taught nothing short than whatever the state deems it necessary to learn. Thus, the content of compulsory education will come to be the teaching of a doctrine of obedience to the state. Techniques of instilling reverence for despotism and other forms of tyranny will be prioritized in such an education system. What we have in these circumstances is a group of children raised into adults that are educated to be sheep-like, overly passive followers of the state. It is evident in the way that the public school system has evolved into a place where the development of the “whole child” is facilitated rather than just the intellectual capacity. Rothbard deliberates that a compulsory education is rooted in old societies that sought to force students to think and act in a certain way that aligned with the desire of bureaucrats, such as was the case with Martin Luther and Catholicism. Private schools are no solution, because the state can exercise its monopoly on despotism to enforce legislation requiring private schools to teach the standard curriculum. Tyranny of this form, says Rothbard, is congenial to the state and bureaucracy rather than the spirit of man that requires full freedom for his development.

One of the more absorbing aspects of Rothbard’s argument regarding compulsory education laws and free society is how he states that homeschooling, a one-on-one, parent-to-child learning environment, is the ideal educational arrangement, and one that is most consistent with the idea of free society. To the extent that all parents are qualified to teach their children based on the fact that the parent’s retain “ownership” over the child and are directly informed and concerned with the child's educational needs, the parents are the perfect agents to decide in what manner the child should be learning. Even if the parents themselves can’t perform the education of their child, they will at least have the capacity to know what tutors the child should receive or even deliberate if their child has the aptitude for education at all. The parent is informed of their child’s educational needs and the price that they would be willing to pay to obtain it. At the heart of Rothbard’s argument is a call to reform the education system in a way that places a child’s educational needs in the hands of the parents rather than the state. In conclusion, Rothbard is against compulsory schooling because its potential to be used by the state as a means of controlling citizens.  

  

San Francisco Will Pay Artists $1,000 a Month in Universal Basic Income

 

Jordan Silva

Economic Freedom

Dr. Eubanks

Blog 4

 

San Francisco Will Pay Artists $1,000 a Month in Universal Basic Income

            The idea of Universal Basic Income (UBI) has become increasingly more popular. This article talks about how San Francisco is trying out the UBI for local artists. Some positive aspects to the UBI are, the money can be spent on anything, there are no requirements to report income changes like other current programs, and during a pandemic it would help keep the economy rolling. However, UBI has some negative aspects as well. Since San Francisco’s proposed UBI is only benefiting local artists it obviously fails at being universal. Another issue with their UBI is how will the government officials decide if a person is an artist or not. San Francisco needs make the UBI beneficial to more people.

            UBI is a great idea, and if implemented correctly would benefit every individual without putting constraints on how they must live their life in order to receive benefits. For the proponents who say it gives people a disincentive to work I find it to be the opposite. According to The World Economic Forum, “conditional welfare assistance creates a disincentive to work through removal of benefits in response to paid work. If accepting any amount of paid work will leave someone on welfare barely better off, or even worse off, what’s the point? With basic income, all income from paid work (after taxes) is earned as additional income so that everyone is always better off in terms of total income through any amount of employment – whether full time, part time or gig. Thus, basic income does not introduce a disincentive to work. It removes the existing disincentive to work that conditional welfare creates.” (Scott Santens). The current programs such as welfare are just another way for the government to stifle creativity by pushing others around or else the benefits will be taken away. Letting people spend the money on whatever they want, gives them a freedom they otherwise would be without if on welfare or other programs. Having the security of knowing you have a certain amount of income no matter what would change people lives for the better.

            A perfect example of UBI and its benefits can be found in Alaska. “Since 1982, the state has given each citizen an annual check just for being alive, effectively wiping out extreme poverty. The money — which can range from around $2,000 per person when oil prices are high to $1,000 in cheaper gas years — comes from the Alaska Permanent Fund, a state-owned investment fund financed by oil revenues.” (Segal Samuel).

 

 

Works Cited

1.      Santens, Scott. "Why we should all have a basic income." weforum.org, 15 Jan. 2017, www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/why-we-should-all-have-a-basic-income/.

2.      Samuel, Sigal. "Everywhere basic income has been tried, in one map." vox.com, 20 Oct. 2020, www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map.

           

 Count the Vote

    Within the United States right now, we are experiencing one of the most massive current events that exists within the U.S. that being the Presidential Election. On the positive notes, we are seeing record high turnout numbers in the voting which is a fantastic sign of our democracy working. However, as with every election, there is some pretty massive controversy here, specifically into whose votes should be counted. Before we delve into the details of the election in particular, lets talk briefly about the context of the year 2020. This year has been dominated primarily by the news headline that has taken the whole world by storm and that is the Covid-19 pandemic. Throughout this year, the world has been subject to one of the most contagious and deadliest viruses in modern human history. The repercussions of this have been vast and varied. All over the world we have seen quarantining, isolation and mask wearing from hundreds of millions of people all in a bid to protect ourselves from this virus. 

    With this context, we can approach this election with the knowledge that things were certainly going to need to take place in a different manner than they ever have before. See, throughout this year's election, along with the record turnout numbers that we have seen period for voting, we have also seen a record number of mail in votes for this year. The logic behind this record number of mail in voted predominately being the desire to avoid large crowds of people like one would be likely to see at voting stations. With these very high numbers of mail in votes we saw an uproar of individuals speaking out with fear for how the USPS would be able to operate and handle all of these increased ballots, especially with their own personal decreased workforce. A solution that we have seen implemented by many states was to accept mail-in ballots to be collected for a couple of days after the election to ensure all votes were accounted for.

    However as we have seen, there have been some serious contentions to the counting of these votes in the days after the actual election date. And it brought to mind the question for me, which is what impact, if any, does the counting of these votes have on our freedoms as a people. On one side, we see the argument that these votes being counted days after the election appears fraudulent. On the other, these votes are the wishes of the people of the U.S. and every U.S. citizen who took the time to vote should have their voice heard.

     To me the answer is clear as day, I do not believe the counting of these votes infringes upon our freedoms, as a matter of fact I see it quite the opposite. In my eyes, the opposition of freedom, in the case of the U.S. would be to exclude perfectly valid ballots from individuals whose ballots happened to be accepted after a certain date. In the case of free people and fee behavior, it appears to be contradictory to attempt to restrict expressions of said freedom based on arbitrary time frame deadlines.

How social media shaped political campaigns.

 On November 3, 2020, America held its election to decide its 46th President. Social media has become a popular way of communication. Social media platforms have no rules where you can twist people's words and manipulate things said. Examples of this are meme's when something happens. People take a picture or a quick video of a funny situation. This can be anything from a crying face of Micheal Jordan to a celebrity making a strange face. These small short videos can imply a certain view of a situation. I believe that this can cause visions in a certain way. This, along with the number of followers that an individual has on their social media platforms. Some celebrities have over a million followers on a single social media platform. They can influence multiply people and quickly share their views with all of their followers. With people now getting a lot of news from their social media instead of reading the newspaper or watching the news. People want their news as quickly and on the go. 

The positive thing for those running for public office in America social media has made it easier to run for office. The political hopefuls no longer have to have connections with influential donors or using their own deep pockets. This helps incoming hopefuls get through election cycles and have a possibility to unseat the incumbents. Normally 90% of incumbents are reelected due to "the incumbency advantage." If you look at the way that politicians communicate today, it's very different than the way that they used to communicate five, 10 years ago," states a marketing professor Pinar Yildirim said. Politicians would speak through official speakers, or they would be on tv, they would be in print or official online newspapers. Today politicians are communicating through places like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Barack Obama was the first presidential candidate to use the medium, which was just coming into existence and displaying signs of future potential during his 2008 bid. And Donald Trump takes to Twitter almost daily to express himself without the filter of traditional media. 

Some of the negatives of social media for those running for public office in America is the internet is instant and forever. Donald Trump is an example of this where whatever he puts on Twitter, even if it is deleted, somebody has already taken a tweet picture. This also gives people a chance to say whatever they like with the safety and comfort of being behind their computer screens. Previous politicians would have to go onto different news outlets to make statements. And the statements of people that would be shared with smaller groups and family members. It will be interesting to see how states change their political party as people will change their news sources.  

Healthcare spending

 Robert Beamish 

Economic Freedom 

Blog 3 

Eubanks 

 

America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and some people still cannot get healthcare. Being one of the wealthiest countries and having advanced healthcare can come with drawbacks. These drawbacks come in the form of expensive healthcare, different markets, and a level of asymmetrical information. With Coronavirus cases still on the rise, the need for healthcare could be at an all-time high. The fact that some Americans cannot afford it is reducing many economic freedoms. A free individual should not have to be broke because of high insurance premiums or riddled with debt in order to be healthy.  

Some countries have free healthcare, but it is not actually free. The health care services will be paid for no matter the circumstances. The healthcare is either public or private. Public healthcare is paid through taxes and private is paid through insurance. The reason that Americans pay so much and need so much healthcare is because we are unhealthy. The combination of unhealthy people and high price of healthcare can be a deadly combination.  

“The Iron Triangle” is a term referred to lobbyists, bureaucrats, and congressmen. They all worked together to pursue their own interests, and everyone wins except for the American people. This is a large problem for economic freedom, but there is one thing Americans can do. They can become healthier using preventative medicine. While the United States make unnecessary budget decisions like spending 700 billion on defense, some people cannot get healthcare. As McCloskey would agree, the way the healthcare system has come about is profit. If profit takes away from liberty and dignity, this may not leave the poor better off.  

https://beyondthebomb.org/the-iron-triangle-in-defense-contracting-and-nuclear-weapons/

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

 

Colorado voters approved Proposition 113 which now makes Colorado the 15th member state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. For those that are unaware of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), it awards the electoral college votes of the states in the compact to the Presidential candidate that wins the national popular vote. This is drastically different than how the votes are allocated today. The Constitution gives each state the number of electoral votes equal to the total number of that states senators (2) and representatives in Congress that is determined by population. The winner of the Presidential election is the candidate who receives the majority of the electoral colleges votes or 270 electoral college votes, regardless of which candidate wins the national popular vote. If the NPVIC succeeds in its attempt to change the way Presidents are elected, then the balance of power among states will be altered. For instance, in Colorado, 9 electoral college votes were awarded to Vice President Biden of the Democratic Party and this counted toward his progress in obtaining 270 electoral college votes, but if the NPVIC were in place and President Trump was to win the National Popular Vote, Colorado’s electoral college votes would go toward President Trump even though the majority of Coloradans voted for Joe Biden.

I find this to strip away at small state protection and individual state voices. This is because small states have a smaller population and with the current system in place, small states matter. As we can see now, the election is extremely close and could come down to a few small state with relatively low electoral college votes such as Nevada or Arizona. With the NPVIC, their voices wouldn’t matter as much because the candidate that has the support of the states with majority of the population say like California, Texas and New York, would consistently determine the outcome of the election every time, while smaller states with small populations wouldn’t have as much as an impact on the overall national popular vote. Over the years, Presidential candidates have been able to win the election despite winning the National popular vote and this is because of the current balanced system has allowed for smaller states to have more power in determining the election.

 I question the constitutionality of the NPVIC because Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution reads: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement of Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.” As of right now the NPVIC is trying to subvert the Constitution as they have not gotten approval from Congress, and this may be because they do not believe such a compact would get an amendment ratified to end the Electoral College. Advocates of the NPVIC point out the congressional approval of the NPVIC is not necessary and reference U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Comm’n (1978) in which the Supreme Court held that Congress should only approve a compact if it increases state power and decreases federal power. However, I find this to be false because the NPVIC would eradicate the role of the U.S. House of Representatives in the electoral process and change the presidential election system without Congress. This to me seems like states would have more power at the expense of federal power. Additionally, another reason why the claim that the NPVIC does not need congressional approval is false is because the US Steel case suggests that compacts require congressional approval whenever they impact the federal structure. The constitution recognizes reserved and delegated powers. Reserved powers are those stated in the Tenth Amendment; power not granted to the US by the Constitution or prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States or the people. Delegated powers are those granted and stated in the Constitution. In James Madison’s words, Reserved powers are “numerous and indefinite” while delegated powers are “few and defined”. A state’s power to enter a compact is a reserved power, however in terms of delegated powers, the states have a delegated power to decide how electors are appointed. In other words, states have a constitutional obligation to choose an election system in accordance the electoral college system’s original purpose and design as stated in the 12^th amendment.

James Buchanan suggests that we look at the Constitution as a “contract”, it is apparent that proponents of the NPVIC does not want to follow this contract for various reasons mentioned above. They do not want to eliminate the electoral college in ways that are consistent with the Constitution. Buchanan makes the distinction in “The Reason of Rules” that there are differences between “rules as constraints and action within constraints but at the same time embodies the notion that rules of social order are not artifactual creations subject to change.” He further mentions, “[i]n this perspective, rules change slowly during the evolution of society. Although change takes place in the basic structure, it does so only through an organic evolutionary process. Hence, ‘reform’ of the basic rules (of the constitution, broadly defined) is internally contradictory. The ordering function of social rules operates only because they are unchangeable in any directed sense.” Another idea mentioned by Buchanan is that the “constitution” is a structure of institutions or rules that involves the protection of natural rights and “the constitution may be modified, either in the direction of a closer correspondence with the desired protection of natural rights or in the direction of a further divergence from such idealized protection, there can be no change in the definition of the set of rights as such.” It could be argued that the NPVIC is not a natural or organic evolutionary process in changing the rules, plus there seems to be interior motives as all member states of the NPVIC are democratic run states, so this change is directed toward a desired outcome. Additionally, this change directly impacts the natural rights of citizens to vote which is also inconsistent with altering the rules of the game.

The Minimum Wage: McCloskey's Assertion

For economists such as Deirdre McCloskey, the implementation of minimum wage policy is contentious because of the implications such a policy (among others) has regarding free society. That is, in a society such as that of the United States and its relatively disgraced history in regards to race relations, gender roles, and general mistreatment of people perceived as the “other,” minimum wage policy may actually be designed to damage certain people economically as opposed to lifting them up. Despite this, there are guardians of the minimum wage who claim that the phenomenon of “monopsony” is pervasive in the labor market, and that by implementing a minimum wage we can erode the employer’s buying power in setting wages and actually raise employment. On the other hand, they may point to the Industrial Revolution, citing the fact that because women and children worked long hours for what is considered a minuscule wage, we all got rich just by struggling against labor exploitation and therefore need big governments to protect us. To the extent that both views are erroneous, McCloskey claims that there are three methods that serve to illustrate why the minimum wage is an impermissible mistake to those who so stoutly defend it. The first method is to explain that the minimum wage actually reduces the number of jobs available on the market by pricing the youngest and most inexperienced workers out. There is absolutely nothing that these unemployed workers can do except become dominated by their fellow man who now holds arbitrary power over them. The second method is to explain that if the minimum wage presents an interference in the market that makes it so it is illegal to pay some laborers what they are really worth, and the resulting annual income from paying fair-market wages are determined to be unbecoming, then taxpayers should make up the difference to provide the poor with a basic minimum income rather than a basic minimum wage. In doing so, we would eliminate all the processes that interfere with the voluntary exchanges of labor on the part of the employer (the buyer) and the employee (the seller). The third method, which is the most pertinent in regards to McCloskey, is to explain the assertion that the minimum wage policy was an early twentieth century Progressive policy in the United States that was designed to directly damage low-wage workers.

Indeed, the minimum wage policy achieved the specific outcome that it was designed for, and that was sabotage low-wage workers to the point of unemployability. The motivating forces behind doing so were race suicide theories that prevailed in the United States during the early twentieth century that emphasized bigoted views that the society was built for some (if you were white, male, of northern European ancestry), but not for others (if you were black, a woman, an immigrant, of southern European or African ancestry). The commonly held belief was that the “inferior” races, by exhibiting their low wage “standards,” would thereby curtail the wages of the “Saxons” and reduce their fertility as a result. The main concern for those who adamantly adhered to these strictly racist doctrines was that the national “stock” of those who were considered “desirable” would be diluted by the high fertility rates (another baseless claim) of those who were deemed to be “undesirable.” Therefore, the prevailing thought was that if the United States were to be a nation of peoples that were capable, independent, and efficient individuals, it would make sense to enact policy to essentially “cut off” hereditary lines that were otherwise regarded as undesirable through means like sterilization or isolation. It stands to reason, then, that the minimum wage would be the perfect policy to implement in order to achieve this specific outcome. If society were to exclude the “undesirables” from employment, then there are fewer people of color or immigrants in the workforce to drive down the white man’s wages, and the white women will have more time to become subservient to their husbands and have more white children. By implementing a federal, mandatory minimum wage, then no longer will the “decent” capitalists be forced to compete with those that hire women, children, immigrants, persons of color, the feeble-minded, or anyone otherwise who did not fit the description of who “belonged” in greater society. McCloskey explains that about fifteen American states had enacted minimum wage legislation by 1919. The phenomenon of economic growth that came as courtesy of The Great Enrichment was hijacked as being a testament to the racial superiority of the Saxons, despite McCloskey’s obvious point that contemporary, non-Saxon societies have achieved similar prosperities by simply adopting the free-market policies consistent with ideas like trade tested betterment.

McCloskey contends that minimum wage policy was just one way in which American Progressivism tried to structure the outcomes of markets in a way that favored race-purity measures. A worldwide rejection of laissez-faire economics during the time period in which commercially tested betterment was beginning to heed collective growth and prosperity allowed Progressives to mold social evolution on behalf of the “fittest” in society. It is in this way, McCloskey asserts, that made the Progressives in the United States in the twentieth century illiberal and against free society. By creating hierarchies in categories such as race, gender, class, IQ, skills, wages, or otherwise, one is favoring inequalities in nearly all facets of society. The resulting trivialization of economic freedoms made it so that it nearly always extended past simply the wage that someone earns. Thus the rules regarding the rights to open a shop through zoning and building codes, rules regarding the right to make wage bargains, or even the rules interfering in the possession of property. McCloskey has urged us that it is time to get “woke” in regards to the minimum wage. Its only purpose is by design: to damage poor people and women.

Reference:

Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, Why Liberalism Works, pg. 282-286