Ebola Quarantine

It seems to me that when we look at the issue of Ebola and how quarantine fits in terms of liberty it is important to look at who the responsibility of avoiding spread of the disease, and subsequently harm to others, falls upon.  If a person is knowingly infected or even possibly infected, the onus falls upon that person to take the necessary precautions to prevent spread of the disease.  In the case of Ebola the appropriate way to do so is go under medical treatment and subsequent quarantine until all signs of the disease are no longer present.  The question becomes what happens when the infected person refuses to follow those orders, and is the state in the right to force quarantine upon an individual who may be infected?  As discussed in class today the action of quarantine itself falls constitutionally to the individual states as a police action.  I believe a person who violates quarantine, and in so doing causes potential harm, up to and including death to others, is violating others personal liberties and therefore worthy of police action.  I say this realizing that it is not unfathomable to think that government controlled quarantines could quickly become excessive.  In a perfect state of liberty, should a person be detained inappropriately they would have recourse for their own liberties being violated, but we know in the current state government will likely not be held responsible for undue quarantine in the interest of “the common good”.  All in all it seems that finding a clear cut ruling on grounds of liberty in cases of quarantine would be difficult due to the transition period from personal responsibility to police action and where that line is drawn.

Property Rights and Environmentalism

     The discussion today and the readings this week made me think about how influential property rights and private ownership are on environmentalism and the environment itself. While I wouldn't categorize myself as a tree-hugger, I definitely do care and find it important. It was for this reason that I found the idea of private ownership an important one when it came to protecting the environment. The idea that there's a personal responsibility towards preserving the land or species or whatever it may be was profound.
     With private ownership, there's that obvious incentive to maintain and care for what you've got. It only makes sense. If you've got a piece of land you're developing or using, it would only be best to use it to its full potential and do your best not to spoil the land if you're to sell it. No one wants their property in whatever form it may be to lose value, so they'll care for it rather than if it's just there like the example of the grasslands in the Rothbard reading.
     My next reason is not necessarily tied directly to property rights but as to why the power should be taken away from the government when it comes to pollution. There's no incentive for politicians to investigate pollution or certain cases. In what way could it benefit them? There are no repercussions for them just kind of paying as little mind as possible unless it becomes an issue of personal responsibility. There's also this typical tact of taking the stance against polluters to drum up votes, but usually it doesn't go beyond that nor is there any further educating on the subject itself.
      Another reason for having private ownership on land or animals is the fact that it can fall into the hands Audobon Society and Natural Conservancy. The readings this week were great in capturing the importance of preservation societies. It explored the idea that if land went unclaimed, it suddenly became untouchable. The example of ANWR was good at exposing a kind of hypocrisy of these preservationists. If there's no mutual benefit, then it shouldn't be done at all. But if the land were owned by an entity like the Audobon Society and there could be some kind of agreement to reap the benefits of both the natural form of the area as well as the resources that could lie beneath.
      In conclusion, this was only brief, but this is something that captured my attention in a great way. I think private ownership and the idea of property rights is something that fits well with environmentalism and that's something I'd never even thought of. There's all the incentive in the world when you've got to care for something that's yours.

Civil Forfeiture

The Police. We see them as the eye of the government and the best example of what we consider as government “force” when we see them out there serving for us citizens - protecting us. While Police Officers are there to serve us, are they all doing it for us? I am not talking about the events that have been occurring in Ferguson, Missouri – I am talking about the fact that things like racial profiling is still an issue in a lot of cities, and not only that – Civil Forfeiture.

We all know about racial profiling, so I am going to leave that subject be. However, Civil Forfeiture is a huge issue. If you do not know what that is, Civil Forfeiture gives the government (the police in this case) the right to take away your property with absolutely no charge or conviction of any crime. This property can essentially be anything: Houses, vehicles, even money (cash). The police can do this during a simple traffic stop and take away whatever they find “suspicious” without ever convicting you, or even charging you of a crime. This is a huge threat to our property rights.

Basically, the police can take away these items and proceed under legal fiction that cash, vehicles, or even houses can be “guilty” for their involvement of criminal activity. When this occurs, the agency that takes these items are free to sell them and/or use them – they essentially own them once they force you to forfeit these items without ever charging you of any crime. This is causing a profit-hungry ideal that is causing officers to attempt to seize or forfeit as much property as possible for the financial benefit of their agency.

First of all, your property should not be taken away if you are not even charged of any crime. A “suspicion” isn’t a valid reason for seizing property. This is a violation of YOUR rights. Second, these items can be used or sold by agencies for their own profit and financial benefit. Now, I completely support making sure law enforcement has the money they need to make sure they can do their jobs at the best of their ability, however this is encouraging a “police-for-profit” trend that is causing quite a stir and people are finally noticing how much of a problem this is after thousands of cases of abuse from law enforcement.

It is too easy to abuse Civil Forfeiture. Your property shouldn’t be taken away from you if you are not charged with a crime. Your property should not be sold for-profit or used by the agency that seized it without being charged and convicted. This violates your rights. If you have not heard much about Civil Forfeiture, I encourage you to look this up and read up on it.

What Should Government's Role Be?

              What should be government's role? Is a question everyone should be familiar with. It is the question I use when I am curious about another person's political views. Asking a person what party they belong does not help me understand: Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Libertarian mean different things to different people and many times starts them thinking in a combative way. But, if a person can answer the simple question of what the government's role should be, then I know where they stand. My view on what government's role should be is boiled down to enforcing property rights.  So I am always asking myself this question, "what's governments role in this area?" Most of the time the my answer to the question, "should government be involved?" is "no" right off the bat. I've asked this question on a few new areas recently, area's I've given little or no thought to before.

               One of these areas, is the idea of private courts instead of public courts. Before I've always dismissed this idea as crazy before given it any thought. I thought without the courts set up by the government, there would be chaos everywhere since there would be no universal court system to enforce laws. However, now I believe private courts could do the job well. How this would work, an individual would have the choice to be a customer of a court system. Whenever a crime is committed against an individual, one would go to their court to have a trial. If the defendant belongs to the same private court as the plaintiff, since they have the same court, then that court decision is binding. If the defendant belongs to a different private court than the plaintiff, then both courts can have separate trials. If each court has a different verdict, then the two courts can either negotiate between themselves or if that doesn't work, go to an arbitrator. I'm afraid this arbitrator would have to be the government though. This is because a private court 'A' could always rule in favor of their customers when a trial was between one of their customers and another person who not a customer of this particular court. So if another court 'B' would come to different outcome than court 'A', court 'A' could just stall and never agree on another private entity to be the arbitrator since court 'A' knows its verdict is wrong. There would have to be some force to get an outcome between 'A's and 'B's different verdicts. If there is a private way to resolve this problem of a rogue court, I would love to know what it is.

               After I came to the realization that a private court system would be feasible, I pondered if national defense could be privatized. I've thought of different ways this would look. The first way was just everyone using what weapons they owned to fight back an invasion. Some people might have just have a hunting rifle, others might have tank or something, but this disorganized group could never protect itself from another country's organized military. Then I went on to imagine a several private military groups an individual could pay into, and the private military would protect that person from an invading country. However, to repel an invasion all groups would have to work together, so why not have only one group? This would be just the same as national military. I can't think of a scenario where a private option would be better than a nation military, unless the nation military abused its power. It would be critical to have the national military set up in way where it did not abuse its power.

               I would encourage everyone to ask themselves "what the role of government should be?" Where is government needed and where should government stay out of because a private option is better?

Quarantine is Just

Recently we all heard in the news about the Ebola virus and those who have been put in quarantine because it is the greater good for society. In class we have learned "do what you want with yourself and your property as long as it does not cause harm to others" (L. Eubanks). Quarantine is just a precaution that is being used because a person who is suspected of having the Ebola virus could bring harm to others. It is violating another person's liberty in this cause their health.

Recently a nurse is making an issue that quarantine is a violation of liberty. They are kept away from the rest of society with strict limitations. Quarantine is government's way of protecting its people from the deadly virus. We have the right to refuse medical treatment, but when it puts the health of countless people in danger I would hope that the government uses their force for the greater good.

It isn't like the government can just have a person be put in quarantine for no reason. Government has to have just cause to have a person be put in quarantine. If the government did not have to have just cause to have someone be put in quarantine then yes a person's liberties would have been violated.

Quarantine might seem like a violation of liberty, but when you break the quarantine and potentially put others at risk your liberties are no long being violated. Instead you are violating the liberties of others. Ebola is not that big of a threat in the United States, but still I would not like my liberties to be violated just because someone else choose to ignore the risks of traveling to an African nation that is currently dealing with an outbreak. Please do not violate my liberty by putting me at even a minute risk.

Bush/Obama Bailouts

       Given the historical economic crisis of our generation, I find it difficult to talk about any other issue. Libertarians consider government intervention as a bad thing for progression in the economy. Government intervention in the form of bailouts just delays the inevitable. By that, I mean if there was no government to bail whatever business needs bailing out, the free market system would chew them up and spit them out. Not that the free market economy is full of savages, but no business will last in a free market economy if it is not fit to do so.
        The Great Recession led to the dismal fall of many gigantic corporations, even industry leading corporations. One example of this is General Motors. The car manufacturing giant needed a government bailout of 50 billion dollars. Why is this a bad thing? It is bad because GM is in essence being rewarded for poor management of a company and the bailout does not encourage reform in an economic downturn. What it encourages is stagnation in technology.
       The car industry was so heavily impacted by the recession because fossil fuel prices skyrocketed and there was a huge demand for fuel efficient cars. GM obviously lacked the technology at the time to produce that type of technology so they went bankrupt. In a free market economy with no governmental intervention, GM would have gone under and others would have risen with the new technology demanded. Instead, government used force to give GM the money to mass produce half-ass fuel efficient cars while keeping their massive market share of the automotive industry. They did not keep their market share because they produced a superior product in demand, but were given the market share by force.
       Although GM was once a revolutionary and innovative company, they failed to keep the innovation going. Their bankruptcy proved that and that should have been the end of GM. Ideally, another company with the technology to increase the progression of the economy would come along and take the market share that GM left behind. This chance for innovation and progression was brought to a screeching halt when the government used force to bail out GM. Government intervention is always bad.
     

Liberty and Social Justice

Liberty and Social Justice

It's nearly impossible to watch or read the news without someone discussing, or indirectly referring to, social justice.  Because the phrase is difficult to define with much accuracy, people apply it to a variety problems that they think can be solved through a more socially just society (ie inequality, poverty, crime, etc.).  When discussing social justice, pundits usually do so in terms of equality.  It's not enough that the "rules of the game" are equal (or just) for all; promoters of social justice want equality in terms of material well-being.  To achieve their ends, promoters of social justice must use force.  This, inevitably, leads to the state enacting laws that allow it to forcibly seize and redistribute wealth.  This clearly goes against liberty in the most fundamental sense.  To demonstrate my point, I find it useful to look at taxes.  

Promoters of social justice generally support a progressive income tax.  Since the rich make more than enough, they should be forced to spare a little more for the needy.  Its almost as if they believe that the most well off members in a society have a moral responsibility to take care of the poor.  Whether one believes this is the case or not is irrelevant to my argument.  What is more important is how property rights are defined in this society.  If they are defined in terms of private ownership (in terms of liberty), then each person is entitled to do what they want with themselves and their property as long as it doesn't harm the person or property of another.  In this light, a tax on income (especially a progressive tax) can be viewed as going against liberty in three particular ways.  

First and foremost, it can be viewed as outright theft.  The state is stealing money from the rich to give to the poor.  Whats more, they are stealing more money from the rich than from every one else in society.  This type of banditry is akin to Robin Hood.  Clearly taking what is not yours (or theft) goes against liberty; I don't think any further explanation is required.  If one doesn't like viewing taxes as theft, then they must accept that maybe they didn't own that portion of their income to begin with.  Since we are still discussing property rights in terms of liberty, the portion of their income that the government takes as taxes clearly must not have been owned by the worker to begin with.  If it was, the government would have no right to take it, or it would have to be considered theft.  Again, this notion goes against liberty.  Finally, when looking at taxation and the redistribution of wealth from a non-aggression axiom, it is very easy to see how it violates liberty.  The non-aggression axiom simply means that it is always wrong to aggress (or harm) the person or property of another.  This brings us back to theft.  If the government is coercively taking what is not theirs, even if it is in the name of social justice, they are aggressing against the property of another.  The non-aggression axiom makes it clear that this type of action is always wrong.   

It should be clear from the examples given above that attempts to make society more just through taxation clearly goes against liberty.  In fact, it may now seem that social justice is damn near the opposite of liberty.  It is important to keep in mind, however, that tax policy is just one of many failed government actions aimed at social justice (in particular equality).  Instead of trying to "fix" the "game" (or system), its time people acknowledge the fact that if the rules to the game are just, then the outcomes that they create must also be just.  If poverty and inequality are outcomes under a "justly" structured system, then we can't say that this outcome is unfair.  In conclusion, a more effective way to structure the welfare system would be to set it up similarly to insurance.  Because the future is unknown, paying into insurance for future security (especially in the case of decreased welfare) certainly seems more reasonable and just than the current system.  

Who Really Owns Ted Williams' Head?

For my first blog post, I wanted to go a little out there compared to the typical talk about something boring related to the economy. One of the major points of emphasis in class so far has been about property rights and who really holds them. Seeing that it is almost Halloween, I went with a more morbid aspect to this topic.
For those who aren't big fans of baseball, Ted Williams may not really ring a bell to you. He was arguably one of the greatest players to play for the Boston Red Sox. Williams suffered from cardiomyopathy which inevitably lead to a cardiac arrest and his death. So far there is nothing to special besides his Hall of Fame celebrity and a bad heart. Like most people, he had wanted his remains to be cremated and wanted his ashes to be spread in the Florida keys. Here is where the topic of property rights kicks into full swing. Williams' son and daughter, John-Henry and Claudia decided to have his remains cryogenically frozen. Disturbingly, due to the high cost of keeping a person's remains frozen, they chose to keep only his head frozen. Normally not much could be done considering the siblings wanted their father's remains to be frozen but the problem was his oldest daughter wanted to keep Ted's wishes to remain as in he be cremated. Keeping government intervention out of this conversation, we had two sides fighting over what the will was of their late father on how his remains would be handled.
We discussed in class about how there is a tax on death and other factors that come about when someone passes away. In reality, the body of someone who passed away is still technically there's so why is it that others have the rights to their valuables; even their body? In the case of Williams, his oldest daughter brought about a lawsuit to have his remains cremated at the wishes of Ted himself but inevitably lost when they found evidence that Ted was a strong advocate for science and allowed his family to "use" him in scientific ways if they decided to. It is hard to say who really had the right to decide what to do with Williams' remains. On one hand, you have Ted who wished to be turned into ashes and spread in the Florida keys, on the other you have siblings fighting it out to either continue his will or to turn him into a popsicle. Although this case is somewhat unique due to his celebrity and the idea of freezing his head, millions of people face this challenge everyday. If its not siblings fighting over rights of a person's body, it may be governments or other outside forces. You would assume that someone in close relation would take over those rights but in most cases, there are multiple people who believe they have a say in the matter. It is hard for the person to have a say in what happens with their body when they are no longer living. Property rights of an individual will always be a strong conflict when a body can no longer talk.

-Dustin Kosley

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2002/03/habeas_corpses.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632809/We-did-love-Baseball-legend-Ted-Williams-daughter-finally-speaks-brother-spent-100-000-fathers-body-cryogenically-frozen.html
http://deadspin.com/what-it-took-to-get-ted-williamss-head-off-his-body-1475054922

The Marketplace of Ideas and Gaming

Recently, there has been some amount of controversy in the gaming industry over a phenomenon known as GamerGate, so called due to a hashtag coined by popular actor Adam Baldwin.  The movement itself appears to have two primary stated goals: the imposition of journalistic ethics on the gaming journalism industry, and the extreme diminution of so-called “Social Justice Warriors” (vocal progressives that advance the positions of minorities, in their own words: primarily feminists) from positions of influence within gaming as a whole.  It is the second that concerns us.

The Social Justice Warriors, self-labelled progressives, disapprove of independent thought.  This is not, in fact, hyperbole.  They desire nothing less than the elimination of all hostile views, the aggressive and unchallenged promotion of their own, the silence of all potential critics of their agenda, and, indeed, such a change in gaming culture that there will not exist anyone who holds contrary beliefs.  (To get a feel for the SJW elite, readers are invited to look up Anita Sarkeesian, Jon McIntosh, Leigh Alexander, and Matthew Binder).  In fact, the progressive side, as is their wont, disapproves in the strongest possible terms of the free market.  According to them, large video game businesses (EA, Activision-Blizzard, Bungie, 343 Industries, Ubisoft, etc.) “cater” to games culture, which is degenerate and utterly unworthy of continued existence.  Don’t believe me: let them tell you themselves.

[Gaming Culture is] Kind of embarrassing… a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences… an infantilized cultural desert of shitty behavior… young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff… lonely basement kids… [playing] games that sold the promise of high-octane masculinity to kids just like them…  By the turn of the millennium those were games’ only main cultural signposts: Have money. Have women. Get a gun and then a bigger gun. Be an outcast. Celebrate that. Defeat anyone who threatens you. You don’t need cultural references. You don’t need anything but gaming. Public conversation was led by a games press whose role was primarily to tell people what to buy, to score products competitively against one another, to gleefully fuel the “team sports” atmosphere around creators and companies… young white teen boys in hypercapitalist America… had an anxiety in common, an amorphous cultural shape that was dark and loud on the outside, hollow on the inside… These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers… There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.  There is what’s past and there is what’s now.

Leigh Alexander, “'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over.”, Gamasutra

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

In other words, the evil, despicable capitalists have so warped the feeble young minds of men and brainwashed them into being misogynistic are the reason that women are not a particularly large part of the gaming industry.  The remedy to this, to their way of thinking, is quite simple.  The sexist filth that pervades gaming culture must be expurgated by any means, fair or foul.  Women must have just as many jobs as men, if not more.  “Sexist” portrayals of women in video games must not exist (enacting this can be rather confusing, as feminists have a habit of denouncing a thing as sexist with one breath and empowering with the next).  Games must “advance a narrative”: entertainment is no longer to be the primary purpose of games.  Above all, contrary opinions can only arise from institutional sexism, misogyny, regressivism, and bigotry, and thus are intolerable.  At first glance, this is arrant, economically illiterate nonsense; so much so that I actually laughed aloud upon viewing these materials.  When examined deeper, however, this illuminates a deeply disturbing pattern of thought.

First, the economics of the situation.  There is a concept called the Marketplace of Ideas.  Essentially, various sides will offer certain ideologies, and people are free to choose whichever one most closely mirrors their own beliefs.  Freedom of choice is essential for this to work.  So, in the games industry, the multitude of interests will offer different products in different packages, and consumers will purchase whichever ones they most like.  Someone who is looking to turn their brain off and just shoot things will probably buy Call of Duty or Halo and pop in the multiplayer, someone who wants an in-depth story and complex ethical questions will buy a game like Mass Effect, etc.  In this situation, SJWs are not only free to offer their ideas, they do, and frequently.  Their ideas are practically never featured in AAA games for a very simple reason: it will not be profitable.  If someone pitched a game to a major executive, that executive will ask two questions: “Will people buy this, and can we make a sequel?”  (There will also be issues of production, but ideologically, that will pretty much be the criteria.)  Gamers, as a rule, do not like to be preached at when playing games: there is no ingrained misogyny.   Simply witness the massive success of the most recent Tomb Raider reboot.  By all accounts, the new Lara Croft is a very strong female character and not sexualized in the slightest.  The game sold over 1 million copies within 48 hours of release, and has sold over 6.5 million copies since.  Gamers do not have a problem with strong female characters: they have a problem when the game gets preachy about it.

This is intolerable to SJWs.  To them, the righteous must constantly be filled with a zealous fury at that which they find abhorrent.  It must be the air they breathe and their daily bread.  Anyone who is insufficiently ardent is, therefore, a wicked and depraved sinner (to convert that sentence into their parlance, simply replace “sinner” with any “ist” that you may please; racist, sexist, misogynist, ableist, etc.)  Clearly, the free market is decadent and corrupt: after all, how else can one explain that they are not railing against institutional bigotry every hour of the day?  Consumers cannot be trusted to choose that which gives them the most utility: corporations cannot be trusted to advance the cause of progressivism: it falls to the SJW clerisy to cleanse the degenerate industry of its sins.  Following the example of Brendan Eich, anyone who deviates in the slightest from progressive orthodoxy must be hounded from business.

This is a very disturbing way of thinking.  I will not compare it in its present form to communism, because (as yet) they have not yet called for government intervention.  I will, however, compare it to the Inquisition or Mutaween.  The free market cannot be trusted, and thus morality police are necessary to hound out any heterodoxy that may rear its ugly head: video games, as the newest form of medium, are to be monitored for any signs of deviation just as thoroughly as books, even going so far as to burn anything that runs contrary to the grand narrative.  This is not exaggeration.  I could not find the original video, but follow the link and go to about 10:20 or so. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51McaZrra7w&list=UU-yewGHQbNFpDrGM0diZOLA

No part of society is to be considered sacrosanct: everything must adhere to strict progressive orthodoxy.  If followed to its logical conclusion, the end result will be fascism as Mussolini preached: “Everything within the State, nothing without the State.”  In the words of such people as Alexander and Sarkeesian, “Everything within Progressivism, nothing without Progressivism.” 

If progressives wish to compete in the marketplace of ideas and goods, that is their prerogative.  If they are successful, good for them.  If, however, they find themselves unpopular, outpaced by people who simply wish to make an entertaining game, they should gracefully wait until the next round of sales, not attempt to raze their opponents.

Free Market Banking

Have you ever had too much money? I have. I once had so much money, that I had no idea what to do with all of it, so I went to my local bank to see if they would hold onto some of it for me. You know, keep it safe until I needed it for a large purchase. This should be a familiar sounding story for most people, yet the process by which banking truly takes place is extremely large and complex. The story of too much money, however, is exactly where banking starts. Banking is a result of the law of association. Its existence is based on specialization. When people build up a large store of wealth, they can either employ their own resources to protect that wealth, or they can seek out those who already have the necessary “set-up” to protect large amounts of money.

Originally, banking took place when people paid banking institutions a fee or some kind for protecting their stores of value. For our purposes, we will use gold as an example of a store of value. In any scenario, an individual would bring his or her gold to the bank and deposited it into a vault of some sort. The bank would then charge a fee large enough to cover all costs and still make a profit while remaining competitive. In exchange for the gold, the bank would issue units of promissory notes that reflected the amount of the gold he had stored. This note would state that at any time, the individual may come back and exchange the promissory notes for the gold he had stored in the bank. By this process, promissory notes make way for currencies. It is much easier to measure values in exchanges by using units of promissory notes instead of deciding the value of gold. They’re also much easier to carry around. As long as the bank kept their word, then the notes could be exchanged for other goods and services, and the party that ended up with the notes could return to the bank where the gold was stored and redeem the store of value.

Banks, then, have a very strong incentive to keep their word, and also to keep a 100% reserve storage of all of their customers’ valuables. This strict policy of honest banking, like any honest exchange, is kept alive by market competition. Banking institutions that don’t keep promises would go out of business, or at least lose business, overtime because customers would be willing to pay someone else for better service. Many banks, however, may be incentivized to cheat on their promissory notes by lending out a greater number of promissory notes than the given store of value that they held. In doing this, they have both stolen from the person whose store of wealth they promised to keep on hand, and they have committed fraud against the person who was lent promissory notes that may not be redeemable for the promised amount in the future.

Through the market process, however, competing banks with competing promissory notes would diminish the incentives to commit such crimes and inflate the supply of money. This is because not only can customers bring their gold to other banks, but competing banks could put rivals out of business by exposing their bad behavior and buying up a large amount of the promissory notes that the competitor has issued. In doing so, the competing bank could attempt to redeem said notes for the given amount of gold. If the rival bank was, indeed, issuing more notes than he had gold, he would be unable to give back enough gold to all of the people that he promised, and that bank would go out of business, and potentially be subject to the law.

Sadly, this is not the banking system that is utilized in America today. There is not market process to provide checks and balances to the operations of competing banks. Banks are not subject to the will of consumers, but rather to the will of the government and the Federal Reserve. When money is deposited into a bank today, there is no fee that is paid for the storage. In fact, in most cases the bank pays the customer a very small amount of interest. The money that is stored is not kept safe in a vault with the customer’s name on it; it is loaned out to others or used in various investment ventures. Granted, there is FDIC insurance, which allows for a portion of an individual’s deposits to be paid back were anything to happen to the bank, but this type of “insurance” comes with a heavy price: Inflation. Because banks do not see the same incentives to keep an honest store of value in the same way that they would in a free market banking, they may engage in riskier loans and investments. When these loans are unable to be paid at the same time as people come to redeem their deposits, banks (theoretically) would not be able to come through on all of their promises. Because of the Federal Reserve, banks can simply ask for an influx of cash from the central bank in order to fulfill their short-term obligations. This activity, coupled with the issuance of a multiplicity of promissory notes, leads to a severe increase in the supply of money over time. This drastic increase in money ultimately leads to inflation, and a decrease in the purchasing power of each unit of money.

 The only cure to such a disease is to allow people to bank freely, without force or coercion from the government or the Fed. Through the market process, competing currencies would once again emerge with a sound store of value, providing incentives to keep customers happy and keep dollars strong. Free the money... free the people.

Congress approves military spending for projects the pentagon just don't want

Recently congress has been issuing many different projects to improve military defense that cost a lot of tax payer money and in many circumstances the pentagon does not want the money for these projects. "On Monday, noted deficit hawk Rep. Jim Jordan (Oh.) told the Associated Press that in the interest of national security, Congress needed to give the Pentagon $436 million to make improvements to the 70-ton Abrams tank."    
He added to his request stating that "the one are we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in the defense of our country." The pentagon stated that it had no use for the tanks and does not want them.  The tanks would be an effective weapon during World War 2 while fighting the Nazis but has no effective use in a modern world. The army chief of staff reported that they would use the money in a different way if given the opportunity. The reason that the bill was brought up and able to get through congress is the result of pork barrel politics.  The congressman who introduced the bill would have his district benefit in the form of money and jobs. 

This demonstrates how the government operates on an ineffective level and as Murray Rothbard states the defense of the country should be in the hands of the free market.  The government is always stuck to the way things have been done instead of accepting change and continuing to build tanks, an outdated device is a perfect example of that.  If the defense was operated in the free market it would not have waisted spending like this and would be forced to innovate and improve.congress approves military spending for projects the pentagon just don't want

IRS stalled conservative groups

Recently the IRS had been caught for targeting conservative groups during the same time period as the 2012 election.  Today Tea Party activists protested in Washington saying they plan on Suing the IRS for what they believe to be a gross over reach by the government and a violation of their constitutional rights.  Michelle Bachmanm attacked the federal government for targeting specific groups who were applying for tax exempt status.  Tea party members say the were subjected to long questionnaires thats cost them hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars.  The IRS revealed they targeted groups with the phrases tea party and patriots in their names, but further reports show other instances from 2010 onward.
               "This is not only unconstitutional, it is illegal, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative civil-rights group that says it is suing the IRS on behalf of 17 clients who were targeted for extra scrutiny because of their groups' leanings."
      
This is another example of the government operating on an inefficient bases, and doing things that would not had been done in the free market.  As Rothbard states the government has a long history of violating the civil liberties of individuals, and even though it is supposed to protect are individual rights the state is greatest oppressor of our liberties. People who work for the government do things they would never normally do because of the institution of the government changes their perception on what is acceptable.  This is just another example of the government violating the non aggression axiom and over stepping their boundaries. Vowing lawsuit against IRS, teapartiers descend on DC

private property and elephant poaching

The population of elephants in Africa has declined dramatically in the last twenty years due to the overwhelming desire for ivory. In 1989 an international ban on the sale of ivory was implemented in an attempt to prevent the needless slaughter of these animals. Many objected though, including economist and nations whose citizen’s asserted property rights over these animals. In an essay written by Michael A. McPherson and Michael L. Nieswiadomy, African Elephants: The Effect of Property Rights and Political Stability, they conclude that 

…controlling for other factors, countries with property rights systems or community wildlife programs have rapid elephant population growth rates than do those countries that do not. Political instability and the absence of representative governments significantly lower elephant growth rates. (McPherson and Nieswiadomy)

Enacted by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), the ban on ivory was not uniformly adhered to by many countries; especially the countries located in the southern tip, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, who all have a system devised in which property rights of elephants are governed and adhered to. For example, in, “Botswana…the elephant population has risen from 20,000 in 1981 to over 80,000 today. Zimbabwe, the roughly 30,000 elephants that existed in 1978 have increased their numbers by a factor of nearly 3 by this year (McPherson and Nieswiadomy).” Because of property rights there exists an economic incentive to protect the elephants by the very people who once hunted and killed them to prosper from the ivory trade. Like anything, if it’s held common to all, the resource will be used until it no longer exists. There exists more of an incentive for people to protect the elephant from illegal poaching when it is their property that’s directly affected by it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2000.tb00002.x/pdf

Libertarianism in practice: 4 May Blog Post

Libertarianism in practice:

Hayek really had me thinking about Libertarianism in practice. Although Hayek refrained from dissecting party politics, I want to know how a libertarian, assuming the Libertarian Party is a viable third party in this two party system, would vote in hot button social issues.

Marijuana, abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage are just a few social issues that can cause arguments between the best of friends.  Sure other social issues exist, but for this exploratory/though experiment/blog I’m narrowing it down to one: Gay marriage. I recognize that there are members of both parties that do not always vote along party lines. But for simplicities sake I am going to put all politicians in an “us vs. them” spectrum (although Hayek disagrees that conservatives staunchly oppose modern liberals).

There is no doubt that gay marriage is a hot button topic. Modern American liberals (Democrats) have advocated for gay rights and gay marriage for a while now. Modern conservatives (Republicans) however have, as a collective, opposed various forms of gay marriage on religious grounds and on the argument that gay marriage violates traditional family values. Americans at this point would have to vote for a politician aligning with the left or the right.

Now enters the Libertarian and the Libertarian Party.

How would a Libertarian candidate vote on a matter like gay marriage? I think a Libertarian would most likely say that gay marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue and that the citizens of the respective states ought to have say over whether or not the state ought to allow gay marriage.

Or perhaps the Libertarian would posit that government ought to get out of the business of marriage altogether because marriage is an inherent religious sacrament or ceremony and government ought not to mingle in such affairs. Government may conduct civil unions but civil unions would be extended to both heterosexual (who do not want to marry in a church) and homosexual couples (who don’t want to marry in a church or can’t marry in a church). Churches would not be forced to marry anyone.

Are there any other alternatives that I’ve missed?

How would a Libertarian vote in economic matters? Suffice it to say that I don’t believe a Libertarian politician would vote for TARP or HAMP. I know a Libertarian would oppose price supports, tariffs, some or even all taxes.  I know a Libertarian would oppose Quantitative Easing measures implemented by the fed.

How else would a Libertarian legislate in economic affairs?

Libertarianism in practice…I’m interested.

Altering Immigration Bill Risks Losing Senators’ Votes

A panel of the Judiciary Committee are meeting to talk about the immigration proposal which will include talks about improving border patrol and defining what goals need to be met to allow immigrants to become U.S. citizens.  "Republicans will mainly focus on strengthening the bill’s border security goals, which Democrats say can’t be made so stringent that they become unreachable and prevent anyone from becoming a citizen. "  Whether you look at it from either political background, it is still impeding liberty in a sense that you are saying, "You can't come here because you have no right to be here".Considering America's history of immigration, this would seem hippo critical.  Granted the ability to just open the borders in this time of recovery after the great recession, it would be cumbersome to say the least.  But trying to improve security for the borders may not be the way to go, improving background checks of immigrants who want to be citizens is a must though.  After the bombing in Boston, clearance into the U.S. or standards must rise.  This may be contrary to liberty but for the safety of the public, it may be necessary.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-09/altering-immigration-bill-risks-losing-senators-votes.html

Drug dealers are entrepreneurs not criminals

     We have discussed a lot about liberty. Liberty means freedom. Freedom means that you can do whatever you like in this world. But in order to avoid anarchy, we must have a rule to stop people from harming each other: The Non-Aggression Axiom or the Harm Principle. A person can do whatever they like in this world, as long as they do not harm anyone else's property. With this in mind, it is easy to see why drug dealers should not be classified as criminals.
     Drug dealing is simply the selling of drugs to customers. There is no coercion or force involved. People in pharmacies and cigarette companies do it all the time. But when people hear the name drug dealer, they think about weed, cocaine, crack, Ecstasy, PCP, meth and whatever "bad" drug we can think of. As long as this drug dealer is voluntarily exchanging his goods, there is no crime. Even if the drug can kill the person that is using it, that is the consumer's choice. The dealer did not force anyone to buy his product. Because drug dealing is just a voluntary exchange, we should all look up to this entrepreneurial spirit.
     Think about it: if drug dealing was legal, this person can set his own schedule, does not have to answer to a boss, can choose his days off, does not have to worry about sick days, does not have to do that much labor and his product can bring happiness to his customers' lives. It sounds like a pretty good set-up.
     What makes the business bad is the fact that it is illegal. If someone steals from the dealer, he cannot go to the police for help. He has to put himself in a dangerous situation to get his property back. Sometimes drug wars and turf wars can cost the lives of people in the business; because of the competition between dealers, they do not have to beat their competitor by having a better business, they can beat their competitor by having force. But we must consider that it is the fact that people are killing each other that is against the harm principle, not the selling of drugs. If we were to realize that drug dealing is consistent with liberty, and to make it a legal practice, then we could stop a lot of crime in our society and gain a lot of entrepreneurs.

Conservatives: Master Brake Operators

I have heard, and even said myself that it is hard to distinguish between liberals and conservatives these days. Perhaps myself and others have misspoken, but fortunately Hayek is here to eliminate (at least minimize) the confusion with his essay Why I Am Not a Conservative.

“It is that by its very nature [conservatism] cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing.” (Hayek, 1-2)

Conservatism, as defined by Hayek in this essay, is an "attitude of opposition to drastic change".

Part of what Hayek is trying to highlight in this article is that based on that definition, conservatives political positions will inevitably be in constant flux. If I am in opposition to drastic changes in the status quo, yet despite my opposition, drastic change occurs, then a new status quo will emerge. If I remain steadfast to my conservative position, I will still be opposed to drastic changes to the (new) status quo, which entails taking a position that I was opposed to before the last shift in the status quo. Thus, conservatism is not founded on any particular set of unwavering values, and is subject to relativistic change in response to the outside world - what Hayek called being "dragged along a path not of its own choosing".

Following Hayek's dissection, conservatism cannot be seen as an effective political strategy. This is made particularly obvious when he states "The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments"(Hayek, 2), thus implying that a conservative really serves no function other than to slow down the progress of the liberals - in whatever direction they might be headed.

Therefore, Hayek determines that the most likely source for political change is the progressive party - whether their values are currently based on liberty or not, for they are the politicians who desire most to change the status quo and move us to new places, figuratively speaking. Conservatism, he concludes, for its lack of "guiding principles", is not equipped to "influence long-range developments", and has only really retarded the progress of liberals over time, for better or for worse.

Following Hayek's analysis, it would seem that in a nation founded upon liberty, true liberals and true conservatives would both be advocating to maintain the original system. How then, has our nation moved from its original political position fixed upon liberty is another story, but certainly one worth investigating; it seems the root of this problem comes from the liberal party's deviations from the principle of liberty as their absolute standard, and it seems that part of Hayek's vision was to restore liberty to liberalism.

"If it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable" - Immanuel Kant 

Last week, my Modern European History class analyzed documents from the Enlightenment. These documents ranged from John Locke to Voltaire, but one that caught my interest was written by the renowned philosopher,  Immanuel Kant.Though most of Kant's philosophy hardly lines up with libertarianism, a few of his points do ring true in regards to a man's freedom to think and act for himself. 

Towards the beginning of his writing, "What is the Enlightenment?", Kant defines enlightenment as "man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage." Nonage being a person's incapability to think on his own without aid of another. Kant observed that laziness and cowardice were the roots of humanity's preference to "gladly remain minors all their lives". It may be tempting to believe that the Enlightenment was an international cultural awakening that lived only in the 18th century. However, I believe that the Enlightenment lives on today through the libertarian spirit and is in constant battle with nonage in the form of government interventionism. 

Though Kant lived a little under three centuries ago, his philosophy certainly applies today. We celebrate many freedoms in America, but could we call ourselves truly "enlightened" in Kant's sense of the word? I opine that were are not so enlightened. A libertarian's definition of freedom consists of one's property rights being established and protected: What's "mine" is NOT "yours" and the government's sole purpose is to protect what's "mine" and what's "yours". But how many times a day does our government trespass against our freedom under these slightly patronizing excuses: I'm doing this for your own good or I'm taking a chunk of your income for your own good or I get to tell you how to run your business because I'm looking out for your success. Many citizens fall for this facade and believe there's nothing wrong with assistance from Big Brother. Unfortunately, this mode of thinking eventually makes us believe that we cannot do anything without government assistance. As Kant put it so bluntly, we become glad to remain children for the rest of our lives underneath adult supervision. This is nonage under governmental influence and this trespasses against human kind's natural right to grow and flourish. Kant notes that "Once such men have thrown off the yoke of nonage, they will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable appreciation of man's value and of his duty to think for himself"

Yes, we have our flaws, but the human spirit isn't meant to be stupid and suppressed. We hold an innovative spirit that explodes exponentially when crossed with freedom. As students, we don't need the guidance of the government- telling us what to do with our creative skills and ambitions. We are educated thinkers- we have been equipped with knowledge to construct and to prosper.

Plastic or Metal can anyone own it?

After reading an article by Rebecca Morelle, from BBC I am curios to see what the government is going to say about 3D printed guns.

Just this week a man developed the blue prints for the first 3D printed gun. Now anyone who has a 3D printer, access to the internet and about 60$ worth of materials can own an operating gun! I find this to be interesting as the Obama administration is trying to control all guns in the US you would now not even have to leave your house and you could create thousands of guns. 

I was wondering what this is going to do with the gun control, and the right to bear arms. This give everyone no matter age, criminal back round, mental state the ability to own a gun and no one has to know. I feel like our class would say that, weather the gun is plastic or metal anyone should be able to own a gun; as long as it does not go against the aggression axiom. This opens a whole new issue that "the force" is going to feel that they are going to have to control. 

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/a-farewell-to-victim-disarmament/#more-19717

The Greatest Blog Post Ever Written

Deirdre McCloskey’s blog post entitled “Factual Free-Market Fairness” was called the “greatest blog post ever written” by an economist from George Mason University.  I agree.   With wit and charm, she dissected the arguments in favor of government intervention and replaced it with the truth of economic liberty. 

Current economic theory takes for granted that externalities exist and the government needs to do something about it.  Suffice it to say that McCloskey shot a whole in that argument in a matter of two sentences: “Externalities do not imply that a government can do better.  Publicity does better than inspectors in restraining the alleged desire of businesspeople to poison their customers.”   It is truth.  The free-market press is more than able to regulate free-market business. 

She goes on to back up her ideology with precision: “How do I know that my narrative is better than yours?  The experiments of the 20^th century told me so.”  Her argument is hard to deny.  Today we have a plethora of data that shows that experiments with central planning have failed; governments built on the principles of economic liberty have thrived. 

In the latter half of the post, McCloskey poignantly clarified the ultimate consequences of government regulation: it always hurts the poor and common man in favor of those well-connected and in control.  Example after example drove home her point: labor unions and minimum wage help some at expense of everybody else (particularly the poor).   The SEC and FDIC has done little to help small investors or depositors when the government uses tax-payers money to bail-out the banks that had incentive to give out risky loans.   “Foreign aid has enriched tyrants not helped the poor”.    And the list goes on; profound example after profound example.   

This Greatest Blog Post Ever Written needs to be required reading.