Thursday, December 17, 2020

California Imposes Universal Abortion Coverage

Within the United States, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced the department will withhold $200 million in Medicaid funding from California due to the states requirement of state insurance companies providing abortion insurance coverage. 

This act is illiberal because it forces insurance companies to provide abortion insurance. In a liberal society, if people needed abortion insurance, an insurance company would come into the economy to help that need. With imposing universal abortion coverage mandates on health insurance, the California government has taken the freedom from insurance companies on if they want to provide abortion insurance.

In any truly free society, abortion would be legal and anybody should be able to do it at their own risk. The state of California has a liberal mentality because it does not say somebody cannot have an abortion unlike other states. The irony of the liberal act of allowing abortions is the illiberal act of imposing health insurance companies to mandate universal abortion coverage. 

Why citizens of a free society need help

Within the United States right now, 20.6 million Americans are receiving some type of unemployment benefit. Cases are surging and the economy is slumping 23% of local businesses were closed December 1st. 41% of bars, 28% of restaurants and 32% of beauty shops were also shut down. This can all be attributed not to people running their business poorly but something outside of their control, COVID-19.

Because of this negative influence, people have no option but to suffer economically without many options out. This is where government comes into play, to make sure it's citizens are surviving! There have been reports of stimulus pack which is said to give support to Americans. But how? Congress is still discussing a relief package but the major parts of the package include $600 direct payment to individuals, $300 billion for businesses and $300 added each week to state unemployment benefits.    

While these will be very influential to keep the economy of the United States running, one of these "packages" is illiberal. If this package were to be liberal, the $300 added each week to state unemployment benefits would instead be going to the people instead of the government run programs. Within free society the citizen knows where better to spend the money than the official government itself. Because of this the $300 allotted to the government unemployment benefits should go to the citizens in a free society. 

Friday, December 11, 2020

Small businesses and unemployment during Covid-19

In 2019, The small Business administration (SBA) reported that 44% of the economic activity in the U.S. is contributed by small businesses. Two-thirds of jobs created in 2019 along with over 43% of the national GDP are the result of small business contribution. The national unemployment dropped by 0.1% from January 2018 to January 2019 according to FRED Economic Data and the SBA reported 1.8 million net new jobs created by small businesses. Companies employing fewer than 20 people we responsible for adding 1.2 million jobs. The phrase “small businesses are the back of the economy” seems like an understatement after listing the numbers, but now COVID 19 in 2020 may just cripple our economy for years to come. How much damage has the national economy and small businesses have sustained this year? How is it that in this free market economy we are forced to close the doors while the government sits back to see it collapse and not move a finger? 

SBA reported national unemployment at 14.7% as of April 2020 and the number has dropped to 6.7% in the same year. Nearly 100,000 establishments that were forced to temporarily shut down are now out of business according to Forbes. From April 2019 to April 2020, over 1 million small businesses were created and now about 10% of the 31.7 million are or have already shut down. Over 60 million American are employed by small businesses, and the loss of these companies have caused the unemployment numbers to skyrocket. The last time unemployment was at 6.7% was in February 2014. The Coronavirus has regressed the economic progress of 6 years in just a matter of months. The question is, what is the damage real damage and how long will it take for the economy to recover? 

While the unemployment numbers have dropped from the historic 14.7% in April 2020 to 6.7% today, the financial status of many Americans will take longer to recover. Large corporations dominate the market today on a much larger scale than before the pandemic started. Industries that were largely affected by the loss of income of many Americans such as hospitality, travel, and food will struggle to return to normal operation numbers. The price of rent has risen in every state as the housing crisis escalates, and renters get evicted after losing their jobs. This is not a depression, but this recession continues today and while states shutdowns businesses again to respond to the increase of infection numbers, more and more businesses shut down. The backbone of our economy has and continues to struggle to survive. How long will it take for small businesses to once again contribute to job creation by the millions every year? We just do not know. 

The federal government continues to play politics instead of passing policy to keep small businesses afloat while new shutdowns are set in place by multiple states across the nation. Covid-19 has not paralyzed economic growth, but it certainly has caused disincentives for investment by small business owners. Large food chains continue to operate, while small restaurants close their door. Local grocery stores limited by space fall while Walmart and Targets continue to be open. Amazon made record sales during shut down while small stores had no way to survive without customer interaction. It is clear who is winning during this pandemic, and it is certainly not the economy because Walmart and Amazon have no intentions of helping small businesses, and neither does our government representatives. While I am not inferring shutdowns are entirely responsible for the damage as they are meant to contain the infection, we are paying the price of an incompetent government that gloats when the market economy we live in succeeds and turns a blind eye when the same needs help to survive. It isn’t about complete government disassociation, instead of about excessive involvement with already existing minimal compensation.

Thursday, December 10, 2020

The Supreme Court's Defence of Economic Freedom

    Throughout history, the Supreme Court has made numerous decisions and constitutional rulings which have changed the shape of the United States’ national and state economies. These decisions have covered things such as the contracts clause, regulation of private industry, minimum wage, work hours, and government takings. These decisions, and their effects have had a profound influence on the economic rights of Americans. Our Constitution provides several key components which have helped the court in legal battles involving the protection of economic rights for citizens. This is true for matters in which Americans act as both members of a firm marketing goods & services, or an individual selling their labor. Some of the court’s rulings have increased regulations on Americans, and some have greatly limited the State’s power, but ultimately, the Court’s doctrine in this area has proved to be an effective and indispensable factor in preserving American economic freedom.

    Every American has a right to natural resources, especially when they come in the form of a public good, like the water in a river, or just the use of the river itself. These types of things are public goods and are therefore nonexcludable. Many then believe that the public’s use of these goods should be protected by the State. In the 1870s’ the Mississippi River had become immensely polluted by slaughterhouses that were discarding pieces of dead animals into the river. There was a cholera outbreak in Louisiana and people were unable to utilize the river’s water without becoming sick. The Supreme Court ruled in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, that the Louisiana govt. was right to prohibit slaughterhouses upstream and centralize the industry downriver. Thus, the court worked to defend the freedom of the state’s citizens to enjoy this public good, while of course following the harm principle. In a 1908 case, Adair v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down Congress’ “Erdman Act.” This law prohibited “yellow-dog contracts” in railroads engaged in interstate commerce. What these did was prohibit railroad officials from denying employment to workers based on their membership in labor unions. The court’s decision here was to strike down the act. With this decision, the Supreme Court protected the freedom of contract for employees and employers. In the US, citizens have a right to sell their labor and provide jobs to who they please. The court protected this right and employers were once again permitted to exit a business relationship with individuals.

    Another significant decision in which the Supreme court advanced economic freedom for Americans was Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council in 1992. An individual in South Carolina had purchased two expensive lots of land with the intent to construct homes on them. The state government shortly after, passed a law which prohibited this very action on the land in question. The man’s land was in effect, completely devalued. He could no longer do what he set out to do here and the lots were worthless to him, and his investment was destroyed. Legal action ensued against South Carolina and the case made it to the Supreme Court. They once again preserved economic liberty for Americans. They ruled that this was a violation of the “takings clause” of the 5th Amendment. This has it that people’s property cannot be taken without just compensation. In this case, any justice could argue that a devaluation of an individual’s land does not mean the government has “taken” it. The decision though was that the state’s new law, having crashed the value of Lucas’ land, meant that they had performed a taking. Just compensation was inevitably provided to reimburse Lucas for the investment they had ruined. This is yet another example of how our country’s Supreme Court has, in most cases, actively defended economic freedom for Americans; hopefully they continue the practice.

Sunday, November 22, 2020

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 


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 equilibriumThe 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.  

Friday, November 20, 2020

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.

Thursday, November 19, 2020

BackWordz Statism

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

Friday, November 13, 2020

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



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.” ( 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.  


Friday, November 06, 2020

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.", 15 Jan. 2017,

2.      Samuel, Sigal. "Everywhere basic income has been tried, in one map.", 20 Oct. 2020,


Count the Vote

 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 



America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and some people still cannot get healthcareBeing 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 healthcareAs 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.