Coronavirus Lockdowns Usher In the New Roaring ’20s

 

Jordan Silva

Economic Freedom

Blog 3

Dr. Eubanks

 

Coronavirus Lockdowns Usher In the New Roaring ’20s

 

            People are always going to find a way around the law to get what they want. In a free society people do not want to be told what they can and can not do. Since the shut down of bars and restaurants due to the Corona Virus, house parties have taken the place of night clubs. Large gatherings of people partying at houses in New Jersey shows how the demand to party and have a good time outweighs the risk of contracting the Corona Virus. “Police earlier this month broke up a pool party at a mansion in ritzy Alpine, N.J., which NBC reported was owned by a personal-injury attorney. Guests reported spending $1,000 to attend. Shuttle buses dropped off hundreds of guests, many from New York City.” This is a perfect example of individuals doing what they want rather than abiding by the law that restricted gatherings of this size during the pandemic. The opportunity cost of going to the party is quite high.

Going to these parties puts not just a single individual at risk but, that individual may be putting others at risk if they are asymptomatic and have not been tested, they could spread it to others. In a free society people are not supposed to be in the business of harming others. The foregone benefit of staying at home and being safe rather than attending a large gathering seems to not matter to the hundreds of people attending these parties. Instant gratification and the feeling that other people get the virus not me is what fuels individuals need to let loose and party with hundreds of people. Policing these parties does not seem to be very effective with most people being able to leave or at the worst getting a simple fine with no jail time. The hosts of these parties are capitalizing on people’s desire to disobey the law and party no matter the cost to their health or wallet.

The Status of Social Media in the US

 

The Status of Social Media in the US

Recently within the United States, many of the major heads of some of the most prominent social media platforms, from Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey, to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and even Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg were called to face the United States Congress recently with some of the main issues being cited being the censorship of certain content on social media. The argument made against the selective deletion of content by Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz was plain and clear saying “Who the hell elected you?” when addressing Jack Dorsey directly. He continued to say, “Why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC,” “silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?”. This brings up a very interesting point with our society. Does a privatized online company that owns a platform that connects people have the right to privately moderate their platform? And further, does the act of privately moderating this platform violate our freedom?

            To cover the first pressing matter here, personally I do believe that all of these platforms have the right to allow or not allow content based on their own arbitrary rules that may or may not be justifiable. Fundamentally, this is very much a function of what a private company should be allowed to do, allow, or not allow information to represent their brand based on their own company set of morals. However there is a problem with this, the way that social media functions in the modern day, it is more and more common that we see the argument that social media is equally a news platform and thus should be held to the same standards that the press are held to. I simply disagree with this argument, I think while a symptom of the creation of a freely operating social space is to invite the discourse of current events that comes with it, this does not change the core reality of what this environment is. It is an inequitably moderated medium just as many would make the argument many other prominent institutions are.

            Addressing the second main point, no, I do not see the deletion of what is deemed potentially harmful information, or in many cases outright misinformation. But to truly address the case of freedom, these social realms I do not believe should feel the need to operate by the free society standards we set here in the US, especially if we are going to take into account the global impact these platforms actually have. The reality of the situation is that these social platforms operate in what we would consider very much a grey area of the access to full freedom. Being both a gathering location for people all over the world gives the perception that an and everything may go, but in reality, as with many other companies these tech giants are choosing to act as exactly what they are, private entities. On one side, Republicans seem to see this as a violation of freedom. While on the other side, Democrats are seemingly seeing this as another try at garnering favorable treatment for their candidate going into the election. Overall, I believe this event may be being charged more by high emotions politically rather than a true violation or infringement of free society.

America the free society

Free Society

To define freedom in society, we look at the statement made by F. A. Hayek, “If we wish to preserve a free society, we must recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.” The definition of a society is a “group of individuals involved in a persistent social interaction, or a large social group sharing the same social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and cultural expectations.” This statement relates to how a free society works. In America, most of us know nothing other than being in a “free” country. From the “Pledge of Alliance” to any sporting event where the “National Anthem” has been played, we learn at a young age. A free society is defined as where individuals act entirely out of their own will.” An example of this is having the ability of freedom of speech. Traveling to other countries, one will experience the difference of space that we have taken for granted.

The idea of a free society gives everyone the option to do anything they decide to do. As an American, I have the freedom to say or do anything that I choose. The only thing that can change my choice is the consequences of my choice. That consequence can be losing my freedom to a jail sentence. In other countries, people are persecuted or even killed to express the freedoms we in America take for granted.  While in America, the punishment of jail is a way to take away your freedom, and you lose your free society. Many different cultures came to America and had to “earn” their freedom. This happened with the Europeans when they tried to leave the shadow of the English government, to women gaining their right to vote and work jobs that were previously only thought to be created for men. And finally, slaves had to “earn” their freedom. This includes the Japanese in the west, the Irish in the Northeast, and the Africans in primarily the south. Now, most of these cultures came over on their own besides the slaves of Africa.

So, I believe that in America, we live in a free society. Some people may say that they disagree that America is a free society but think of the Chinese government. The government of China has done multiple things to keep their people from being a free society. From only being allowed to have one child but not two, forcing women to have abortions, or watch state-run television but not be allowed to listen to the free radio in Asia, they jam broadcast signals. This is not freedom, which is why we have people putting themselves in dangerous predicaments to try to get to America. In America, during Covid 19 times, people are upset that they are being told to wear a mask if they want to go somewhere. In other countries, you would be arrested or beaten for not wearing a mask or even stepping outside. In America, you just are asked to leave the establishment, or some places will even provide you with a mask. So, when you look at it America is a free society, but you have realized that freedom comes with a choice. You can do anything you want, but you must face the consequences of your choices. America is the land of the free and we get to choose our freedom.

Education: not a right, not affordable but you are free to pursue it

 

It is often said that knowledge is power, but the price of knowledge is rarely ever mentioned. We are told from an early age to pursue higher education to be successful in life but we are never told what it will cost us. In today's society, a piece of paper dictates whether you are qualified or not to perform a job. This piece of paper costs four or more years of your life and tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Education is not cheap and it's not getting any better. Private institutions, to some degree, have the ability to set and increase their prices based on "high standards", but public institutions have also been increasing their tuitions rates with little to no improvement at all. Without educated people there would be no progress, no inventions, no improvement in our economy, so why are we inadvertently discouraging individuals from getting an education? Why is education not a human right or in the very least, why isn't it affordable?

The constitution of the United States does not mention education and the supreme court has refused to recognize any right to a taxpayer-funded education. K-12 schools are government-funded and "free" to the public, so why can't higher education be also government-funded since the money comes from taxpayers? Why aren't the people free to decide how our tax money is used and distributed to fund free college education? The truth of the matter is that we are at the mercy of our government representatives and higher education is considered by them as a business rather than a public service as it should be. We cannot ignore that the government provides federal and state grants, but this money is limited to income restrictions, so it isn't really free money. In other words, you must have a low income to receive federal school grants that in most cases will not pay for your entire tuition and force you to take student loans. Education is not only not a right, but it is not properly regulated as a business by the government either.

Even if we consider inflation when looking at the rising cost of education, the numbers are ridiculous. Within the past four decades, the cost of undergraduate degrees has risen at a rate of over 200% at public schools and over 100% at private schools. On the other hand, the federal minimum wage in 1980 was $3.10 and today is $7.25, and we are not including the increase in the cost of living. How does the rise in tuition rates make any sense, and why has the government done nothing to regulate the rising cost of education? It isn't just a business; it is a predatory industry. In the United States, there are over 45 million people with a collective student debt of nearly 1.6 trillion dollars making student loans the second highest consumer debt to date. We live in a free-market economy where competition is part of the game, and government regulation should be minimal but instead, it seems to be non-existent at all. In this business industry, competition appears to not include adequate pricing and without a price ceiling, people are being drained of money to be able to enter a competitive job market with no guarantee of success. We are free to pursue an education that most of us can't afford, so what does freedom do for us? We are free to pick the school we want to attend and the amount of debt we want to get into with the hopes of a better life.

 In conclusion, education is not a right because our founding fathers did not think about it that way, but that does not mean we can't amend the constitution. Unfortunately, higher education is a business that we are in more than one way forced to partake in since earning a living wage requires you to have a piece of paper that qualifies you to do a job. As a business, it is poorly regulated by the government that even a minimum wage job cannot pay the monthly average tuition in the most affordable community college without grants or loans to make up the difference. We live in America, a free-market economy, the land of free where we are bound to pay the outrageous price of getting an education.

 

 

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

 With elections coming up it seems appropriate to discuss the Presidential debates and Supreme Court Confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett which have shown to be extremely controversial. These hearings reflected how divided and partisan our country is and brings about a heightened sense of importance for the elections approaching in November. Many issues were talked about during the Supreme Court Confirmation hearings such as health care, abortion, gun control, immigration and climate change which all play a significant roll on individual rights and freedoms. What I witness for a supposed “bipartisan” position was completely the opposite as many senators made these hearings political and asked questions that seemed motivated by a political agendas. This is an important issue because by having partisan justices, laws could be changed, altered and struck down in favor of one parties agenda rather than based on the founding fathers views of the Supreme Court and the checks and balances system. With such a divide amongst varying parties the government has become more centralized as each party will see it through to achieve political promises. There isn’t any unity or common ground that politicians could stand on even for the sake of the constitution. There have been comments made about packing the courts and getting rid of the filibuster which imply there is no boundary politicians won’t cross if it means obtaining power. Amy Coney Barrett has maintained her political independence from political pressure and states she will remain unbiased and adhere to the rule of law. Many concerns are that Amy Coney Barrett will overturn the Affordable Care Act given President Trumps agenda to have the ACA overruled. On June 28^th, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA, by a slim margin of a 5-4 vote. A single vote could have tipped the scale in the opposite direction declaring the ACA unconstitutional. According to Hayek and his views on the “rule of law”, laws should be general in nature and not be discriminatory in any way. The ACA is one of the most controversial laws because the ACA is not a general law and is discriminatory which is part of the reason why it boarders the line of constitutionality.  Again, Ms. Barret was pressed on her views on abortion, although she maintained a bi-partisan nature, controversial cases such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were brought about in which she did not declare her viewpoints. Barrett did not state her opinions on climate change as well, although Kamala Harris among other senators made this a key talking point as they are in pursuit of the Green New Deal. Other controversial issues were talked about such as immigration policies and gun control policies. Although Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be above politics, given the questioning this did not appear to be the case because many senators seem to want to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a similar candidate because of her views on the ACA, abortion, among other controversial and political topics that could be altered or changed given someone with differing viewpoints on the constitution. Ms. Barret remained unbiased on not stating her opinions or viewpoints that leaned one way or another. Clearly, there needs to be unbiased Supreme Court system because this entirely strips away the Checks and Balances system, centralizes power to the political majority, and our lives as citizens and our freedoms will revolve around those that pass legislature and decide the constitutionality of laws. Every Democratic and Republican want to push through their policies and legislation through the House and Senate and want to ensure that it will be upheld constitutionally by the Justices. My worry is that if there isn’t some common ground that people could agree on amongst the people and politicians, there will be consequences to one party pursuing power at the expense of American freedom and democracy. These debates and Supreme Court hearings have revealed that there really is no limit or extent that politicians won’t go to in order to achieve their goals of winning. They want a biased house, and biased senate and a biased supreme court where party majority rules. Overall, these hearings have significant implications on freedoms and rights and revealed the magnitude of the upcoming elections. At this point the biggest threat to American democracy is extreme polarization and the disappearance of common values and principals that should be central to all Americans such as liberty and freedom

The Minimum Wage in the 2nd 2020 Presidential Debate

     Throughout our nation’s history, the minimum wage has been a prominent topic. Recently, it has become an even greater focus of many politicians and political candidates. Notable Democrats like Bernie Sanders, Joseph Biden, and most of the DNC candidates of the 2020 Presidential Campaign have made it a key issue of their platform. Republicans like President Donald Trump typically adopt a more conservative fiscal method which does not opt for a minimum wage, especially not the Democrat’s common desire for a $15 federal minimum. One instance of this issue coming up recently was in the 2^nd Presidential Debate between Trump and Biden. They both made some comments regarding the issue and their arguments are another verbal discourse which has likely intrigued economic thought in many Americans. Those on the fence constantly hear arguments from both sides pushing for a greater minimum wage and some opposing it wholeheartedly, but the arguments made in this debate included some compelling concepts.
            During the 2^nd debate, Trump and Biden were asked for comment on the issue of the minimum wage. The question was centered around the tough times that many small businesses have been forced to endure recently, while many of them are losing business and cannot afford to continue operating. Biden argued once again in favor of his $15 minimum wage believing it to be necessary and he supported this by mentioning the necessity for a government bailout of these businesses. Biden supports the act of providing government funds to support small businesses in the midst of a pandemic. He believes this sentiment to be an argument for the same necessity of raising the minimum wage to support those workers who have also fallen on hard times this year. Trump rebutted this by arguing for a state option. He also mentioned that the minimum wage is not a viable solution coming from an economically informed perspective. He sees it as a burden for small business, they cannot afford to pay workers more, and these businesses will continue to suffer while workers are not able to be hired with the larger wages. Trump did not necessarily condemn a minimum wage entirely, saying he may support it to an extent, but he did argue against his opponent’s push for a federal law.

    A critical piece of Trump’s argument is his desire for a state option, this alludes to the police powers of the states. The Constitution’s 10^th Amendment may leave this power to them as it is not explicitly granted to the federal government. This view is on par with the Constitution as well as the writings of James Buchanan. Trump mentioned that “Alabama is different from New York. New York is different from Vermont. Every state is different, it should be a state option.” Buchanan wrote in his book Federalism, Liberty, and the Law, that in a federal system of government, the power is divided between the national government and that of the states. This is a desirable outcome because it increases the power of exit for individuals and increases the accountability of government, and it mitigates a monopoly on force and spreads power evenly, lowering the potential for harmful coercion. Considering basic economics, the minimum wage may be, in every case even, a disaster. Considering the principles of economic freedom, especially those provided by Buchanan and our Constitution, it would be a major improvement to allow our smaller political districts (states, cities) to decide on the issue of the minimum wage. This would at least allow for more localized, smaller governments to make a decision of extreme importance for their people whereas a federal mandate may have positive outcomes in certain regions and negatives elsewhere.

Court & Constitution Conundrum

With the sudden and untimely death of liberal icon and former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just six short weeks before Election Day, the hardline party divide in United States politics has incited an enraged debate on how to fill her seat amid questions about the undermining of democracy within the framework of this institution. Now that Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee have concluded, it seems all the more likely within the course of the next few weeks that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s promise to have President Donald Trump’s replacement nominee receive a vote on the Senate floor will be fulfilled in earnest. Should Judge Barrett be appointed to the Supreme Court, it would give the Republicans a 6-3 conservative majority to influence rulings on a range of issues involving topics such as abortion rights, gun control, the Affordable Care Act, and environmental protections. Democratic leadership has been crying foul from the very beginning, citing McConnell’s own hypocrisy in rushing to confirm Barrett when in 2016 he announced that he would block the Senate from confirming President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the grounds that it was an election year and the people of the United States should, through the voting process, have some degree of say in who the next Justices will be. Now that the White House and Senate are both dominated by the Republicans, it has been Democratic figureheads contending that people’s right to choose their government function is being compromised, while their Republican counterparts are claiming that they are simply acting within the framework of their elected purposes as outlined within the Constitution. 

Due to the fact that the foundation of many arguments presented on both sides rely on the Constitution, it is important to examine this problem through the idea of constitutionalism as a means to preserve free society and take a hard look at what rules are written in the Constitution in regards to the Supreme Court issue. Spoiler alert: for those hoping that the Constitution would offer some robust guide on the selection of Supreme Court Justices and offer security in determining who is “right” and “wrong” in this situation, then you will likely find yourself disappointed in the reality. The most pressing question following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was how does the process of appointing and confirming new Justices function. In regards to this, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President shall nominate and then appoint Judges to the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. If this seems intentionally vague, it is likely because this is the way it was intended to be. There is nothing established in the language of the document that indicates whether or not the Senate should hold hearings to question the nominee, the exact quorum that constitutes the necessity of a vote to confirm the appointment, or even the proportion of the majority needed to confirm the appointment. This is inconsistent with other areas in the Constitution, such as the denotation that a two-thirds majority is needed to convict a sitting President of an impeachable offense. What’s more is that the Constitution does not even indicate a set number of Justices required to preside over the Supreme Court; nine is somewhat of an arbitrary number that was conceived likely out of the “need” for Justices. History has shown there have been as few as six and as many as ten. In addition, the time that a Supreme Court Justice must serve when appointed is also an ambiguous point as it is characterized in the Constitution. The actual diction states that a Judge should hold office for as long as they establish “good behavior.” Again, it is not exactly clear what denotes “good” behavior, but we have traditionally interpreted this to mean that a Judge is to serve for life unless perhaps they were to commit a crime or perform an equivalent act of malicious intent. In short, other than referencing the general need for a federal judiciary, there are very few rules as to how the judiciary needs to be constructed.  

Therefore, while there may be cries that Republicans are playing an unfair game by utilizing both sides of the field in two separate instances of the same issue, it can’t be said that the actions by the leadership on that side should be deemed unconstitutional. If we are to regard the Constitution as a set of rules that aim to preserve free society, then it would be hard to find evidence within the language of the contract itself that illustrates any breaking of the aforementioned rules. The contentious part, then, isn’t how the Republicans are appointing their nominees, but the actual reasons that they are doing so. This has implications for the degree to which our leadership in this country is actually concerned with preserving free society. In theory, the Senate can block a nominee not necessarily because their character or legal acumen isn’t up to par, but rather because the President making the nomination belongs to the wrong party or the nominee supports legislation that represents the antithesis of the politician’s self-interests. If the Republicans use what seems like coercion to push their nominee through the confirmation process, then what is to stop Democrats from simply using the same power (restricted by the same “rules”) to expand the number of Justices the next time they control the White House and Senate in a show of retaliation using coercive tactics? If they did that, what is to stop Republicans doing the same thing next time they assume control? And so on and so forth. The rules outlined in the Constitution regarding the Supreme Court were likely left intentionally vague so that some of these matters would be placed outside the realm of partisan contest; an agreement among the majority, if you will. However, the rules that are in effect now essentially result in a two party, divisive struggle over the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution, the nature of which is deeply political and coercive.

References: 

Black, Eric, et al. “What Does the Constitution Say about Picking Supreme Court Justices? Not Much.”     MinnPost, 17 Feb. 2016, www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2016/02/what-does-constitution-say-           about-picking-supreme-court-justices-not-much/.

Bouie, Jamelle. “Court Packing Can Be an Instrument of Justice.” The New York Times, The New York     Times, 9 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/court-packing-amy-coney-barrett.html.

Chong, Jane. “Republicans Are Abusing 'Precedent' to Justify Their Hypocrisy.” The Atlantic, Atlantic     Media Company, 11 Oct. 2020, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/republicans-are-abusing-

    the-concept-of-precedent/616564/.                                        

Eminent Domain

 The use of eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property and convert it to public use. They can only take it if they have justly compensated the owner. Generally, the Government seizes the private property and offers fair value for it, but this is not always the case. There are many factors in which the ethical use of eminent domain is required. How much compensation is just compensation? How much is the project going to benefit the public? 

In an article on ColoradoPolitics.com, there is speculation that the town of Monument did not have to compensate some land owners in an eminent domain case. in 2016, Monument purchased a lot from private owners in a residential area. The purpose was to relocate a water tank. The relocation of the water tank lowered the values of the houses around the lot. In court, the eminent domain ruling stood that the public benefit of a water tank outweighed numerous losses to individual residents. As a result, the residents received no compensation for their lower property values. 

A home is generally the largest purchase in an individuals life, but it can be devalued by a water tank. The Government thinks they know what is good for the people by handing out "fair market value" for the land they take to build a water tank or to widen a road. The loss in home value and returns on investments on the house could be substantially more than the fair market valuation. eminent domain can be beneficial, but it does infringe of the property rights of citizens and disrupt freedoms. 

Article: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/town-does-not-have-to-compensate-property-owners-in-eminent-domain-case-high-court-rules/article_f6253a0e-aa5f-11ea-8e91-d380c4ddd653.html

Americans Back Tough Limits on Building in Fire and Flood Zones

 

Jordan Silva

Economic Freedom

Blog post 2

 

Americans Back Tough Limits on Building in Fire and Flood Zones

 

            Building homes in disaster prone areas has become an increasingly important issue for Americans. After the recent hurricanes and fires this year, there is increasing support for the strengthening of building codes, paying people to move, or even banning new construction all together in these high-risk areas. However, many of these areas are home to some of the most expensive real estate in the country and continue to see increasing demand for new construction in these areas.

            Paying people to move from a high-risk area might seem like a good solution unless you yourself live in the area. The government should not be in the business of pushing people out of their homes. When a person buys a home, it is up to them to way the benefits and risks of owning a home in such an area. Also, what if someone simply will not move? Imaging living in a home for 20 years and are told you will be paid to leave.  

            Banning new construction in these areas does not seem to fit with the ideas of economic freedom either. Building new construction creates thousands of jobs and injects money into the economy. This would stop areas from growing and prospering all together. Stopping construction would devalue the homes and businesses already in the area.

            Strengthening the building codes is the best option. Making sure new construction is being built to better withstand todays disasters would be more costly but, these new homes would be safer and better equipped to handle a disaster. This option would also stop the government from forcing you to move from the area or stopping construction all together in an area you have wanted to live in and saved for your whole life.

            In conclusion, people do not want to be told or forced to do something just because the government says so. If a person wants to live on the Florida coast and deal with hurricanes they should be left to do so. The benefit of living in such an area outweighs the costs for many people. Making sure a new home is built better to withstand any disaster is more beneficial then stopping new construction or paying people to leave an area.

Proposition 116

Colorado's Proposition 116 proposes to cut tax rates for individuals and businesses from 4.63% to 4.55%. This proposition has two differing sides as some people think it will help, "the business owner, like the individual, can spend it better than the state" while others believe it will "disproportionally benefit the wealthiest Coloradans." Despite the divide, Proposition 116 is a policy that represents a policy of free society. Proposition 116 represents a policy for free society as it takes money away from the government and gives more purchasing power to the people and businesses of Colorado. 

Proposition 116 does have some controversy to it. The tax cuts have a possibility to increase Colorado's gross domestic product from $8.1 million to $55.5 million in just 5 years because of the extra spending. This is speculation in hopes that Colorado's population will spend it towards their labor and/ or capital. Some of the worries is that government spending has already been cut and another tax cut will limit spending towards things like education and transportation and that those who have an income of $500,000 will receive more than half of the total tax cut savings. 

In spite of the controversy, Proposition 116 is ultimately a policy that represents free economic ideals as it gives money back to people in which they have the choice to spend wherever and whenever instead of the money being spent on things like education and transportation by the government.

The retrogression of progressive tax policy

The earliest known tax was paid in the form of livestock and dates back 4500 years in ancient Mesopotamia. Individuals such as merchants paid tolls and duty fees with sheep and cows. Today, people are subject to pay different types of taxes such as Income tax, sales tax, property tax, estate tax, etc. It is part of our regular life and while some just chose to go along with it, others question the need to pay fees on every single transaction, most importantly income taxes. The United States, like many other countries across the globe, utilizes a Progressive tax system, in which the tax rates increase as the taxable amount increases. In theory, this seems functional as it makes sense to charge higher taxes to the individuals that earn a higher income while those than make less pay lower tax rates. Lest set aside factors such as living standards so we can pose the following question: What incentive would a person have to work more if he or she will in turn pay more on taxes? Today, taxes are a necessary evil since these are used to pay for public servants and services but why must we use a progressive tax system? 

Friedrich Hayek's opinions about the Progressive tax systems are polemical as he describes it to be against an open and liberal society. In his book "The constitution of Liberty " he says the following: "If a reasonable system of taxation is to be achieved, people must recognize as a principle that the majority which determines what the total amount of taxation should be must also bear it at the maximum rate". This is in part a proportional tax system. One in which regardless of how much income individuals earn they pay the same percentage. Why would people reject this tax policy? Well, no one would like to individually pay more when this means making less if you are already earning a low income, but it would create an incentive to increase earning in prospects to earn every penny over the max tax requirement. One of the unintended consequences of progressive tax policy is the increase in inequality. Large companies and the owners who are already affluent have no issues in handling the tax rates while the individuals who seek to be successful must pay the price of increasing capital and wealth. One of the most important things to consider is the disruption of economic justice in the form of "equal pay for equal work." In the progressive tax system, an individual who works more than his or her colleges would make more money overall, but his efforts and time would be worth less with every extra hour of work. Within the same realm of diminishing return is the disinterest of people to make any capital investment based solely on the added cost. 

In conclusion, a progressive tax system is functional in theory, but it is detrimental to the overall society's progress. It inadvertently fuels inequality by placing a financial burden on people from the minimum wage worker making overtime hours to entrepreneurs seeking to expands their businesses. The increasing rates affect all socio-economic tiers except the elite and ultra-wealthy. When thinking on the aspect of liberty, progressive tax policy is detrimental for individual growth and one’s ability to maximize wealth. A proportional tax system is not exactly appealing to the average person as it is perceived to take more of one's income, but it facilitates financial growth in the short and long term, unlike progressive tax. Regardless, taxation is after all a necessary evil needed to pay for public services, but its' form of financing should be one that results in a better return on investment than the one we have today.

Choosing Freedom

 In the current global environment, it has become more and more prominent to see the association between supporting or “choosing” one’s government as a signal of their showing of freedom. We see all the time, individuals voting themselves essentially into submission of what is and exists. But Friedrich Hayek was able to see right through this. You see, F.A. Hayek believed that “Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” (Hayek, The Meaning of Liberty Page 3). I tend to agree with Hayek regarding this particular issue.

            One of the primary arguments made by Hayek here, is that securing freedom is undeniably more difficult than we have been perceiving to this point. There are so many unforeseen or simply not thought about ways in which our freedom is manipulated or lost. For example, Hayek believes it “would also be absurd to argue that young people who are just entering into active life are free because they have given their consent to the social order into which they were born: asocial order to  which  they  probably  know  no  alternative  and which  even  a  whole  generation  who  thought differently from their parents could alter only after they had reached mature age” (Hayek, The Meaning of Liberty Page 3).  This is to say that the common perception we feel in society; of hitting a certain age gaining “freedom” and becoming more individualistic has actually been a fallacy the whole time. This intrinsic sense of freedom and relief we tend to feel, almost as a coming of age moment is in actuality just the occurrence of a preconceived notion of our society. There is no reason of our own to be celebrating the acquisition of “freedom” at age 18, instead our society engrains in us that certain ages determine the true moment of acquisition of false freedom.

            The ultimate purpose of making a point like this is to point out that there is inherit danger associated with identifying liberty with the process of active participation in public power and public lawmaking. “The danger of confusion here is that this use tends to obscure the fact that a person may vote or contract himself into slavery and thus consent to give up freedom in the original sense. (Hayek, The Meaning of Liberty Page 3). Thus this false “freedom” we feel we acquire through age is further disproven through the reality that our freedoms can be sacrificed and gotten rid of through decision of our own should we chose to do so.

            Ultimately, Hayek understands that aligning one’s self with one’s government is in reality, not to necessarily to secure freedom. Ultimately, freedom in many senses is just an individual attempt to alter their own reality in some meaningful way to their liking. What we can gather from this idea is that freedom can be a fleeting thought when viewed through the lens that alignment with one’s government is to secure freedom. Ultimately, freedom must be viewed as a an asocial order to which new generations know no alternative.

Politics Is Like a Bad Boyfriend | Guest: Hanna Waugh | Ep 90

Politics Is Like a Bad Boyfriend | Guest: Hanna Waugh | Ep 90

An Education Policy for a Free-er Society

Education, within any Economy, can play an important role in advancing human capital which can drastically effect the GDP of a given nation. There are many policies surrounding education but, McCloskey believes education policy needs to be less socialized than it is today appealing to a more liberalized policy. He recommends and critiques that "you and I be taxed... to finance the education of the poor" but that, "financing by voucher is not the same as governmental provisions". McCloskey shows it is important to fund education as it increases economic growth and the human scope of life but, orders from the government to staff schools by public employees is a very socialized idea and that can quite possibly take away from primary and secondary education.

With these criticisms of primary and secondary education, McCloskey continues his criticism of education being too socialized into higher education where he calls the "triumph of the Administrative University" deplorable. McCloskey attributes the shockingly bad quality of higher education to the impulse of central planning, the idea that things can be easily planned and need to be. He believes education, much like the economy, "the more complex and specialized and spontaneously bettering an economy [education] is, the less it can be planned". This idea of planning, shown through the "Federal Register of eighty thousand new pages every year or, in universities' bulky faculty handbooks", leads in the opposite direction of Liberty 

Through these examples, McCloskey has shown education policies that we follow today in which do not promote free society. We should listen and learn from McCloskey because education plays a huge role, if not the most important, in economic growth because of the importance of human capital, and when we can educate with purpose, not force, "liberalism leads to riches and liberty [within education] for the working class.

U.S. Economic Freedom Ranking

 

            Since this class is about economic freedom, I decided to look at the United States economic freedom rankings compared to other counties around the world. As of 2020 the United States has a score of 76.6 and has an overall ranking of 17^th in the world according to the Index of Economic freedom. The United States economic freedom score has declined for the past 10 years. Some reasons for the decline include the current administrations protectionist trade policies regarding the tariffs imposed on China, and the extreme amount of regulations put on businesses.

            The tariffs currently imposed on China have had a negative effect on the economy. According to taxfoundation.org “the tariffs imposed so far by the Trump administration would reduce long-run GDP by 0.23 percent ($58.02 billion) and wages by 0.15 percent and eliminate 179,800 full-time equivalent jobs.” McCloskey said “People usually think that the more complicated and developed your economy is, then the more your government should regulate it with tariffs and licenses and regulation and the rest. The more complicated an economy is, the less the government can sensibly intervene.” (https://knowledge.ckgsb.edu). These tariffs hurt ordinary people especially farmers and individuals with lower incomes. Tariffs ultimately raise prices and slow economic growth. Does not sound like economic freedom to me!

            The regulations being imposed on businesses can lead to a loss of economic efficiency and slow growth. According to heritage.org, “Since early 2009, more than 180 new major federal regulations have been imposed on business operations at an estimated annual cost of nearly $80 billion. Each new edict has meant new government bureaucracy that entrepreneurs and producers must navigate.” The constant creation of new regulations has obviously hurt businesses and slowed overall growth. The U.S. needs to work on getting closer to the number 1 spot on the economic freedom world rankings, instead of their continuing decline.

 

Works Cited: https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2016/book/economicfreedominamerica.pdf

                      https://knowledge.ckgsb.edu.cn/2017/10/18/conversations/deirdre-mccloskey-chinese-economy-great-enrichment/

                     https://taxfoundation.org/tariffs-trump-trade-war/ 

Intellectual property in a free market economy

It is estimated that the wheel was invented in circa 3,500 BC and spread rapidly across the Eastern hemisphere. Over generations, modifications have been made to the original design and today there are millions of patents in the world based on different materials, construction, etc. When this invention first came to be, anyone was able to manufacture a wheel and sell it if they had the materials and knowledge to build one. Today, patents are considered intellectual property and give the owner the legal right to prevent others from manufacturing and selling a product that follows the same specifications as the one he or she created. Granted these patents issued by the government are set to be active for a limited time and when talking about wheels, it does not matter as the market is flooded with many models by different companies. What about life-saving medicine? A laboratory that manufactures and patents a cure for a deadly disease could set the price to whatever ridiculous amount they believe it to be worth. Chemists cannot simply modify formulas to attack viruses and bacteria like wheel manufactures can just choose to use a different metal alloy and design. A laboratory that develops and patents a cure first, corners the market and becomes a monopoly in a free market economy. Intellectual property such as patents has always been considering as a policy tool to encourage innovation rather than a natural right. The question is simple; should patents exist in a free market economy?

Friedrich Hayek believed a society that prospers is one that is driven by creativity and innovation, which is only possible in a free market economy. While the purpose of Intellectual Property Rights, such patents, is to encourage the individual to be creative and innovative, it can also have destructive effects on the fields of science and technology. In his books "The fatal conceit: The errors of socialism" Hayek wrote:

"The difference between (copyrights and patents) and other kinds of property rights is this: while ownership of material goods guides the use of scarce means to their most important uses, in the case of immaterial goods such as literacy productions and technological inventions the ability to produce them is also limited. Yet once they have come into existence, they can be indefinitely multiplied and can be made scarce only by law in order to create an inducement to produce such ideas." 

 While genuine property rights enhance economic efficiency by the allocation of resources and promoting a decentralized system, patents tend to do the complete opposite. In a sense, intellectual property such as patents create forced scarcity and in cases such as scientific research, refrain progress and economic growth. In the United States, any patent filed since 1995 last twenty years. Laboratories that file for a patent first, can press legal charges against any research facility that utilizes similar formulas and methods of production and as a result eliminating competition. A free-market economy without competition that comes as a result of government involvement is not a free market economy. 

In summary, intellectual property such as patents inadvertently contributes to the unfair and unequal distribution of income and property. Even though little to no government interaction is part of a free market economy, patents have been used to exert pressure on competitors and justify the abuse of power by many companies over the years. Intellectual property does have positive effects on inducing members of society to be creative and innovative to be successful in a competitive market, but only if that specific market is designed to welcome more competition, such as that of wheel manufacturing. Unfortunately, the cure for cancer is not a wheel that can be modified in size and change the materials it is made of to not infringe any patents. In my opinion, patents as they are today, taking into consideration the legal protections give to the owner and the length of time they are issues for, have no place in a free market economy. 

Hayek, Friedrich August von., and William Warren. Bartley. The Fatal Conceit: the Errors of Socialism. Routledge, 1988.