Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Month: March 2019

The Anniversary They Hope You Missed

February 19th came and went, and for the most part, I really doubt many woke up wondering if that day had any significance. Few websites covered it, the radio was silent in regards to it, and the mainstream cable news outlets may have touched on it for perhaps a few passing seconds. For a country that often reflects on the sins of our past, Americans have all but forgotten the anniversary of the fascist decision by the Roosevelt Administration during WWII to take Japanese-Americans and stick them in concentration camps. February 19th, 1942, Mises Institute writer Ryan McMaken reminds us, was when FDR “issued Executive Order 9066 authorizing military personnel to lock Americans of Japanese descent in concentration camps that are often euphemistically called ‘internment camps.’” Now “internment camps” sounds a lot less worse than “concentration camps” but the differences are non-existent. According to McMaken “the term ‘concentration camp’ is not a pejorative term. Using the term to describe the camps for Japanese-Americans is both appropriate and properly descriptive.” Upon FDR’s Executive Order, 66 percent of Americans of Japanese descent were forcibly relocated to the camps for the duration of WWII after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Imagine if we took 66 percent of our Arab population and put them in camps after the attacks on 9/11 for the duration of the War on Terror. According to Softschools.com, “Because the camps were not yet completed when Roosevelt signed the executive order, the Japanese prisoners were held in temporary shelters such as stables in racetracks.” Many thousands of Japanese-Americans were forced to sell their homes and all their property, and even military veterans of WWI, who fought and served their country, lost all their constitutional rights and were sent to the camps. The only option for leaving the camps was if one chose to enlist to fight on behalf of the same country which treated them and their families as criminals based solely on their race and heritage. “So, while the American camps were relatively safe and healthy,” McMaken writes, “it would be unwise to attribute to assumed American generosity. The fact is the US regime could afford to feed the residents while the general population more or less forgot about them. Had the US experienced something like Stalingrad, the Roosevelt Administration — which was not above prosecuting peaceful Americans under the Espionage Act — may have turned to harsher measures against interned populations.” Twenty-four years after the end of WWII, the US Government finally began to pay back restitution for the survivors of the camps, but the survivors would not see a dime of the $20,000 each were allocated for another 24 years in 1988, in which only 60,000 survivors were still alive. Often terms like “fascist” and “dictator” are thrown around, but American society has either forgotten or made excuses on behalf of Roosevelt and the American government, turning their backs on the rights of American citizens during a time of war, and barely making amends several generations later.

DonorSee Shows Voluntary Cooperation in Action

Charity is often put aside during presidential election years, as politicians on both sides of the political spectrum want to use your taxpayer dollars to fund their pet projects. Additionally, politicians will attempt to guilt you into voting for them because they claim they are better stewards of your money than you are. Hate poverty? Pay more taxes. See a natural disaster? New government agency. A neighbor in a tough financial spot? Sign up for a welfare program. The more we push away responsibilities to our government, the more disconnected we become towards each other and become less incentivized to ensure our money is being spent the right way. While online crowdfunding platforms such as Indiegogo and Kickstarter are a great way to help fund a cause ranging from inventors to covering someone’s funeral expenses, there is always the likelihood you are being tricked into something that intends to take your money and run. In the world of government, it is well known that fraud, waste, and abuse also run rampant. Whereas the market treats you like a customer, the government treats you like a liability. There is a large disconnect in the mentality regarding service, quality, and outcome because of these mindsets. So how does one take more individual responsibility in one’s community instead of granting the government more authority, while at the same time course correcting the supervisory aspect consumers are supposed to have on private organizations? Enter DonorSee, founded by humanitarian Gret Glyer several years ago. DonorSee is as simple as it is revolutionary; its goal is to provide funding for humanitarian projects that users oversee and have a direct role in, and during the process, they have to submit proof over a period of time that your money is going directly towards the project. These personalized updates are the difference between suspicion and trust. According to the site, “When you give on DonorSee, your money is sent directly to help people in need via our network of on-the-ground partners. After you give, our partners send you personalized updates showing you exactly how your money is helping. For example, if you give to a project for a malnourished baby that needs formula milk, we will send you updates of that baby returning to a healthy weight because of your donation.” This is different compared to so many other private charities, NGO’s, and government organizations, where most the donated money is consumed in overhead expenses and never reaches the destination donors thought they were going to. What makes DonorSee quick to respond and efficient in their progress is that “all projects on DonorSee are $500 or less. They are small ways to make a sustainable impact in the lives of real people in real need.” DonorSee is so effective, the Peace Corps saw it as direct competition and therefore banned their employees from using the platform. DonorSee is voluntaryism in action, showing that when people see a problem, they can cooperate and develop progress in ways government simply can’t.

The U.S Government Should Stay Far Away From Venezuela

On February 25, Marco Rubio posted a cryptic before and after photo of Muammar Gaddafi that caused quite a stir on social media. Lost in this photo was the political context. Gaddafi was historically a thorn in the side of U.S. interests since the late 1970s.  When the Arab Spring transpired in 2011, Libya broke into civil war. This compelled the U.S. and its NATO coalition to take action and support anti-Gaddafi rebels to remove him from power. Gaddafi was ultimately deposed as the NATO-backed Libyan rebels captured and killed him in broad daylight. A still image from the video of that infamous incident was the after image in Rubio’s post. This was no casual tweet. Given the past month of U.S. saber-rattling towards Venezuela, Rubio’s tweet was a veiled threat to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. On January 10, 2019, the opposition-controlled National Assembly of Venezuela declared that Maduro’s 2018 reelection bid was illegitimate and named the National Assembly President Juan Guaidó as the acting president of Venezuela. On January 23, the U.S. later recognized Guaidó as the legitimate head of Venezuela. As a result, Venezuela has descended into a presidential crisis that has garnered considerable international attention. The U.S. has led the charge against the Venezuelan government by imposing sanctions on state owned-oil company PDVSA for supposedly plundering resources and certain government officials who have obstructed the entrance of humanitarian aid into Venezuela. Pressure on Venezuela increased when foreign policy advisor John Bolton, a seasoned interventionist, had discretely scribbled on his notepad a few lines about deploying 5,000 troops to Colombia, which the public could see during a White House briefing. Naturally, speculation about potential military intervention in Venezuela has emerged. Although he has not openly called for military action to depose Maduro, Marco Rubio has flirted with the idea in the past and has generally agreed with Trump’s stance to have “all options” on the table when dealing with Venezuela. Rubio’s controversial tweet came in response to a violent weekend on February 23, when pro-government militia forces clashed with the opposition, leaving four people dead. This incident was sparked by a shipment of humanitarian aid coming from Colombia, which the government and its allies tried to break up. Whether or not Guaidó is the legitimate leader of Venezuela is neither here nor there. What is certain is that the U.S. should stay out of Venezuela altogether. The U.S. simply cannot afford to be involved in another military excursion. There’s no telling the unintended consequences — lives lost, the number of people displaced, and fiscal damage — that such an endeavor will bring. The U.S. has spent more than  $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively. Additionally, the U.S. has sustained significant casualties, losing 2,350 troops in Afghanistan and 4,488 troops in Iraq. However, civilian collateral damage completely dwarfs U.S. military losses in these areas with conservative estimates pointing to nearly 250,000 being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. A similar scenario would likely play out if the U.S. were to get involved in the region. However, this is the Venezuelan people’s fight. If Americans want to get involved, they should do so in a private capacity through humanitarian aid or private security services. But, we should not reflexively turn to military action to fix Venezuela or any nation, for that matter. With the national debt at $22 trillion, the U.S. is teetering on the edge of fiscal collapse. Another foreign adventure would put the country on the downward spiral of economic turmoil. Venezuela is the current poster child of socialist failure. At the core of national sovereignty is the right for nations to fail. These failed models give us important information on what policies generate economic prosperity and what policies lead to economic collapse. In the Venezuelan case, it’s clear that socialism has left it in shambles, just like it has done to countless other countries. However, that does not obligate the U.S. to intervene in Venezuela. In fact, many countries like the Baltic Tigers of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were able to defeat socialism and transition to capitalism without foreign intervention. Not all hope is lost in Venezuela. Alternatives like secession, are viable ways to break-up the oppressive Venezuelan state and offer Venezuelans an escape option. However, we must remember that the same government that mismanages our economy, capable of making countries like Venezuela even worse should it decide to intervene.

Legal Weed Reduced Smuggling

A basic understanding of economics can simplify complicated issues regardless of what politicians and news pundits would have you think. When we look at marijuana smuggling, for example, weed used to be the cash crop in terms of illicit drugs smuggled from Mexico over into the U.S. However, the rise in the number of states with legal weed is providing the government with some numbers they might not feel too happy about. According to David Bier, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute who analyzed the drug trade in a recent piece at Reason Magazine, in 2018 “the average Border Patrol agent was seizing just 25 pounds [of marijuana] for the entire year, or less than half a pound per week– a drop of 78 percent from 2013.” So has the threat of the wall diminished drug smuggling across the border? Are Americans just tired of weed? No to both, consumers would just rather go in broad daylight to a legal store where their product isn’t laced with rat poison instead of dealing with someone that might shoot them in an alleyway. Bigthink.com explained this cause, stating that back “in 2014, Colorado and Washington moved to fully legalize marijuana, and more states began to follow. This legalization correlated with not only a decrease in marijuana seizures at the U.S.–Mexico border but also a drop in seizures of all drugs.” Basic economics can explain this even further; the supply from Mexican cartels is being blocked by the supply from legal marijuana growers in states where it is legalized, meaning the supply drop has everything to do with the legalization of the drug and less with a wall, or at least the threat of one. The constant and growing U.S. demand for drugs from Mexico is what has ramped up drug trafficking across the border the last forty years, and now that Americans can get their product domestically instead through legal means, they don’t have to go through the drug cartels meaning the cartels have less incentive to cross the border carrying substances no one wants to buy anymore. However, the tug of war between legal drugs and illegal drugs has caused some cartels to increase the supply of dangerous drugs such as fentanyl and heroine, meaning “these rises, which were measured in the value of drugs seized, only occurred at ports of entry where a border wall would have no effect.” What all this shows is that education, legalization, and decriminalization will do more to reduce crime and usage of drugs and substances which are killing a record number of Americans each year.