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

Author: Jose Nino

Social Media Titans Kick Out Stefan Molyneux. What’s Next?

 
Image credit: Unsplash
Big Tech has been busy in the past two weeks kicking off a number of political commentators from their platforms. The reasons have been vague, if not unknown, but there seems to be a clear bias against right-wing individuals, which does not bode well for open discussion in politics. Although these acts are carried out by private institutions, many free speech advocates should still be wary of Big Tech’s constant hall monitoring of political discourse.  Of the most high profile, social media bannings was that of Canadian philosopher and commentator Stefan Molyneux. Since 2006, Molyneux has established himself as one of the more controversial philosophers on YouTube. Molyneux started out running a company that specialized in environmental management information systems software which he eventually sold in 2002. Since then, he has used his YouTube platform to expound his beliefs, eventually turning into a full-time content creator. One of the beauties of the entire process is that he didn’t need any credentials to talk about philosophy and establish himself as an authority on philosophical topics. Indeed, the Internet has broken down outdated institutions and allowed new entrants to challenge legacy actors who benefit from credentialism and perpetuate establishment narratives. Molyneux took advantage of YouTube’s dynamism at the time and grew his audience to solid levels. According to a report from the social media analytics website Social Blade, Molyneux had 928,000 subscribers and over 300 million views. As far as Twitter is concerned, Molyneux racked up nearly 460,000 followers. Like many thinkers throughout their lives, Molyneux began to shift in his views and focus on more controversial topics such as mass migration, race and gender relations, and political correctness in recent years. His message was definitely not for all, but it marked a different stage in his life as a philosopher. No one is static after all. Even with these changes in his career, Molyneux maintained a peaceful outlook and tried the best he could to promote debate—a breath of fresh air in a time when people are getting “canceled” left and right (though mostly right) for not submitting to establishment orthodoxy in political discussions. Unfortunately, Molyneux became a victim of such culture when YouTube decided to put the clamps on his channel and a series of others. Tech sites like The Verge reported, “The channels repeatedly violated YouTube’s policies, a YouTube spokesperson said, by alleging that members of protected groups were inferior. These come alongside other violations that led to YouTube taking action.”  But the thought-policing of Molyneux did not stop there. Days after the YouTube ban, Twitter followed suit with a spokesperson telling CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy that Molyneux’s account “was suspended for spam and platform manipulation, specifically operating fake accounts.” We may never find out what truly motivated the banning of Molyneux on both Twitter and YouTube, but we most certainly lost a strong dissident voice. Even if you disagreed with him, the best way to debate his ideas would be in a public forum. Like any other debate, we would discuss the merits of Molyneux’s arguments and decide for ourselves if they hold weight or not. Much to our lament, the Big Tech hall monitors deprived us of this opportunity.  The cultural implications of deplatforming cannot be overstated. In a culture that actually values freedom, there would be freedom of expression no matter how controversial the subject is. Although there are differences in kind when dealing with how governments censor people and social media platforms remove users, the latter should still concern proponents of freedom. For example, platforms like Facebook have teamed up with the Atlantic Council — a think tank that has received funding from the U.S. government and other foreign governments to combat foreign interferenceduring the 2018 election season. Although Silicon Valley ostensibly had libertarian leanings as its influence grew during its early years, it has a long track record of teaming up with legacy institutions, such as those within the military-industrial complex. Silicon Valley’s embrace of political correctness culture is indicative of a broader trend towards thought-policing that’s becoming pervasive in our culture. In his book, Skin in the Game, Nassim Taleb argues that threats to free speech can come from non-state actors:
“Effectively, there is no democracy without such an unconditional symmetry in the rights to express yourself and the gravest threat is the slippery slope in the attempts to limit speech on grounds that some of it may hurt some people’s feelings. Such restrictions do not necessarily come from the state itself, rather from the forceful establishment of an intellectual monoculture by an overactive thought police in the media and cultural life.”
Given the nature of the managerial state, which has focused more on behavior modification while maintaining a semblance of respect for private control of the means of production, the lines have blurred between the private and the public. So, this makes handling the issue of social media deplatforming a thorny one for free market advocates.  There is, however, a cause for optimism. Similar to the rise of alternative media in the face of increased broadcast media consolidation, several social media competitors such as GAB. Bitchute and DLive have emerged in order to provide a safe haven for those who share controversial opinions. Although it is reasonable to believe that these alternatives will likely not reach mainstream levels of recognition, their existence still serves as a fallback option. The very act of being deplatformed can basically deprive a creator of their livelihood. The presence of these alternatives demonstrates the power of market forces. As long as there’s a demand for alternative platforms, there will generally be entrepreneurs who are willing to build these services. Where there’s a problem, there will generally be a market solution waiting in the wings. In the meantime, harnessing the alternative platforms available as they gain more traction is the best move for content creators out there who have controversial things to say about politics and the social landscape. That means we must continue to explain the value of free speech and open discourse and defend alternative platforms that promote controversial discourse.

Are Unemployment Benefits the Best Way to Help Workers During Times of Economic Crisis?

 
(Image credit, Unsplash)
The current COVID-19 crisis has thrown a major wrench into people’s daily work lives. Thanks to a number of stay-at-home orders and lockdown measures passed at the local and state level, many Americans have been put out of work indefinitely or in extreme cases, permanently. In response to the pandemic, the federal government has taken it upon itself to issue stimulus checks to Americans of certain income brackets, provide emergency loans through the Payment Protection Program, and allow for extended unemployment insurance. A case can be made for Americans to receive some form of compensation during a time of the pandemic, especially when governments are taking such heavy-handed measures that disrupt their daily lives. When governments take collective actions, ostensibly for the “public good”, there should be some degree of accountability and recompense handed out to people whose economic affairs were disrupted as a result of that public policy. One specific case where there needs to be a modicum of restraint is regarding unemployment benefits. According to the Labor Department, 40 million Americans are officially out of work, and as many have filed unemployment claims. Although unemployment insurance functions as a small safety net for those down on hard times, it is accompanied by its own set of problems. During large-scale crises such as the one, we are currently confronting we see how such programs can be expanded to unwieldy levels. For example, in March, $3.89 billion was paid out in unemployment benefits. But this figure skyrocketed to $22.76 billion by May. With any legislative action, there’s always a need to exercise prudence. Proactive legislative measures regarding economic activity tend to generate unintended consequences and create a whole host of new problems. This engenders another cycle of economic intervention that predictably leads to more unintended consequences. Unless policymakers strike at the root, the cycle continues in perpetuity. Such unintended consequences are visible in the case of Maryland restaurant owner Melony Wagner. A month ago she claimed that she couldn’t get her employees to return to work given that they receive more in unemployment benefits than their regular wage. “They don’t want to [come back to work] and I don’t really want a restaurant full of unhappy employees,” Wagner told FOX 5 News. “They don’t want to because it is less money. I am not even angry or upset with them. I understand. Why would you want to come back and actually work and make half as much money or two-thirds as much money – and you are working – as you can get to stay home,” Wagner commented. Under the CARES Act, Americans who became unemployed due to the COVID-19 related shutdowns can receive an additional $600 weekly on top of what they’re receiving from their state. This federal unemployment program went into effect on April 22nd and will stay in place until July 31st. According to a Congressional Research Service report on state unemployment insurance released in 2019, the majority of states provide unemployment benefits for up to 26 weeks. The report noted that 1.6 million unemployed people were recipients of $364 in weekly benefits in August 2019. Maximum payouts to the unemployed vary considerably at the state level. In the case of Massachusetts, a person can potentially receive $1,192 weekly if they list the maximum amount of dependents on their unemployment insurance. On the other hand, Mississippi residents can only claim $235 per week even if they put down the maximum amount of dependents when they file their unemployment claims. For those living in Maryland, where the restaurant owner is currently operating in, residents can claim a maximum of $430 weekly for a period of six months. Factoring in the additional $600 they can receive in federal benefits, Maryland residents could be eligible for a total of $1,030 in unemployment claims until the end of July. Congressional Democrats have exploited the economic uncertainty in the current COVID-19 reality by introducing a new relief package that would extend the $600 unemployment benefits until the end of 2020, and for some people, until March 2021. While programs such as these are well-intentioned, economic realities can no longer be ignored. The national debt is currently north of $26 trillion. Extending unemployment will exacerbate the shortfall. More importantly, unemployment benefits pervert incentives and keep people dependent on such aid. As a result, they will subsequently have no real desire to return to the workforce in a timely manner. In previous eras when the government was considerably leaner, America could count on a more robust civil society that was ready to step up and help out Americans in need. The rise of the modern-day welfare state, which started with the New Deal, and was consolidated during the Great Society marked radical shifts in public policy, whereby the government usurped functions that traditionally belonged to lower levels of government and civil society. The results have been deleterious, to say the least, with dependency and the destruction of the traditional family structure becoming the norm after the welfare state became firmly ingrained in the American polity. Such social disintegration has led to what political scientist Robert Putnam describes as Bowling Alone (his seminal book), where American civic engagement has deteriorated and overall levels of social trust have completely plummeted during the last 50 years. Although government-sponsored unemployment insurance only scratches the surface as far as welfare programs are concerned, it does generate dependency and disincentivizes able-bodied individuals from entering the workforce. Since the welfare state is not going away anytime soon, it makes sense for those of us who believe in free markets and government restraint to rebuild civic institutions that used to serve as an alternative to the welfare state. In previous eras such as the Gilded Age up until the 1960s, mutual aid institutions were the go-to options for people who caught rough breaks. If politicians refuse to roll back the welfare state, free individuals can still build alternatives of their own volition. Thanks to online innovations like crowdfunding and increased interconnectivity, we have more resources at our disposal to help out others. As long as human ingenuity exists, there’s always a way to build non-state solutions to some of the real problems people face. Oftentimes, we don’t need to wait for Congress to pass reforms to make our vision for a free society become a reality.

Media Consolidation: Made Possible By Disingenuous Deregulation

Image credit: AbsolutVision, Unsplash
Since the establishment of the Gutenberg press, Western societies have made impressive leaps in the dissemination of information. Information that was once only accessible to the priesthood and political elites can now be accessed by laypeople of all backgrounds. As the television arrived in the 20th century, the news could be disseminated to millions. On top of that, people were able to access multiple channels of entertainment during their leisure time. Unprecedented to say the least.  However, markets don’t always develop in a clean or linear manner. There are always hiccups along the way. One troublesome trend that has emerged in the last 50 years is that of media consolidation. This refers to the increased concentration of news ownership in the hands of a small group of corporations. According to the late journalist Ben Bagdikian, about forty years ago, the majority of U.S. media was in the hands of 50 corporations. In present times, six corporations — GE/Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS— control 90 percent of the media. This marks a rapid consolidation of the media sector during the last few decades.  Many media critics attribute this consolidation to the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allegedly deregulated the media sector and allowed corporations to consolidate more easily. However, the deregulatory nature of this legislation is perhaps overstated. Critics like consumer advocate Ralph Nader contended that the legislation represented one of the grossest examples of corporate welfare at the time. In a testimony before the U.S. House Committee on the Budget in 1999, Nader asserted that “the government wrote a $70 billion check to the broadcast industry,” in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which “handed over the digital television spectrum to existing broadcasters.” As Nader explained, “the broadcasters will pay nothing for the exclusive right to use the public airwaves, even though the FCC itself estimated the value of the digital licenses to be worth $11 billion to $70 billion.” In his testimony, Nader also called attention to the following:
The giveaway was mandated, in part, by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which prohibited, under demands by the broadcaster lobby, the FCC from auctioning off the airwaves. The Telecommunications Act also required the FCC, if it decided to allocate the licenses, to give them only to incumbent broadcasters.
Back in 2001, five years after the Telecommunications Act was passed, Adam Thierer of the Cato Institute aptly noted, “The notion that the telecom industry has been deregulated is a fairy tale.” Thierer described the legislation as “Deregulation Lite,” with “some minor rules and restrictions relaxed.”  Thierer noted three developments that should call into question any assertion that there has been wholesale deregulation:  
  • In August 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its mammoth 737‐​page, 3,200-footnote “Interconnection Order.” The edict, which ranks as one of the longest and most convoluted rules in the history of regulatory policy making, produced a stream of litigation. In fact, the Supreme Court recently decided to hear another round of cases dealing with ambiguous and controversial Telecom Act regulations.
  • In May 1997, the agency created the “E‐​Rate” program (known in most circles as the “Gore tax”), which unilaterally established a new government bureaucracy to help wire schools and libraries to the Internet. The FCC then decided the American people would pick up the $2.25 billion per year tab for the program by imposing a hidden tax on everyone’s phone bills.
  • Finally, since the Telecom Act became law, FCC spending and staffing grew to all‐​time highs. Last year, the FCC requested a gross budget of almost $280 million and total staffing of 1,975 people. By comparison, 10 years ago FCC spending stood at $108 million and staffing at 1,734 people. In other words, the FCC’s budget has doubled over the past decade and the agency has hired roughly 250 additional bureaucrats.
What the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shows is that partial privatization is a mixed bag. More often than not, partial privatization keeps several flawed regulatory provisions that protect incumbent business interests. In such circumstances, market advocates should call for further deregulation and other measures that strip established corporations of their crony privileges. In sum, it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that telecommunications have been fully deregulated. Starting up a TV or radio station is still no walk in the park. Anyone who wants to start up traditional media endeavors has to pay substantial fees for FCC licenses and go through the typical bureaucratic rigmarole of paperwork just to stay in the government’s good graces. Even with the government’s regulatory constraints, groups of individuals have come together voluntarily on the Internet to create blogs and alternative media to counter mainstream media. There was no need to pass laws or regulations for this to come about. Although there are some understandable concerns regarding Big Tech’s consolidation, the Internet still offers relatively low barriers to entry compared to traditional broadcast media. With the internet, there is still a sliver of hope for new entrants to innovate. The beauty of markets is their ability to adapt to circumstances and solve problems that everyday people face. People have routinely complained about the vacuous and corrupt nature of mainstream media. In a recent podcast of the Joe Rogan Experience, journalists Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball — who are in divergent ideological camps — brought an interesting perspective on the nature of mainstream media. They called attention to the excessive gatekeeping and credentialism that the field is filled with. Even more intriguing is the nature of relying on talking points to deliver political messages. This makes sense when taking into account the limited airtime commentators have when discussing policy topics. Such a constrained environment for political discussion has left many viewers somewhat disappointed. However, there is a reason for rational optimism. In the last decade, the demand for Internet-based alternative media that is more factual than agenda-driven has soared in popularity. Now, more people are getting the news from the Internet, namely from blogs and niche websites that cater to specific news preferences. Again, part of the beauty of markets is their problem-solving nature. Indeed, many people are fed up with the legacy media and desire a new outlet for information that is free of political spin. The advent of social media has alleviated some of these problems to an extent. Big Tech has numerous problems of its own though. Sadly, like with many other industries, there exists a trend towards centralization and consolidation. Additionally, the tech sector has embraced some of the most obnoxious aspects of woke culture and has engaged in thought-policing of political expression through deplatforming. Markets are not a panacea, but they’re generally the best option when dealing with how people interact. As users of services, we still have power in terms of our consumption habits and holding companies accountable. When traditional media or social outlets don’t deliver the goods, we have every right to complain and push for alternatives. Furthermore, we are justified in questioning regulations and policies that enable consolidation and protect established corporations from the competition. We live in the 21st century, where new technologies are constantly being formed and uprooting dinosaur institutions. Instead of looking for top-down solutions to media consolidation, we can channel the existing trend of decentralization and use it to break up the old order. Like any institution in the market, traditional media’s existence is not guaranteed. It’s only a matter of time before new, game-changing methods of disseminating information enter the picture and totally upend legacy media for good.  

Monetary Intervention is on Steroids During the COVID-19 Crisis

As America enters another era of economic uncertainty, many are trying to make sense of the decision-making taking place in D.C. regulation deregulation south korea   With more than 33 million Americans filing unemployment, economic prospects look dire and workers across the nation are waiting for what D.C. is planning to do next to cushion this precipitous fall. We must remember that the current slowdown was not the result of market action but was rather caused by a number of state-led shutdowns across the nation. Capitol Hill has taken bold measures by dropping well over $2 trillion in relief packages since last March. As the uncertainty from COVID-19 continues to grow, the likelihood of future spending programs being put forward will increase significantly. Democrats are already rolling out plans for $3 trillion in additional spending. For an advocate of fiscal restraint, such a scenario would be a nightmare as the national debt continues to increase at record-breaking levels.  However, it’s not just Congress taking action during the pandemic. America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, has been busy expanding its balance sheet by buying Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities in unprecedented numbers, ostensibly to “rescue” the economy from impending collapse. Because of the impact, the current lockdowns have had throughout the economy, the Fed has been granted $4 trillion in lending power to bail out whichever institutions it deems fit. For many Americans, monetary policy might fly over their heads, but this does not discount its importance.  America has a long tradition of skepticism towards central banks dating back to the country’s founding. Many of the founders like Thomas Jefferson were skeptical of large banking institutions due to the power they could potentially exert over an economy. In the 20th century, economists from the Austrian school of economics stood out in their criticism of the central banks. Looking back, the Austrians’ anti-central banking positions were justified due to the hyperinflationary episodes that took place in countries such as Weimar Republic Germany, and Argentina. In contemporary times, Venezuela and Zimbabwe have fallen victim to the hyperinflationary trend that is characteristic of loose monetary policies.  Central banking in developed economies like the U.S. has a signature– market intervention through credit expansion and manipulation of interest rates. Although direct money printing is not a hallmark of current central banking policies in the West, the operations of modern-day central banks present a number of unique problems. With the U.S. clearly in an economic downturn, there have been calls for the Fed to keep artificially low-interest rates and even pursue negative interest rates in order to keep the economy’s juices flowing. In previous eras, such ideas would have been scoffed at, but now they’re entering mainstream political discourse. One of the more powerful insights of the Austrian school is its analysis of the danger of central banks tampering with interest rates. The enactment of low-interest rates encourages the accumulation of unproductive debt, excessive consumer spending, and discourages productive savings. Eventually, the party comes to an end after businesses recognize they made errors in their investments and have to readjust their business models according to prevailing market conditions. Regular consumers are also compelled to tighten their belts in the correction phase. No part of this process is pretty. It requires great sacrifices and readjustments in economic activities. No matter how institutions like the Fed try to create fictitious economic conditions, market realities will ultimately prevail. Even more insidious is how loose monetary policies generate inequality. In recent decades, the Fed’s actions have largely been directed towards propping up assets such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. As a result, these assets rise in price, while regular consumers who hold money get the short end of the stick. This is due to the reduced purchasing power of money that is brought about by generalized inflation. In essence, asset holders get rich at the expense of everyday money holders. This is illustrated by the infamous Cantillon Effect, named after the renowned French-Irish economist Richard Cantillon, who observed that the first individuals to receive newly created money witnessed their incomes surge while the last people to receive the money experienced a decline in purchasing power as consumer price inflation set in. Additionally, the printing of money compels people of humble economic means to go into the stock market and other investments to stave off potential inflation. This involves regular people having to pay stiff transaction fees, which benefits the same banks that tend to be the first recipients of freshly printed money. Inequality is usually talked about in sensationalist terms without much attention paid to nuance. Generally speaking, discussions about inequality are followed by calls for government intervention. The desire for the state to step in to solve inequality is misguided, but we should not be dismissive about inequality as a whole. There are certain forms of inequality that are the product of public policy. For that reason, it is incumbent upon us to demonstrate how certain policies coming from central banks contribute to this dynamic. Indeed, most people would love to see the abolition of central banking institutions. Considering how fiscally reckless the U.S. has become, the country could be staring at a sovereign debt crisis in the not too distant future. At that point, there will be a strong incentive for the government to debase its currency in a desperate attempt to pay off the debt with depreciated dollars. Under such circumstances, Americans will inevitably be subject to a wholesale reduction of their standard of living. So what can be done? Politics is a messy process and the potential for legislation to reform, let alone, abolish central banking, almost seems like a fleeting prospect at this juncture. The good news is that markets find ways to solve many of the problems people face on a daily basis. The question of monetary policy is now being addressed through the rise of Bitcoin and other digital currencies on the free market. Indeed, digital currencies are still in their infancy but they are providing valuable lessons to millions across the globe on how money works. Namely, money can emerge in private markets, and when left to operate freely, it can serve as an alternative to state-controlled currencies. A depoliticized money enables the restoration of economic liberties and can correct many of the deleterious effects of government intervention. It may behoove freedom advocates to focus their efforts on developing digital currency infrastructure as opposed to engaging in conventional politics. By putting skin in the game and building a competing monetary infrastructure, we can establish a viable alternative to the status quo of fiat money, thereby making it irrelevant on a gradual basis, without having to partake in the tedious and fraught arena of politics. 
Florida gun rights red flag laws

Alabama State Representative Introduces Law to Nullify Federal Gun Control

Alabama State Representative Tommy Hanes introduced legislation in February that would make certain federal gun control laws “null and void” in Alabama. Florida gun rights red flag laws HB 223 is titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” and has 7 cosponsors. In a statement promoting the bill, Hanes declared, “It’s about standing up for the liberty of law-abiding citizens.” “The Second Amendment is the thread that binds the Constitution. What this does is protect the people’s right to defend themselves, their family, and their property. This country was founded by patriots who recognized that an armed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny. We will fight to uphold this right in Alabama,” he added. HB 223 reads, “All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.” “The Legislature is firmly resolved to support and defend the United States Constitution against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and is duty-bound to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of the Union of the States because only a faithful observance of those principles can secure the nation’s existence and the public happiness,” HB 223 asserts. This nullification bill would make it a Class A misdemeanor for federal agents, employees, or officials to enforce federal gun control laws in the state of Alabama. Such bills are part of a growing movement of distrust motivated by the federal government’s transgressions against the Second Amendment. After Republicans had control of all three branches of government from 2017 to 2018, gun owners expected to see at least some form of progress on pro-gun legislation and possible rollbacks of federal legislation. Sadly, they were in for disappointment when no legislative reforms were made in that timespan. Frustrated, gun owners have had to look elsewhere for a change. Fortunately for them, state legislatures have served as vehicles for reform. Gun owners have been able to score numerous victories on Constitutional Carry. Now, they can make inroads on nullification. Hanes’ bill offers a new path to reform when conventional methods fail. In politics, perseverance and adaptability are the keys to success. When certain strategies fail, liberty activists will have to innovate. Conventionality often yields dismal results.

Federal Reserve Overreach Could Make Inflation a Reality in America

In response to COVID-19, Congress has been on a remarkable spending binge. Congress passed its infamous Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in late March. Ostensibly marketed as a relief for Americans who have had their livelihoods disrupted by shutdowns implemented to contain the spread of the virus, this legislation ended up handing out $2.2 trillion in financial relief. However, as Republican Congressman Thomas Massie pointed out, this bill was filled with all sorts of pork and handouts to special interest groups that clearly do not need government help. This spending binge wasn’t complete without its fair share of Federal Reserve action. The Federal Reserve loaned over $4 trillion to businesses in order to keep the economy intact. On top of that, the Fed lowered the fed funds rate — the rate which banks borrow from each other — to practically zero. The Fed also injected $1.5 trillion to repurchase-agreement operations. That’s a hefty amount of money that the Fed is handing out. In an interview for 60 Minutes, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari was candid in his assessment that “there is an infinite amount of cash at the Federal Reserve.” This came at a time when the Fed bought $650 billion in treasury securities. Although “quantitative easing” is marketed as a “temporary measure”, there is always a strong temptation for central banks to pursue loose monetary policies further down the line. Politicians are addicted to artificial economic growth for electoral purposes. Ideally, they would love to be in the boom phase. On the other hand, tightening the money supply would lead to economic contractions and economic malaise, which is a political death sentence. Given how massive the national debt has become — now standing at $24 trillion — there’s an even stronger incentive to continue pushing for easy money. History has shown that heavily indebted governments will try to devalue their currencies in order to make their debt payments more manageable. Unfortunately, in this quest to eliminate debt, increased currency devaluations will lead to hyperinflationary scenarios. At that point, people’s savings are eviscerated and living standards have lowered dramatically. The Fed’s current partnership with the U.S. Treasury is beginning to cast doubt on the independence of the central bank. Now, the Fed can be relied on to buy up assets from corporations that have made suspect business decisions during the last few years. Under normal circumstances in the market, these actors would be punished and potentially replaced by more accountable competitors. Such central bank activism will create massive economic distortions. America may soon be entering new territory where its monetary malfeasance will finally manifest, not only in stock market collapses, but also in increased inflation. In this inflationary environment, Americans will suffer both decreased job prospects and wholesale reductions in their wealth.This would be a drastic shock for many Americans who have been accustomed to improving living standards over multiple decades. Policymakers should heed the wisdom of the Founding generation and view the Fed with more skepticism. If freedom advocates had their way, the Fed would be abolished and replaced with a free-market monetary system. In a time when the U.S. is wading into economic uncertainty, granting central banks so much power is simply too risky of a proposition.

How Should We Handle the COVID-19 Shutdown?

The COVID-19 pandemic is raising questions not only about public health but also about how governments should be responding to these kinds of crises. What has been particularly controversial about this episode is how state governments have tackled the matter. Several state governments have issued mandatory “stay-at-home” orders, which have restricted people’s movements and in some cases, have led to wholesale shutdowns of many small businesses and peaceful gatherings across the nation. The disruption has been so great that over 16 million Americans have already made unemployment claims. Other countries like China —where the virus originated — have implemented full-blown lockdowns to stem the spread of the virus. Due to China’s well-established tradition of authoritarianism, it was able to implement these policies without much pushback from the populace. However, for the more liberty-minded West, the current pandemic has posed a major dilemma of trying to balance public health with individual rights Certain figures like former Congressman Ron Paul have suggested that what Americans are going through at the moment is “self-destructive hysteria”. Paul has been one of the most vocal opponents of a potential lockdown at the national level. To the Trump administration’s credit, they have taken a measured approach to the pandemic by giving states leeway in setting up their own social distancing policies and shutdown measures. While some states like California have taken a relatively heavy-handed approach by issuing stay-at-home orders and closing all non-essential businesses, states like South Dakota have exercised restraint and have not implemented statewide shutdown orders. Nonetheless, there are still people like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio who are calling for the nationalization of key industries to fight this crisis. I’m not here to debate the merits of how deadly this virus is. There’s good reason to believe that it poses a considerable public health threat. However, there is a strong degree of sensationalism coming from the media and government bureaucrats in order to justify draconian shutdown measures. Crises — real or imagined — are major catalysts of government expansion. Paul is correct in noting that there is a possibility of believing “that this virus can be dangerous while at the same time pointing out that radical steps are being taken in our society – stay-at-home orders, introduction of de facto martial law, etc. – with very little knowledge of just how deadly is this disease.” The U.S. is a vast territory. So certain states will have population patterns, geographical features, and social conditions that differ considerably. The climate of New York (which is currently being rocked by the virus) is considerably different from South Dakota. But for central planners in Washington, D.C., this does not compute. They see the entire U.S. as a voodoo doll that needs to be poked and prodded at all seconds. There comes a point when we have to remain calm and composed in times of crisis. Making policy decisions on impulse leads to measures that could negatively impact the lives of millions. The best policy the federal government could use is one where it issues basic guidelines and lets states craft their own public health policies. The U.S. is a federalist system, where states act as competing laboratories of public policy. Let’s use that instead of relying on an onerous shutdown strategy coming from the top.  

Are American Cities on the Path to Bankruptcy?

According to financial watchdog Truth in Accounting’s 2020 Financial State of the Cities report, numerous American cities are in dire fiscal straits. Out of the 75 most populated cities observed in the report, 63 do not have the means to pay their bills. The total municipal debt for these cities is at $323 billion. cities city bankruptcy The rankings used in the report detailed the cities’ taxpayer burden or surplus. In other words, this is the amount each taxpayer would have to cough up for “municipal debt with nothing, such as benefits and services, in exchange.” For example, New York City only had $62.7 billion in order to pay for $249.4 billion in expenses. In turn, it has a $186.7 billion shortfall, which totals to a burden of $63,100 per taxpayer. In Chicago, which is in second place as far as tax burden is concerned, each taxpayer would have to pay $37,100 in future taxes without receiving any service in return. Similarly, Honolulu found itself in third place at $26,400. On the other hand, some cities like Irvine, California, and Washington, D.C., were much better at keeping their finances straight. The former netted a surplus of $4,100 per taxpayer while D.C. has a surplus of $3,500. From the looks of it, America is starting to become cash-strapped at all levels. Just look at the federal government. It finished 2019 with a $984 billion deficit and $23 trillion in debt. The fiscal profligacy that D.C. has immersed itself in is being emulated by many states and cities across the nation. Americans are already getting themselves into record levels of personal debt as well. What we’re witnessing is a generalized trend that is indicative of a culture that has lost financial restraint. Obviously, there needs to be policy solutions, but most of these changes start at home. Cities ultimately have the choice to pursue policies as they please. I have long argued that most federal programs should be devolved to the state and local level. That’s where America can find federalist solutions to many of its problems. However, cities must take ownership of the problems they have generated through their fiscal recklessness. Public education has played a significant role in putting cities and states on the brink of fiscal collapse. Teacher union interest groups have become parasitically attached to public education, accumulating much wealth at the taxpayer’s expense. Now, these cities will have to confront the economic reality of bankruptcy thanks to these interest groups holding them hostage. Reformers will have to dispense with sacred cows such as public education and consider cuts and privatization schemes for public services corrupted by graft and rent-seeking. If America is serious about fiscal discipline, it must be willing to get its finances straightened out at the local level. From there, it can build enough momentum to make fiscal prudence a reality at the state and federal level.

Hardcore Pro-Gun Groups Are Focusing Their Efforts on State Legislatures

Some pro-gun groups are focusing their efforts exclusively at the state level. National Public Radio recently put a spotlight on Greg Pruett, the president of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance and his efforts to advance legislation that strengthens gun rights. Like some activists in the last few years, Pruett has come to the conclusion that Washington D.C. is filled with a lot of talk and little action. As a result, his organization has become more pragmatic in its approach to legislative change, focusing more on rolling back Idaho’s gun control policies at the local level. It is true that because of gridlock in Washington, D.C. gun policy is largely being determined at state legislatures. On one hand, certain issues like red flag gun confiscation orders have become mainstays in blue states across the nation. On the other hand, Constitutional Carry has made solid progress in more conservatives states. In fact, Idaho recently strengthened its current Constitutional Carry law last month after Governor Brad Little signed HB 516, which now lets all out-of-state residents above the age of 18 carry a firearm without a permit. Idaho is one of the most pro-gun states in the country. It is ranked in 2nd place according to Guns & Ammo magazine’s most gun owner-friendly states. During the last few years, it has led the way in passing legislation such as S.1332, a nullification measure that prohibits the enforcement of future gun control passed at the federal level. Nullification is a time-honored aspect of American politics and is part of the U.S.’s legacy of federalism. Put simply, states can reassert rights that the federal government infringes upon. Such processes put the federal government in check and let states become bastions of liberty when the federal government becomes derelict in its duty to protect traditional freedoms. The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 first asserted states’ rights against the free speech infringements brought about by the federal government’s passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The current shift in activism in Idaho offers a valid lesson not just for Second Amendment proponents, but for people who want to see a whole-sale reduction in government involvement in our daily lives. Any issue — from education freedom to food freedom — can be taken up on a single issue basis and then be promoted locally. By taking efforts locally, freedom advocates can build a solid grassroots movement and reinvigorate local institutions that have long been abandoned. Localist politics might be the way out for America to break out of its increasingly polarized political climate.

Homeschooling is Surging During the Coronavirus Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many major inconveniences nationwide. With businesses shutting down left and right, and general restrictions on people’s ability to move and work, the situation looks dire. However, crises can come with silver linings. Texas taxes education reform As a result of school closures nationwide, many students have seen their classes canceled indefinitely or moved online. In the midst of this shakeup, some parents are even entertaining homeschooling options now that they are home with their children. What seemed like a radical idea, homeschooling is now becoming more accepted as more people are willing to experiment with this method now that they’re at home for extended periods of time. Kerry McDonald, a homeschooling proponent at the Foundation for Economic Education, is stepping up to advise parents on how to adjust to this new educational reality in the short term. Who knows, maybe some of these parents will become sold on the idea of homeschooling. Homeschooling receives a lot of flak from the establishment commentariat. In fact, the Washington Post recently featured an article arguing that the homeschooling conditions created by the stay-at-home orders will result in disparate educational outcomes. Such doubts are typical of homeschooling skeptics. Other detractors of homeschooling have taken a step further by using underhanded means to stifle the use of homeschooling curricula. It is truly ironic that this form of schooling, which was one of several ways Americans used to educate their young before mass public schooling was established, receives so much flak. There are some valid concerns surrounding the lack of socialization and the convenience factor for certain families who may have work or time constraints that make homeschooling next to impossible. Nevertheless, homeschooling should remain a valid option for people to turn to. After all, there should be nothing exclusive about how education is provided. Like any service, it will operate best when the government is kept away from it as much as possible. Ultimately, parents should have multiple educational options to choose from. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the number of American children being home-schooled doubled from 850,000 in 1999 to 1.7 million in 2016. A black swan event like the coronavirus could further strengthen the interest of families who want to mix things up when it comes to their children’s education. Homeschooling could play a significant role in a potential education realignment. Not all crises have to end in disaster. In a crisis, we can find new opportunities and discard outdated methods.

Neoconservatives in the Republican Party Cannot be Trusted

Earlier this year, Senator Rand Paul caused a stir when he stood up against the Republican establishment on the question of using military force abroad. He joined Utah Senator Mike Lee in breaking from the ranks of the GOP by criticizing the airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Paul put particular focus on his Republican colleagues who questioned the patriotism of people who were skeptical of the attack. For all intents and purposes, Soleimani was probably a vile man. However, such a brash operation could have turned out badly had the U.S. escalated to a bolder course of action like using direct military strikes on Iran. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and President Donald Trump has not escalated military action in the region. However, neoconservative cheerleaders in the party were jumping for joy and were preparing to take even harsher action against the country. This has been their M.O. for decades. For them, the entire world is a laboratory that must be subject to constant experimentation through regime change and nation-building projects. Neoconservatism centers on democratic global crusades and some lip service to free markets. On the latter point, neocons will occasionally be solid on issues like tax cuts. But on the economic issues that have massive macroeconomic implications or deal with federal overreach, such as central banking and the regulatory state, neocons have been complicit with the rest of D.C. in perpetuating government. Many neocons will rail against big government on the campaign trail but vote to preserve it once in office. They also fail to see the connection between global democratic crusading abroad and social engineering at home. Similarly, the neocon fetish for never-ending wars betrays all their talk about fiscal conservatism. Certain reports show that the U.S. spent nearly $6.4 trillion on the War on Terror. In addition to the obvious costs that foreign policy misadventures in the Middle East incur, the manner in which these conflicts are conducted is clear affronts to the U.S. constitution. Paul noted that Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution stipulates that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. However, the U.S. is a government characterized by separation of powers. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, authorizes Congress to declare war. A declaration of war is no casual matter, given how it affects all Americans. At the very least, getting congressional input before launching a misguided military venture should be the standard operating procedure for D.C. This is not a foreign concept in our history. For more than a century, America used to conduct foreign policy in such a manner. However, America has largely deviated from such constitutional prudence since World War II. Military actions from the Korean War all the way to President Barack Obama’s actions in Libya and Syria all involved the disuse of formal declarations of war. It would probably behoove our elected officials to go back to constitutionalism in foreign policy matters. By refusing to defend their constitutional authority to declare war, Congress is only ceding more power to the executive branch and allowing special interest groups to run free in D.C., dictating sensitive policy matters with impunity. America’s foreign policy quagmires must end, and a reinvigorated Congress is the only entity that can stop this madness.
Florida gun rights red flag laws

Florida Activists Rightly Sound Off Against Red Flag Laws

In January, a Second Amendment rights forum in Cocoa, Florida, was held to discuss how gun rights are faring in the state. The event featured grassroots activists, commentators, and even pro-gun Florida State Representative Anthony Sabatini. The main focus was a critique of Florida’s controversial red flag law, which enables law enforcement to confiscate a person’s firearms if they are believed to pose a threat to themselves or others. Both Democrats and Republicans were subjects of criticism, and rightfully so. On certain issues, such as gun rights, they have worked together to undermine Americans’ liberties. In the aftermath of the Parkland massacre, political figures looked to politicize the incident and use it as a justification to pass anti-gun legislation. Red flag laws were among the most popular gun control policies pursued after the shooting. While the usual suspects — blue states — were leading the charge, a red state like Florida shockingly joined them when former governor and now U.S. senator, Rick Scott, approved an extensive gun control package following the Parkland tragedy, while having strong support from a Republican-controlled legislature. The bill, SB 7026, enacted red flag provisions, raised the firearm purchase age to 21 and set up a three-day waiting period for all firearms purchases. This was a rather shocking development given Florida’s perception of being a solid, red state. It was rather curious that Scott previously signed a pro-gun measure, strengthening Florida’s Stand Your Ground law the year before. Nevertheless, his capitulation on gun rights shows that when political pressure is too strong, certain politicians will cave into it. When they have loose political principles on certain issues like the Second Amendment, Unsurprisingly, Florida’s pro-gun rankings, per Guns & Ammo magazine, took a hit after the aforementioned gun control package became law. Starting in 2015, Florida stood at a respectable 12th place in the “Best States for Gun Owners” rankings. However, the state lost considerable ground after its gun control bonanza in 2018 and now occupies 24th place in the rankings. One of the speakers, Republican Liberty Caucus Chairman Bob White, noted that the Parkland massacre “was a failure of government at every level.” White’s comment specifically alluded to an Obama-era policy which did not allow school officials to discipline the perpetrator when he was showing warning signs, and then-Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel’s mishandling of the entire tragedy — from failing to prevent the incident from taking place based on the aforementioned warning signs, and the failure of his deputies to enter the school quickly enough as the massacre was unfolding. For this level of incompetence, Israel was removed from his position. A red flag law would not be a compelling fix. After all, gun researcher John Lott observed data from 1970 to 2017 and came to the conclusion that “Red Flag laws appear to have had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault or burglary. There is some evidence that rape rates rise. These laws apparently do not save lives.” Furthermore, the state of Connecticut passed a red flag law in 1999, making it a forerunner in enacting such policies. Like many other forms of gun control, Connecticut’s red flag law could not prevent Adam Lanza from carrying out his horrendous massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. More legislation will likely not be the answer to America’s school violence problems. Instead, schools should consider tightening up their mental health infrastructure, making sure students with suspicious behavior are disciplined accordingly, and school districts should take the initiative of having private security installed at sites. Policy-wise, it would also help if schools were no longer gun-free zones. Altogether, the solutions will likely have to come from the bottom-up. The tired impulse of turning to coercion from the top will do us no good in matters of social dysfunction. We will need to think outside of the box to find ways to improve school safety.