BLOGS - The Advocates for Self-Government

Home » BLOGS

Goldman Sachs’ CEO: Regulations Help Us Grow, Keeping Competitors at Bay

in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics by Alice Salles Comments are off

Goldman Sachs’ CEO: Regulations Help Us Grow, Keeping Competitors at Bay

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Crony capitalism continues to expand big government’s grip, extending the realm under government’s control in ways we once thought impossible. As businesses and employees hurt due to government’s increasing control over all business fields, so does the economy.

GoldmanWhile this issue is inherently a government problem, big business has a lot to do with the growing regulatory burden. Instead of downplaying their role, libertarians should be pointing out how both parties are to blame, and how even big businesses understand this reality and often use it to their advantage.

In a 2015 interview, Goldman Sachs’ CEO Lloyd Blankfein explained how regulations help to protect large, established firms, keeping smaller competitors from having access to the market.

In his own words, he gave the reporter an outline of what happens when a large firm like his is afraid of its competitors, and what’s funny is that few news outlets caught on to the CEO’s unabashed honesty, choosing to never reproduce his comments or downplay their importance.

When talking about how upstart tech companies and the threat they pose to Goldman, Blankfein said that while “all industries are being disrupted to some extent by new entrants coming in from technology,” regulations have been a friend of Goldman mostly because “there are some parts of [Goldman] business, where it’s very hard for outside entrants to come in, disrupt our business, simply because we’re so regulated.”

The burden of regulation, Blankfein added, is a serious issue for “people in our industry,” but, “in some cases,” Blankfein continued, “the burdensome regulation acts as a bit of a moat around our business.”

As you can see, Goldman Sachs’ own CEO refers to regulations as moats. In other words, the regulatory burden can be heavy and Goldman executives agree, but as long as the rules keep competitors from getting anywhere near the Goldman castle, the company doesn’t see a problem with complying.

According to Bill Anderson, a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland, America truly embraced regulations during the Progressive era, following the lead of progressive leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson who believed that “the federal system of delegated powers was archaic and out of date for a ‘modern, progressive’ society.”

To these politicians, stripping “powers from state and local governments and transferring them to Washington, DC” and “convincing members of Congress to give up their own constitutionally-designated powers” were essential steps in making America a truly progressive nation. How did they manage to go about putting their plan in practice? By “crafting of regulatory agencies,” all of which are part of the executive branch.

So next time you see a Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton supporter go on and on about how government and big business should not be involved in any way, remind them of what has enabled this cozy relationship.

College Kids Don’t Understand the First Amendment, Hate It Anyway

in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online by Chloe Anagnos Comments are off

College Kids Don’t Understand the First Amendment, Hate It Anyway

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Last spring, I wrote about college students hating free speech. At the time, I didn’t have a good answer to explain why 22 percent of college students believe that “colleges should prohibit biased or offensive speech in the furtherance of a positive learning environment.” Students are done a disservice when administrators promote “safe spaces” and systems to report microaggressions for situations where students face speech they don’t like or can’t handle.

the_worst_thing_about_censorship-4ea871c-introBut now, I think that that 22% of American students just don’t understand the freedoms protected by the First Amendment – and they hate it because it’s the cool thing to do.

If you haven’t seen the news coverage, countless protests have taken place around the country that are, essentially, against free speech. The irony abounds.

Most recently, Jake Goldberg, a Tufts University sophomore, proposing a sweeping free speech resolution to the campus community, was viciously attacked and maligned on social media by peers who suggest he’s only lobbying for free speech so he can be free to say racist and oppressive things. This is often the tactic taken by those looking to limit freedom. They take the most vile example to become the argument that those advocating for freedom are fighting for.

Tufts University has some of the most restrictive free speech policies in the country, and Goldberg’s resolution calls for an end to campus anti-free speech rules. These rules include vague administrative provisos that crack down on the “use of nicknames,” “hurtful words,” “bias-fueled jokes,” “comments on an individual’s body or appearance,” “innuendos of a sexual nature,” and “gender bias.”

Goldberg created the resolution on behalf of a new organization he co-created called Students Advocating for Students. But many students reacted to the resolution in fits of online rage. Using social media and campus email, students called him every NSFW/K name imaginable.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

How can these students not understand the concept of free speech, and how it’s protected by the First Amendment, when they immediately “peacefully assemble,” or protest, when they’re met with ideas that they don’t like?

In an age where censorship is running rampant on college campuses, students need to realize that it’s their freedom that is at stake – the freedom to say, write and think what they want.

Putting Freedom First

in From Me To You, Liberator Online by Brett Bittner Comments are off

Putting Freedom First

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

On Tuesday evening, I had the opportunity to attend a debate between the candidates for U.S. Senate, here in Indianapolis.

It went about as I expected. We had one candidate who was the walking embodiment of the television commercials we see during every commercial break. We had a second who was an emotionless robot, who spent the entire debate ducking and dodging the charges that were aimed at him. Luckily, we had a third candidate who was there as well, and is a passionate advocate for liberty. She talked about the issues that are actually important to me, and I believe, are important to those voting on November 8th.

The beauty of her message is that she actually got noticed, while the other two spent the entire hour slinging mud at one another, from the introductions to the very end of the debate.

In the end, headline coverage focused on those two and the “politics as usual,” as well as the games that they play, using their focus grouped talking points and all the things that tested really well. Coverage that included the third candidate actually pointed out that she, because of her authenticity and the way that she was talking about issues that were no only important to her, but connecting to the people who watched that debate, she came out the winner.

In the past, we’ve talked about the “Most Important Election of our Lifetime,” and what a fallacy that can be, because we both know that liberty isn’t gained or lost with one vote, one election, or with one issue. What we have is an opportunity that we need to seize. We need to take advantage of the attention and the focus that’s placed on what’s happening before us.

This is our opportunity to live a libertarian life… To be that shining example of what libertarianism offers, as we work toward a freer society.

We also need to support others who do the same. Our support for them will also have them supporting us.

And, when we find that there is a candidate for office that we CAN vote for, we SHOULD, because we have an opportunity to do the most important thing that we can as libertarians to change hearts and minds…

And that’s putting freedom first.

ACLU: Police Use of Face-Recognition Tech is ‘Violating Americans’ Civil Rights’

in Liberator Online by Alice Salles Comments are off

ACLU: Police Use of Face-Recognition Tech is ‘Violating Americans’ Civil Rights’

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The American Civil Liberties Union, along the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, sent a letter to the Justice Department expressing concerns over federal, state, and local police use of facial recognition technology.

FaceThe letter claims that a recent study carried out by the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law shows that “law enforcement use of face recognition technology is having a disparate impact on communities of color, potentially exacerbating and entrenching existing policing disparities.”

Adding that said systems are powerful, the letter explained that a Federal Bureau of Investigation study from 2012 shows that the technology is “5 to 10 percent less accurate on African Americans than Caucasians.” By reaching out to the Justice Department, the ACLU plus over 50 other groups are asking the government to investigate police practices associated with the technology because of the system’s inaccuracies.

While the ACLU has not argued for an end to the use of the technology, the organization’s legislative counsel, Singh Guliani, said that, unless “meaningful safeguards are in place,” the use of the technology could be putting the privacy of Americans at risk.

Mentioning the fact that half of all U.S. adults are in government face recognition databases, Guliani added that allowing law enforcement to use these technologies without clear policies may lead to abuse.

According to the Georgetown report mentioned by the ACLU, abuse may come in different shapes and sizes.

Because many law enforcement agencies employ the technology in a continuous fashion, scanning individuals on real-time, researchers believe that this type of approach may violate people’s privacy simply because law enforcement is collecting footage of law-abiding citizens without seeking a warrant beforehand. In the report, the Center on Privacy & Technology team explains that this type of use is “generalized and invisible.” In many instances, the research team adds, abuse may lead to stifling of free speech.

Out of the 52 agencies using the system, the research team found at least one department using the face recognition tool to track individuals engaged in political, religious, or other type of “protected free speech.” But because of the lack of oversight, many departments do not have access to data on the use of the technology, making it difficult for researchers to identify other instances of abuse.

All of these problems are “unprecedented and highly problematic,” researchers added in the report.

In the group’s letter, the ACLU argued that the problems raised by the Georgetown study are “particularly disturbing” when we consider that federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have been using these technologies for routine investigations without any oversight.

Considering law enforcement has been under heavy scrutiny recently over the use and abuse of “voodoo science,”  it’s easy to see how the ACLU has reason to mistrust law enforcement with the use of such a powerful tool.

Arizona Business Pushing for More Prohibition Gets a Taste of Free Market Consequences

in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Arizona Business Pushing for More Prohibition Gets a Taste of Free Market Consequences

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

In The Economics of Prohibition, Austrian economist Mark Thorton explains that the “search for privilege and personal gain through the political process” embraced by major corporations and their lobbying minions are responsible for “any net losses to society produced by government policies.” Adding that, throughout history, we are able to see countless examples of prohibitionist policies being enacted due to this marriage of convenience.

boycottAs information is more readily available due to the widespread growth of the Internet, we now live in an era in which people are often made aware of how companies use their political influence to push for certain policies.

In Phoenix, a company whose political activities have been associated with marijuana prohibition is getting a taste of how the free market deals with unwanted subjects.

According to The Phoenix New Times, a Discount Tire Company is facing a growing boycott movement after its billionaire owner made a $1 million donation to help defeat the ballot initiative crafted with the goal of legalizing marijuana in the Grand Canyon state.

The boycott was first launched by local immigrant-rights groups following the company’s decision to hang a “Re-Elect Sheriff Joe Arpaio” sign in their windows. More recently, however, the company donated money to defeat marijuana legalization in the state, and the boycott movement grew.

The reaction did not come as a surprise, considering that the pro-legalization sentiment in Arizona is growing strong.

Prop 205, the initiative Discount Tires has invested money against, would legalize the use of cannabis for adults who are 21 or older. Individuals would be allowed to possess up to an ounce of the product. If Prop 205 wins, weed sales would also be legalized, and individuals would be allowed to grow the plant for personal use.

Possession of more than an ounce up to 2.5 ounces would be considered a non-arrestable civil offense. Nevertheless, the individual caught with more than one ounce of weed would have to pay a fine.

Despite the restrictions proposed by Prop 205, the law would help locals, offering a solution to an aspect of the drug war that continues to put countless of non-violent young men and women in jail.

In addition to Discount Tires’ donation, other groups have invested heavily in the campaign against the pro-marijuana legalization initiative.

Some of the groups behind the effort include the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Insys Therapeutics, a synthetic THC-maker, Larry Van Tuyl, whose family’s string of car dealerships was sold to Warren Buffett in 2014, Bennett Dorrance, a local resident who’s the heir to the Campbell Soup fortune, Tucson real estate mogul Donald R. Diamond, Foster Friess of Wyoming, who’s known as a “Republican mega-donor,” Empire Southwest LLC, which sells, rents, and services machinery and power generation equipment to contractors, and the Arizona Republican Party.

As long as the boycotts are peaceful, the effort is a perfect example of how free individuals are able to show their preferences in a freer market setting, letting service providers know where they stand and thus, forcing company owners to cater to their clientele in a way they deem acceptable if they are willing to survive their competition.

I’m A Libertarian… And I Vote

in From Me To You, Liberator Online by Brett Bittner Comments are off

I’m A Libertarian… And I Vote

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Thanks for the feedback on last week’s “experiment.” It looks like we’ll keep it up for a while. We have added text to the bottom for those who would rather read than watch. You’ll get the basis for my video below.

It’s less than a month until election day.

Here, there are yard signs EVERYWHERE. Pop-ups and banner ads screaming for my attention on nearly every website I visit. My Facebook feed is filled with political posts. Every commercial break has at least one ad telling me about how bad “the other guy” is, and that he’s the wrong choice. Sometimes, they’ll follow that up with “the other guy” saying the same thing. I agree with them both.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret you may not know about me… I’m a libertarian, and I vote.

I vote for candidates that believe in freedom… Freedom for all.

Not only do I vote, I’ve done just about everything there is to do in electoral politics, from the online slacktivism of posting on Facebook to running for office… TWICE.

Here’s what might shock you though. I DESPISE politics. It divides us. It ends friendships. It’s dirty and disgusting.

But I’m involved in politics so that, one day, I don’t have to be. I love freedom more than I hate politics, and I work in every avenue I can to change hearts and minds to focus on freedom.

Yesterday, I voted.

While I can’t tell you who to vote for, I’m going to tell you what I did. I cast a ballot for more freedom in self-defense against all of those ballot for less. I looked for the people that I believe will put liberty ahead of tyranny. I supported them with my time, effort, money, AND my vote, investing in my defense against authoritarians.

I cast a ballot on the first day I could here in Indiana. While I skipped some races, because I couldn’t find someone I thought would put freedom first, I did cast several votes for those I believe in. I also cast votes for people I call friends. Interestingly, they happen to be the people I believe will put freedom where it belongs… With us.

Oh, in case you’re curious, I voted for Gary Johnson.

Kim Kardashian’s New Lawsuit Teaches Us Something About Free Speech

in First Amendment, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Kim Kardashian’s New Lawsuit Teaches Us Something About Free Speech

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Whenever celebrities are hit with heavy criticism over things they have said, libertarians often come to their rescue, explaining that criticizing the content of their words is perfectly acceptable, but effectively lobbying to have said celebrity censored is something else entirely.

KimReality TV star Kim Kardashian West has been the main character in many of these cases, having been on the receiving end of government scrutiny over her public endorsements of drugs in the past.

But as the star experiments with some bad publicity of her own, her attitude begins to shift.

According to CBS, Kardashian is filing a lawsuit against an online media outlet that has allegedly claimed the reality star may have not spoken the entire truth after being attacked in Paris.

The lawsuit was filed in a Manhattan federal court, and it names as the party to blame for wrongly portraying the TV star as a liar and a thief.

According to the French police, armed robbers made their way into the star’s private residence on October 3rd, stealing $10 million worth of jewelry.

Despite the report she filed for libel, this isn’t the first time Kardashian is the target of negative and even infamous comments online, neither is it the first time she files a lawsuit over victimless “crimes.” Regardless of the rationale behind this lawsuit, it’s important to note that, in a free market of news — just like in a free market of ideas — stories compete for attention and “hits,” especially if the medium is publishing stories online. With the expansion of the Internet news industry, bad stories — or publications that become known for endorsing and promoting bad journalism — are buried in negative reviews, giving competitors even more incentives to fill the void.

Instead of publicly lobbying to censor negative or inaccurate comments, publicly shaming such institutions is a much more effective way of getting the word out. Especially if the goal is to be taken seriously.

Whether or not you agree with the reality TV star’s actions, it’s important to understand that, when speech is censored, the natural result is the establishment of a black market of ideas. Once those with vile and often aggressive ideas are pushed underground, it’s harder to spot them. And, as a result, those who defend censorship end up becoming the victims of the very policy they embrace.

Yet again, good intentions are not enough. And suing everyone with something negative to say isn’t the best way out. Instead, leave it to the free market of ideas, where the truth often surfaces, no matter how hard establishment institutions work to keep them in the dark.

School Choice Awards Highlight Differences Between Private Initiative and Traditional Approaches

in Education, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

School Choice Awards Highlight Differences Between Private Initiative and Traditional Approaches

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

When freedom lays the groundwork for markets, colorful outbursts of creativity and efficacy can be seen, filling the air with sparkles.

Not just figuratively.

ChildrenUnfortunately for many children who now lack the opportunity to attend a school that meets their needs, many in America fail to see education as a market as well. Not because parents do not want to see results, but because special groups have, over the years, used education as a means to obtain political influence, oftentimes hurting the poorest among us. With their talk of making education a “right,” they helped to remove the market element, further hindering competition and, as a result, increasing the overall cost of education across the board.

In states like Arizona, where students have had the opportunity to experiment with the idea of school choice, even if just superficially, things seem to be getting better.

Because of the implementation of the charter school system in the state — a system that still relies on public funding — local public school students are able to “learn to speak Mandarin, study dance, [and even] become young engineers or delve into the medical sciences.”

Thanks in part to a more competitive educational environment, Arizona students have shown that adding private elements to the public school system helps to boost choice, creativity, and dedication, making the Grand Canyon state a leader in high school education.

One of the state’s charters is even among the country’s top 10 schools, according to the most recent “Best High School” ranking.

Recently, the Arizona Charter Schools Association celebrated the private element of the segment’s work, recognizing some of the best individuals involved in the private aspect of the charter school system.

During the event, President and CEO of the Arizona Charter Schools Association Eileen B. Sigmust gave a speech, claiming that what “these winners have in common is their innovative approach to education and committed focus to the success of their students.”

Unfortunately for countless students in less privileged areas of the country, public school teachers and leadership often fail to focus on these two factors, mostly because of a lack of incentives to ensure children excel — a problem often caused by teachers unions, whose main accomplishments often include providing teachers with paths to comfortable and unchallenged careers by basing their salary on seniority, failing to tie pay rate with performance.

During the Arizona Charter Schools Association’s 2016 Charter Awards event, teachers were praised for “[understanding and embracing the notion] that all students learn differently and [tailoring their] lessons to each child to ensure all students make growth in her classroom.”

While the system isn’t perfect, the clear differences of approach between the traditional schools and the charter system give us further proof of the importance of private ownership, and the role it plays in helping every single child have access to the education that better meets their needs.

SHOCKER: Prison Food Makers Don’t Want Arizona to Legalize Pot

in Drugs, Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

SHOCKER: Prison Food Makers Don’t Want Arizona to Legalize Pot

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Rent-seeking, better known as the practice many companies embrace while trying to obtain benefits through the political machine, is, more often than not, the reason why our liberties are clipped, one by one, in the name of the greater good.

The war on drugs is the perfect example of this.

WeedEver since the idea of the drug war was first considered a valuable policy, politicians have used it as a way to bring their own enemies to heel. Much like major companies — whose profits suffer greatly whenever new competitors enter the market — these politicians often exploit their titles while claiming to hold an entirely different position in public.

With the war against marijuana, we have seen countless industries such as the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries step up their efforts to ensure the plant remains criminalized. As some begin to embrace the trend — even adding marijuana to their portfolio — others remain stubborn, fighting against the change and pushing Washington insiders to keep weed as a Schedule I substance.

Still, there’s one particular industry fighting marijuana legalization that, up until recently, had not made it to the news.

While the law enforcement and prison sectors have always been anti-drug legalization — with the exceptions of groups such as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) — yet another prison-related company has been investing in keeping weed illegal in at least one state: The prison food industry.

According to official Arizona state reports, Services Group of America has donated $80,000 last month to a campaign committee that hopes to defeat the legal cannabis measure on this year’s November ballot.

SGA’s subsidiary, Food Services of America, is tasked with preparing meals for correction facilities. And, in the past, it has been accused of offering meals that fail to meet basic nutritional standards set by the government. They do not seem too keen on allowing prison demands for their food reach a new low.

Local news reports also add that other groups such as the state Chamber of Commerce in Arizona have also donated heavily to the anti-marijuana effort, addressing a $498,000 check to the campaign.

Before both groups offered their financial support, opioid maker Insys Therapeutics had gone further, donating $500,000 to the anti-pot campaign.

Other groups listed as major anti-weed donors include the Arizona Wine and Spirits Wholesale Association, and SAM Action, which is often described as the campaign arm of Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Despite the heavy-handed efforts coming from these companies to defeat the marijuana legalization efforts, polls show voters are supporting the effort to legalize pot in the Grand Canyon state.

Will rent seekers win this time?

Should we privatize the police for public safety?

in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Criminal Justice, Liberator Online, Libertarian Answers on Issues, Libertarianism, Personal Liberty by Mary Ruwart Comments are off

Should we privatize the police for public safety?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

QUESTIONS: How would poor individuals/communities afford police protection in a libertarian society? If rich/white communities’ private police kill poor/minority individuals who pass through the rich/white communities’ streets, what recourse do the dead individuals have?

PoliceANSWERS: Today, much of the police budget comes from traffic fines or property taxes.  The poor pay these property taxes through their rent.   If the police force was a private one, the poor would have lower rents and thus more money in their pocket with which to pay their police fees.  If they didn’t like the service they were getting, they could simply end their subscription.

For the poor, the option of not paying is much more important than it is to those who are better off.  When crimes are committed today, the wealthier victims will often get preferential care.  If the minority victims are ignored, which is often the case, they have little recourse.   Being a paying customer gives them clout in a privatized system; they simply take their money and go elsewhere or provide their own protection in the form of a firearm or a guard dog. Today, they pay whether they get service or not, so they can’t readily afford other options.

The myth in our society is that the poor don’t pay for police protection and other government services.  In fact, they often pay more and get much less.

Private police do not have the immunity from prosecution that our public police illegitimately enjoy.  If they killed minority individuals without just cause, they could be tried for murder, just as an individual citizen would.  The families of the victims would likely demand such prosecution.

A private police service wouldn’t be very attractive to customers, even the rich/white ones, if minorities were unjustly killed.  All but a few would likely withdraw their subscriptions.  Who wants a police force in their neighborhood that shoots people for the most trivial of reasons?  No one wants their children to grow up in such a neighborhood. To most people, regardless of their color or socio-economic class, all lives matter.

Since most businesses operate on a small profit margin (10% or so), losing even a few customers means a big dent in the bottom line.  Private police want their paycheck too and are motivated to truly serve and protect when we each have the choice whether or not to employ them.

WE Will Build the Roads

in Communicating Liberty, From Me To You, Liberator Online, Libertarianism, Property Rights by Brett Bittner Comments are off

WE Will Build the Roads

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

I’m trying something new with the From Me to You column this week, and I’d love to get your feedback on it. Please send me an e-mail to let me know if you like this, hate this, or even if you’re indifferent.

Big Government vs. Self-Government in Shakespeare’s ‘As You Like It’

in Communicating Liberty, Liberator Online, Marriage and Family by Morgan Dean Comments are off

Big Government vs. Self-Government in Shakespeare’s As You Like It

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

William Shakespeare’s comedy As You Like It is known for the themes of marriage, forgiveness and love. However, upon closer examination, it can also be read as a tale of people fighting the wrongs of Big Government, while pursuing self-government.

as you like itFirst, we have to look at what it means to “self-govern.” We give this our own meaning every day when we make decisions independent from the government. Self-Governing means that you decide how to live and are responsible for your own actions and choices.

In As You Like It, there are two opposing sides in a warring family, Duke Senior, who represents self-government and peace, and the other being Duke Frederick who represents Big Government and violence.

The major motif within the play is a family divided. Duke Senior has been usurped by his brother and banished from the kingdom, while Duke Frederick remains and banishes other members of Duke Senior’s family.

Duke Senior flees to The Forest of Arden where he lives a very minimalist life, among the shepherds who live very pastoral lives. The forest serves as a place of freedom and refuge from the evils of courtly life. The idea of the forest in literature, and especially in this play, is that it is the antithesis of civilization. The forest is the one place that man has not yet touched and made corrupt.

Living in the forest, Duke Senior builds a life for himself, finds other lords who have also left the court, and pursues a freedom in the forest. They operate completely separately from the Big Government that is back at the court, and they are happy.

As we are well aware, Big Government always tries to intervene. Rare contributor Bonnie Kristian wrote an interesting article about how even the smallest examples of government interference should concern us.

Even during Shakespeare’s time, there is government overreach. Duke Frederick and his posse go after Duke Senior. However, along the way he meets a priest who convinces him to lead a peace-loving life away from the court. Self-government, for the win!

If self-government worked in the Shakespearean era, with practice, it can work today, several hundred years later.

Most importantly, are you putting self-government into practice in your daily life?

Without a National Government, Spaniards Have a Taste of Freedom

in Liberator Online, Libertarianism, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

Without a National Government, Spaniards Have a Taste of Freedom

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

For the last ten months, Spain has had no official government in place. And apparently, Spaniards couldn’t be happier.

It all began when neither of Spain’s major parties was able to secure a majority of seats in the national legislature. Since these parties are also unable to agree on a coalition government out of disdain for their opponents, the country of 47 million people is being left with a caretaker government instead of an officially elected body.

SpainAccording to the New York times, locals are glad.

To Félix Pastor, a local language teacher, the situation has produced positive outcomes. After all, “no government, no thieves.” Ana Cancela, a civil servant, agrees. She adds that “[w]e already knew that politicians were corrupt, but now we also see that they can’t even make politics work.”

As Spain dealt with corruption and scandal throughout the last two administrations, the current situation is being welcomed by those who believe that powerful politicians do less harm when left out of power.

For the past 300 days, basic government services have continued to be funded, but in the meantime, no new legislation is being considered and infrastructure and other government-run projects are frozen. And, unlike pessimistic predictions, things are actually getting better, with interest and energy rates staying low, and the economic growth forecast showing a 2.9 percent increase by the end of 2016. According to the New York Times, that’s twice the 1.6 percent average for the eurozone expected by the European Commission.

According to the Mises Institute, this period has been important for Spaniards. Now, they are finally able to get a taste of how resilient a society can be when left alone, without the paternalistic presence of a higher body regulating every aspect of people’s lives.

Instead of chaos, the absence of a centralized power gave Spaniards economic growth, a strong tourism industry, and a safe haven for consumers, who are expected to reach Spanish shores in droves.

To libertarians, this experience should be celebrated — and shared — widely. Not just because Spain has been surviving remarkably well without a government in place, but because common Spaniards are also celebrating the current situation, instead of giving in to fear.

Speech Censorship Is Bad, Even If It Targets Terrorists

in First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Property Rights by Alice Salles Comments are off

Speech Censorship Is Bad, Even If It Targets Terrorists

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Censorship never works. Especially when it comes to speech that is considered offensive or criminal. Why? Because when individuals are given a platform where they may express themselves openly, they become more visible, giving others who disagree with their methods or philosophy an opportunity to spot them and stay out of their way.

TwitterBut when fear is at play, people tend to lose grasp of their emotions and what could have turned into a reasonable debate turns into a witch hunt.

As politicians and others urge companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter to crack down on users who identify as Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) fighters and sympathizers, encouraging these users to be banned from their platforms, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) admits that banning ISIS users from online platforms pushes them “to a place where they’re less able to proselytize broadly but more able to communicate in a secure way.” Meaning that, when users are blocked from Twitter, it makes it difficult for law enforcement to track them down.

Who would have thought?

According to Tech Dirt, intelligence officials are usually able to get good intelligence from paying attention to social media accounts from ISIS fighters. But in spite of what many consider to be a risk associated with how easily ISIS fighters are able to recruit by keeping active accounts on social media, Tech Dirt points out that nearly every single study on radicalization shows that online recruitment is not as effective as many would think.

Silencing users might help to keep social media websites “clean” from speech we find offensive, but instead of making us safe, it just pushes individuals who follow dreadful philosophies into the shadows, making it harder for us to spot them and keep an eye on what they are up to next.

When translated into enforcement, the banishment of users from online platforms only makes it hard for officials to track terrorists down.

As US officials continue to press private tech companies to open backdoors so that law enforcement is able to closely spy on American citizens, public pressure to ban offensive speech adds fuel to the fire, oftentimes giving officials reasons to lobby for the expansion of government’s spying powers.

Instead of allowing our feelings to speak louder than reason, we must always remember that what may seem as the best solution superficially might not produce the desired outcome. No matter how many times we implement the same policy.

In America, One Person is Arrested Over Pot Every 49 Seconds

in Drugs, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

In America, One Person is Arrested Over Pot Every 49 Seconds

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

While campaigning for president, then Senator Barack Obama claimed that the federal government should not use its resources to prosecute marijuana providers in states where the substance was legalized for medical use. But after promising to put an end to the previous administration’s raids on medical pot providers, the current administration went on a witch hunt, cracking down on medical cannabis providers so aggressively that it managed to outdo the George W. Bush’s administration’s war on pot.

PotCurrently, medical marijuana is legal in 25 states in America, but according to the FBI, 2015 saw 574,641 marijuana-related arrests, resulting in one pot arrest every 49 seconds. In nine out of ten cases, the arrests were carried out for possession, not production or distribution.

Accounting for 38.6 percent of the 1.5 million drug-related arrests in 2015, marijuana arrests happened more frequently than other drug-related arrests.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), only 19.9 percent of 2015 drug arrests were tied to heroin, and only 5.1 percent were tied to synthetic or manufactured drugs.

While the rate of marijuana-related arrests is still high, arrests have dropped 2.3 percent when compared to the data available 15 years ago, when 734,497 Americans were arrested “for marijuana offenses of which 646,042 (40.9 percent) were for possession alone,” the FBI reported.

Each year, taxpayers have to come up with $3.6 billion to enforce marijuana possession-related laws. And yet, ACLU reports, the drug war continues to be a failure.

Among many marijuana legalization advocates, the fact many states are gearing up to vote on recreational marijuana legalization is a major step forward. Nevertheless, the federal government is still reluctant to embrace the new trend, keeping marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance.

To Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken, “state-level nullification efforts in the US within Colorado, Oregon, Washington State, and Alaska, have weakened the US’s ability to insist on prohibition,” allowing other states and foreign governments to begin looking at marijuana-related laws under a different light. Prior to this major state-level movement to legalize marijuana locally, the US government’s drug war had been the major igniting force behind the drug wars across other countries in the continent. As more states embrace freedom, the federal government — as well as other governments — may finally begin looking at legalization as a feasible policy.

Until then, however, the US involvement with the United Nations may help to slow down the worldwide legalization trend, mainly because of the UN’s 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which legitimizes the US drug war.

How Did We Get Here?

in From Me To You, Liberator Online, Personal Liberty by Brett Bittner Comments are off

How Did We Get Here?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

It’s 2016. We are 40 days from the Presidential election.

So, how did we get here?

As a country, we’ve abandoned hope, we’ve given in to fear, and we’re seemingly okay with it all.

CrossroadsA long time ago, the ideals of the American Dream went away. They were replaced by people “knowing what’s better.” They promised to fix the ills of society by giving them the ability to plan what you and I do.

As with any social change, it began with something small, limiting an act in the interest of “common sense,” or “safety,” or “the future.” Once empowered, they used fear to drive public opinion to their side, limiting more and more freedom. Those limits preserve power and control.

With each step “forward,” a little bit of freedom was lost. With each act by government, at the federal, state, and local levels, we lost a bit of the American ideal.

We’ve settled for asking for permission, rather than living our own lives as we see fit. When it comes to electoral politics, we’ve settled as well. We seek to be ruled by a “good king,” rather than finding someone who understands what freedom entails and only wishes for its acts to be to protect life, liberty, and property, leaving the rest for us to figure out ourselves, as individuals.

Today, you and I are more often asking for permission, instead of reaching solutions with and for ourselves.

On the bright side, no matter what happens in forty days, more people are looking for something different.

Every day, more are tiring of the same.

Every day, more people see what’s wrong with letting others plan their lives.

Every day, more people realize that freedom is easy.

We just have to act like it.

Do What You Say You’ll Do

in Liberator Online, Walk the Walk by Brett Bittner Comments are off

Do What You Say You’ll Do

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

There are many approaches to summarizing libertarian philosophy, whether it’s “The Golden Rule,”rugged individualism, or the complete works of Ayn Rand.

doPersonally, I embrace Richard Maybury’s approach most, when he introduces two laws in “Whatever Happened to Justice?“:

  1. Do all you have agreed to do, and
  2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

I find that most libertarians handle the second of those laws quite well, as most of us subscribe to the non-aggression principle. Where we can ALL, libertarian and non-libertarian alike, use a bit of help is with the first.

Carl Jung is quoted as saying, “You are what you do, not what you say you’ll do.”

What you do, or don’t do, is the foundation of your reputation to others. We’ve all heard that someone’s reputation precedes them, and a reputation can often tell others more about you that any words you may communicate. Keeping in mind that you might be the first libertarian someone has met, shouldn’t you be a shining example for who and what we are?

When we can’t live up to doing what we say we will do, we lose our credibility. Losing credibility is a deal breaker for someone trying to persuade others to examine libertarianism. It’s like putting a question mark at the end of every promise we make and every position we take. Would you really want to take a chance on losing that trust? We have many other things to overcome without having to rebuild credibility.

So, how can we make sure we live up to part of living a libertarian lifestyle and embracing #1 above?

First, don’t take on too much. Often, we see a void and we step up to fill it. As a former manager in the service industry, I realize that we often over promise and under deliver, but if we flip that, we can make sure we meet our commitments by setting reasonable expectations and wowing with our results. Switch to an “under promise, over deliver” approach and see the results of keeping things under control.

Next, honestly evaluate the level of effort or time necessary to do a good job meeting the commitments you make. Something may seem to be quick or easy on the surface, but it can really bite you when it’s more complex than you first thought. Being honest about what it will take, along with not taking on too much will help you to do what you say you’ll do.

Finally, when you can’t make things happen on the timeline you’ve set, make sure you you offer explanations, not excuses. Excuses are flimsy, and the real reason is often the better route, especially if it’s humbling.

Are you ready to do what you way you’ll do?

Pharmaceutical Industry Terrified Weed Legalization Will Put Them Out of Business

in Drugs, Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

Pharmaceutical Industry Terrified Weed Legalization Will Put Them Out of Business

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The opioid epidemic is a real issue in America. So much so that the U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch started telling young folks that marijuana isn’t really the problem. Instead, Lynch explained, legally prescribed medications are to blame for the increase in opioid abuse.

But while learning that the head of the United States Department of Justice has just argued that weed does not represent a real threat may sound promising, it’s important to remember that marijuana is still a Schedule I drug. Meaning that the federal government still sees marijuana as a substance “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

ManufacturingRecently, a group of marijuana legalization activists got an initiative known as Proposition 205 in the ballot in Arizona.

The initiative would allow Arizona residents who are older than 21 to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in public. Prop 205 would also allow consumers to grow up to six plants at home, giving them the option to give other adults up to an ounce at a time of its produce “without remuneration.”

But with the good news came another discovery.

The group that, alone, donated $500,000 to the effort to oppose the Arizona marijuana legalization campaign, is a local pharmaceutical company known as Insys, and it produces oral sprays used in the delivery of an opioid painkiller known as fentanyl.

According to Reason, the same company is planning on marketing yet another device that would deliver dronabinol, a synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC: The main mind-altering ingredient in cannabis.

When donating to kill the initiative, the company contended that its opposition to marijuana legalization is due to Prop 205’s “[failure] to to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children.” According to Reason’s Jacob Sullum, what Insys is truly worried about is “the impact that legalization might have on its bottom line, since marijuana could compete with its products.”

And why is Insys so concerned? Perhaps because a recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health contends that, in states where marijuana use is legal to a certain extent, fatally injured drivers are “less likely to test positive for opioids.” Sullum adds that this finding, along with the results of other studies show that “making marijuana legally available to patients saves lives by reducing their consumption of more dangerous medications.”

The data analyzed by researchers comes from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). By looking at the data gathered from 18 states where 80 percent of drivers who died in auto crashes were drug-tested, researchers found that, between 1999 and 2013, drivers between the ages of 21 and 40 were half as likely to test positive for opioids where medical marijuana laws had been implemented.

In these same states, researchers found that painkiller prescriptions fell by 3,645 daily doses per physician. Researchers concluded that “the passage of the medical marijuana laws” are directly associated with “the observed shifts in prescribing patterns.”

As the industry begins to fear the consequences of ending the drug war, we begin to understand that their dominance over the market is mainly due to their rent-seeking practices, which keep their leaders close to lawmakers, helping the industry to exert enough influence to sway public policy in a way that benefits them.

Without the presence of a government body giving companies special protections while outlawing particular drug transactions, drug providers are able to compete freely and in the open, giving consumers better and safer options.

It’s time to finally put an end to the drug war and admit that, rent-seeking will never help the nation heal from all of the negative consequences of our country’s ongoing romance with crony capitalism.

How Egg Regulations Hurt the Environment — And Your Pocket!

in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

How Egg Regulations Hurt the Environment — And Your Pocket!

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Government has a way of making us all question our sanity. Especially when it comes to food regulations and its environmentally unsound consequences.

In many countries across the globe, the practice of washing eggs is seen as anti-hygienic. Because when egg producers wash fresh eggs, they also remove a layer of protein known as cuticle.

EggsThe cuticle is important because it prevents the egg shell from being porous. With a porous exterior, eggs are vulnerable to bacteria.

In the 1970s, regulators with the U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that egg producers should invest in “fancy machines,” as NPR puts it, to shampoo eggs with soap and hot water. But once the eggs were washed, regulators added, producers should place them immediately in a refrigerator.

To justify the addition of yet another requirement for the egg industry, regulators claimed this step helped to avoid salmonella contamination. But washing the egg’s exterior does little to prevent contamination.

As NPR explains, the cuticle “is like a little safety vest for the egg, keeping water and oxygen in and bad bacteria out. Washing can damage that layer and ‘increase the chances for bacterial invasion’ into pores or hairline cracks in the shell, according to Yi Chen, a food scientist at Purdue University.”

Salmonella enteritidis often infects a chicken’s ovaries, which tends to impact the yolk before the shell hardens. The bacteria can be killed when consumers cook it. Washing the exterior of the egg does little to prevent contamination. As expected, salmonella continues to expose about 142,000 individuals to infections each year.

While many contend that washing the egg and refrigerating it or leaving the cuticle both work, only the method adopted by the United States government requires a great deal of electricity use to ensure the product’s safety. Considering only 10 percent of the total U.S. energy consumption comes from renewable sources, it’s hard to see why environmentalists are not urging government to nix this particular regulation.

But too much energy consumption is not the only negative consequence of egg-washing. The cost of purchasing an egg washing machine, the device’s maintenance, required labor, and the cost of electricity employed in maintaining the product shielded from contamination all add up, increasing the price of eggs and harming the consumer.

With reports showing just how salmonella is still a problem despite the regulatory requirements imposed on the egg industry, it’s hard to contend forcing all producers to wash their eggs is somehow productive. Especially when so much electricity is required to maintain the eggs refrigerated.

Why not try freedom for a change?

What Libertarians Can Learn from Harry Potter and the Cursed Child

in Liberator Online, Libertarianism by Morgan Dean Comments are off

What Libertarians Can Learn from Harry Potter and the Cursed Child

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Harry PotterAfter nine years, J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, decided she was not quite done with telling the story of ‘The Boy Who Lived.’ Released on July 31st, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child broke pre-order records for both Amazon and Barnes and Noble, the same year that we, as libertarians, are breaking records.

So, what can we learn as libertarians from the Harry Potter books? Gina Luttrell wrote at an article discussing the overarching themes of libertarianism in the Harry Potter series as a whole, but with a new addition to the saga, there are new themes and ideas that we, as libertarians, can explore.

One of the main conflicts we see in the newest book is Harry’s son, Albus’ struggle to find where he truly belongs, both at school and in the world. He worries that the Sorting Hat will place him into Slytherin, instead of Gryffindor, the house of the rest of his family. Harry consoles him by pointing out that this doesn’t matter, that he will be loved regardless, and that The Sorting Hat will take his feelings into account.

This is similar to the struggle many of us have faced at least once, with a media telling us that there are only two political paths. Their aim is to push us to subscribe to one of their schools of thought, either a conservative or liberal viewpoint. It is important to remember there is more to politics than left and right.

Speaking as someone who formerly identified as a conservative from a conservative family, I can attest firsthand to the struggle of facing a change in philosophical identity after taking The World’s Smallest Political Quiz and realizing my values are different than I thought they were. I guess that is one way to find our “place”…The Quiz is almost like a Sorting Hat, huh?

As it has previously been discussed among libertarian scholars, Harry Potter is the perfect example of a libertarian. He values the ability to choose his own path, while fighting against the corruption within the Ministry of Magic. In previous books, the Ministry subscribed to similar ideas as the villains of the series, like ethnic cleansing, discrimination, violence, and secrecy. With a total lack of transparency, Big Government rules throughout the series.

In Harry Potter and the Cursed Child we see a very different Ministry of Magic, led by Hermione Granger, a character who has always been keen to follow the rules, but has proven time and time again that she is not afraid to deviate from them in cases of principle. We also see that Harry is serving as an Auror, or dark wizard catcher under Hermione.

So what can we take away from this shift as libertarians? Harry and his friends used to fight against the established government and their oppressive ideas, and now they ARE the government. Being a part of the libertarian movement means fighting corruption with freedom and openness, spreading the ideals of libertarianism as people become more open to it.

During this election year, I think we are experiencing a significant shift in the way people think. As people tire of the same two choices, and they get tired of Big Government ruling their lives, they are opening their eyes to libertarian ideals.

Libertarianism is more than just politics, yet we are seeing a shift in what drives people to throw their support behind a candidate. We have Gary Johnson and Bill Weld on the main stage, and although neither is perfect, they are representing new ideas that have never gained so much attention. Every day, we are changing the way people think.

So, let’s make sure we don’t forget that there is more than two options in politics. Let’s remember to stand strong on issues of morality. Let’s fight against an oppressive government.

Political discourse is changing.

Just like the beloved Harry Potter characters did, could we be experiencing a shift in the ‘political status quo?’ Let’s hope so.

Page 1 of 4012345...102030...Last »