Archive for August 2011
Advancing Liberty Through Electoral Reform
What is the best way for liberty-minded people to affect change within our political system?
This question will likely evoke strong, often differing, opinions from activists within the liberty movement. Some favor trying to work through the current two-party system by electing Republican or Democratic candidates who support free markets, individual responsibility, and a humble foreign policy. Others claim that the lost cause of party reform should be abandoned in favor of third party or independent candidates.
The obvious problem with the latter assertion stems from the incredibly small odds of success for third party candidates. Running for office without the blessing of the Republican or Democratic parties rarely results in election, due in large part to our “winner-take-all” electoral system that perpetuates the two-party charade.
Michael Lind’s column at Salon, “The best way to fight the two-party monopoly,” explores the possibility of adopting a European-style proportional representation (PR) electoral system that could diminish the incentives to choose between the “lesser of two evils” and could boost the chances of third party candidates.
Lind explains:
“Voters list candidates in order of preference, and if no candidate receives a majority, the candidate who wins is the one who, in addition to first-choice votes, gets the most second- and, if necessary, third- and fourth-choice votes. This prevents a candidate who is despised by the majority from winning with a small plurality in a multi-candidate race.”
While such a system could make third parties a more viable option for the average voter, the barriers to implementing such a system are huge, since the two parties in power stand to lose the most from this kind of change. It is also worth noting that parties are notoriously corruptible entities that rarely stick to their principles. Who’s to say that a third party dedicated to liberty would not stray from their core platform just as the GOP and Democratic party have each supported massive market interventions and violations of civil liberties, respectively.
In the end, our surest bet is to educate our peers by vigorously defending individual liberty in the court of public opinion. With an educated electorate that understands the moral and practical rationale behind a philosophy of individual liberty and limited government, those ideals will be represented in our policy. As Judge Learned Hand famously remarked,
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.“
—
James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. He can be contacted at jrrobert@olemiss.edu.
London Riots Underscore Failures of Welfare State
London Burns
For those who have been following the riots in Great Britain, the stories are quite disturbing. Violence, widespread looting, and destruction of property have rocked the UK over the past few days. Prime Minister David Cameron cut his vacation short, returning home to call for an end to the violence. In a statement, Cameron affirmed the government’s commitment to uphold the rule of law by protecting its citizens and their property:
“And I have this very clear message to those people who are responsible for this wrongdoing and criminality: you will feel the full force of the law and if you are old enough to commit these crimes you are old enough to face the punishment.”
Cameron’s reassurances emphasize government’s primary function: protecting individual liberty and providing a system for the arbitration of wrongs. The looters, on the other hand, exemplify a blatant disregard for personal property stemming, in part, from a misplaced sense of entitlement.
Though the reasons behind these riots are sundry, some youth participating in the violence have pointed to cuts in government and the accompanying reduction in government services as their reason for taking to the streets. British officials have dismissed that claim, but at least one rioter made his motivation clear:
“We have no job, no money…We hear that other people get something for free, so why not us?”
This comment strikes at the heart of the various problems inherent to a welfare state. When tax dollars are used to supplement and subsidize certain individuals and industries, government plays a role in picking the winners and losers in the economy. These sorts of interventions distort market realities and cause the dissatisfied to demand their fair share. When government programs reinforce the flawed idea that individuals are entitled to receive something for nothing, they should not be surprised when the disaffected resort to violent means to obtain their loot.
James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. He can be contacted at jrrobert@olemiss.edu.
“Stop the Presses!” Continued Fed Action Could Damage Economy More Than Downgrade
Alan Greenspan on NBC's "Meet the Press"
Yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made a remark that reveals some dangerous suggestions about the power of the Federal Reserve. When host David Gregory asked Greenspan if U.S. Treasury bonds were a safe investment, Greenspan replied:
“Very much so. I think there’s–this is not an issue of credit rating. The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.”
For those familiar with the workings of the U.S. monetary system, this comment might come as no surprise. The Federal Reserve retains authority to print the legal tender of the United States, and has ever since Congress abdicated that constitutional power with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. In the last decade, the Fed has demonstrated its willingness to exercise this authority by adding enormous sums of cash to the monetary supply through bailouts of the airlines, banks, and automakers. The Fed is currently in its second round of what it calls “Quantitative Easing,” a euphemism for money creation neatly dubbed QE2. Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has hinted that the Fed could continue this dangerous inflationary practice with a third round of money creation.
While the Fed’s unstoppable printing press endangers the U.S. dollar already, Greenspan’s comment suggests that our mounting debt could kick this machine into high speed. America’s national debt recently reached 100% of GDP. In less than a decade, the Federal government has doubled the amount of money that it owes. Our government’s outlays far outstrip its receipts, and without a serious reduction in spending, this trend has no end in sight. Greenspan’s suggestion that the Fed simply create more money out of thin air to pay off our debts would only worsen the situation. That level of money creation could propel our currency into hyperinflation, the effects of which would be disastrous, making the effects of the S&P downgrade pale in comparison.
The answer to addressing our astronomical obligations, of course, is not to print money out of nowhere and risk serious hyperinflation, but to reverse the rising tide of federal spending. Defense costs have exploded over the last decade, due in large part to the six wars in which the U.S. is currently involved. Drawdown of our globe-straddling foreign presence would make a huge dent in the bloated defense budget, making this a good place to start.
James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty.
