Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

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.

Jerry examines a his less-than-desirable 'doo in "The Barber."

It’s not a very good time to be a free market right now. Everyone blames you for their lost jobs, their foreclosed homes, and corporate exploitation. Although this blame is misplaced, most people are fearful of the free market and don’t take the time to learn and understand that the free hand of the market benefits the consumer. The theory is simple: good products/services thrive, bad ones fail, and consumers are left with the cream of the crop.

Here’s a site with an interesting look at the economics of the popular sitcom, “Seinfeld.”

The Barber: (Competition) Jerry gets a bad haircut but refuses to change barbers because he is loyal. Eventually, he is convinced to leave his barber of 12 years for the barber’s nephew. Bad quality doesn’t persist in the marketplace; it is competed away. Perhaps the answer to bad haircuts is not more regulation, but more competition.

At last, A free market example to which everyone can relate! There’s lots of other interesting economic concepts presented here using Seinfeld. Since the show is a comedy, many of the examples are not only humorous, but memorable and can be useful in understanding free market principles.

This should come in handy during the inevitable fight over the Barbers Bailout of 2011.

(via kottke.org)

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.

By: James Robertson

President Obama’s summit on health care reform today marks an unprecedented move by the administration to offer Republicans a final say on proposed health care legislation before it is inevitably forced through a divided Congress. While Obama claims that the summit represents a move by Democrats to “reach out” to Republican opposition and allow them to reconcile their differences with the reforms, the meeting more obviously represents a last-ditch effort on the part of the administration to ensure that their top domestic priority doesn’t die on Capitol Hill. Such a failure would undoubtedly cripple the public’s faith in the current administration and significantly reduce its ability to govern. Of greater importance, though, is not the success of health care reform for the sake of this administration, but the success (or failure) of this summit for the sake of policymaking in the American republic.

            The founders established democracy in the America by vesting the main legislative power in a national congress. The bicameral design of the U.S. Congress evolved to ensure equal representation of individuals and states in the policymaking process. Today, the Congress finds itself plagued with a mountain of debt and deeply divided along partisan lines, seemingly incapable of addressing public concerns or accomplishing much of anything at all. While not advertised as such, Obama’s summit represents an executive effort to counter the legislature’s ineptitude by removing the policy discussion from the halls of Congress itself to an executive suite in the Blair House, right across the way from the Oval Office.

            This summit carries with it the message of hope that pervaded Obama’s campaign for the presidency; a sentiment that has been called into question recently due to the stalling of health care reform. The President clearly seeks to portray the message that, although the legislature as a whole has proven itself unable to deal with the issue, he is willing to take matters into his own hands and force Congressional leaders from both parties to hammer out a proposal, compromised or otherwise. While this move might appear noble and altruistic on the President’s part, its inherent disregard of Constitutional structure poses some dangerous implications for the future of democracy in America.

            The U.S. Constitution establishes Congress in Article 1, then moves on to lay out Executive powers in Article 2. This order was not coincidental. The Founders recognized the danger of an over-powerful executive and, for that reason, gave the Executive few explicit duties and left policymaking to Congress. In Constitutional debates, James Madison was quick to note the dangers of a ruling majority. The presidential veto, the bill of rights, and the senate filibuster rule are just a few safeguards that protect Americans from the tyranny of a malevolent majority. Moving policymaking outside of the Congress and into the realm of the executive ignores this structure, bypassing these protections and perilously endangering liberty.

            Many will note that Presidents have long involved themselves in the formulation of American policies. The increasing use of Presidential signing statements most clearly reflects a Presidential attempt at policymaking. These informal declarations have become the President’s way of directing, or in some cases limiting, Congress’ actions. Also, legislators judge Presidential proposals on different merits due to their possible political ramifications. However, removing debate on an issue from the floor of the Congress itself and into an executive conference room adjacent to the White House lawn not only symbolizes more executive interference, but very clearly increases Executive influence over the crafting of domestic policies.

            This problem, like most facing America today, could easily be resolved by simply obeying the Constitution. Failure to recognize and abide by Constitutional guidelines led Congress to subsidize and socialize American industries while sustaining a Cold War-era empirical foreign presence, both of which contributed to the current debt of astronomical proportions. Exceeding their Constitutional boundaries allowed Congress to act in ways that immediately benefited many Americans and bought them some good will in the short run. Ultimately, though, by ignoring their Constitutional mandate, Congress damaged this brilliant structure of American government and led us to the broken system we have today. The answer to this problem lies not in an Executive takeover of the legislature, but rather in a return to the rule of law and a government that acts within the limited structure set forth by the Constitution.

So far, a couple of liberty minded individuals have announced the formation of exploratory committees for running for Congress in 2010.

Adam Kokesh

Rand Paul

Please join us in support of these two as they attempt to bring about true change in Washington D.C.

This is from a week ago. I believe they actually have over 100 cosponsors for the bill now. Please contact your Representatives from the Senate and the House and demand they support this bill. 

            Things could really start getting interesting in Washington with the passage of HR 1388 by the House of Representatives.  If there ever was cause for alarm in the minds of young people, this should be it.  The name alone is yet another misleading government acronym created specifically for the purpose of confusion on the bills actual implications.  Deviously entitled the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act, this legislation vastly expands on AmeriCorps.  It is estimated to cost $6 billion over 5 years and increase the current national volunteer program by 175,000. 

            Of course, to call this “volunteerism” is a misnomer.  Current AmeriCorps volunteers typically receive college scholarships and stipends after completing one of the programs. This idea of government funding and rewarding acts of charity runs contrary to the idea of charity and places morality in the hands of government while taking away private incentives to give back to their communities.  The government will pick which areas they believe are in need of the most help, and all “volunteers” will go to work.  This, of course, feeds off the idea that government has a better understanding of what is best for a local community than the community itself.  Not to mention, this is yet another form of criminality on the part of the American government.  If you are in disagreement with this program, the government is politely saying, “Too bad.” This type of legislation reveals the underlying thought process abounding within the halls of big government and the citizens that support it.  These are the people that believe they have the right to take your money by force and tell you how to live your life.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of my friends on myspace is a very serious Liberty supporter. He recently forwarded me an email that he sent to Congressman Childers (who voted for the recent stimulus). I thought I would share what he wrote.

Congressman Childers, I have read your statements on why you voted on the stimulus package. I’d like to point out that you and many of your colleagues are ignoring the fact that using inflation as a means to prop up government spending is not only irresponsible, it’s also highly unethical. You are forcing people to accept the burden of your actions by further deliberate devaluation of their money. If you are concerned with the well-being of our state, why saddle us with the detrimental effects of inflationary monetary policy? The new administration is repeating the mistakes of Hoover and Roosevelt, and seeking government intervention as a means to alleviate our economic woes. Keep in mind that the crash of 1919 was handled much differently (no government intervention) and the economy was back on track in no time. It was this sort of intervention that prolonged the Great Depression. We are being led into the fire by Keynesian economists, who are just as wrong today, as they were in that time. The economists who truly understand this crisis come from the Austrian school of economic thought (Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek). President Obama is not an economist. He gets bad advice from Keynesians and he is repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression. If you care about the well being of Mississippians, please take a few moments to look into the Austrian theory of the business cycle and the wisdom of these economists, before it’s too late. If you discover truth in those writings, you can contact one of your colleagues in the House if you want to learn more– Dr. Ron Paul of Texas.

Congress Acts, Happy?

There is nothing more disheartening than a people who are totally dependent on their government. I believe a population totally reliant on Big Brother is the social stage right before bondage. I couldn’t have found a better example of this lack of self-reliance than an article I recently read urging Congress to do something to “fix” our economy. It seems that this has become the phrase of our blind generation.  The government should do something about our problems, right? Never mind what that something is or if it does anything to solve the problem for which it was intended.  As long as the government does something, we will fall in line.

The more I read this article, the more I lost faith. The House’s first vote to kill the bailout bill was considered a failure on their part by the author. I guess we should ignore the fact that many representatives voted against the bill because they received so many phone calls from their constituents against its passage, they were afraid to vote for it. Why is that considered a failure? That sounds like a success in our political system, one that doesn’t happen very often these days. Did the author bother to call their representative and try to sway them one way or the other?

The article went on to argue that these representatives were elected to promote the good of the country, not their personal agendas.  Do you honestly believe the bill passed on October 3rd was passed with the country’s best interest in mind? Taxpayers for Common sense reported tax breaks for wooden arrows designed for use by children at Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, OR, with an estimated cost of $1 million, a $100 million dollar tax break for NASCAR racetracks to write off capital investments and a $478 million dollar tax break for television and production facilities were included in the bailout. I’m sure all of these provisions were in the national interest; I know NASCAR and wooden arrows are vitally important to the economy. Yet we allowed them to pass this unconstitutional bailout to “fix” our economy and how did the stock market react last week; the Dow experienced its worst week ever dropping below 9000. More proof that governments can’t defy economic laws.

The article also showed a complete lack of understanding of what has caused the problem we are currently in. It was stated in the article that this problem has been building since the housing bubble burst. However, the housing bubble collapse was just a symptom of the actual problem that has been building for decades. While we hear it is the greed on Wall Street, nobody ever wants to think it could be the greed of our government. In order to finance unsustainable entitlement programs, attempts to control interest rates, unconstitutional wars, military stationed in 147 countries and loyalties bought from nations such as Israel, our government has borrowed and spent its way into the destruction of our dollar. The constant dumping of money into the financial sector to lower interest rates because a bubble, which the Federal Reserve created, is about to burst has rocketed our country to the brink of economic collapse. Losing your savings because the government didn’t bail out AIG and how far the stock market plunged will be the least of your worries when foreign countries begin refusing to buy US bonds because the dollar becomes too unstable. This transition from buying US bonds to selling them off for euros, gold, or yen will cause US bond prices to drop, in effect, raising interest rates. Mortgage and credit card rates will go through the roof causing home prices to drop even lower, bankrupting homeowners. In response, the Federal Reserve will do what is usually does and print more money to try and curtail the rising interest rates, sending the dollar’s value on a downward spiral. Prices will surge and most cash savings, bank CD’s and dollar denominated bonds will be worthless. No amount of money the government throws at the problem will help, because the dollar will be useless and the middle class will be wiped out. It is called hyperinflation, and it can happen here if these bailouts continue. It happened in Germany in 1923, and people were burning their currency for warmth since inflation had destroyed its value.

Recessions do happen when credit markets freeze up, but entire economies are wiped out when their currency becomes worthless. Please don’t believe the lie that the one who got us in this mess will be able to get us out. Don’t let yourself become dependent on this government.

-Justin Head