Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts

Home » Posts filed under liberty

When Federal Oversight Doesn't Work Try More Federal Oversight

Talk about a warped view of reality. I just read Dana Goldstein's article about the Department of Education and how the Tea Party is out to destroy education reform.

Ms. Goldstein writes about "the latest small gov't fad" that could have a devastating effect on reform. Nevermind the fact that the Department of Education has been influencing and controlling our schools for ages. Forget about the reality that in the past couple decades we've seen federal influence on our schools increase while the quality of education has decreased. Put logic and reason out of your mind and just increase the scope of federal influence over education...it hasn't worked in current doses so just up the prescription!

The Dept. or Ed has shown its uselessness and its time we all wake up to the realization that our nation's school crisis needs to be addressed on local, city, and state levels, catering to the specific needs of specific school districts. Don't believe me? Look at homeschooling success rates and the success of Charter schools, like Harlem Children's Zone.

Ms. Goldstein's article is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on The Daily Beast. The author refers to recent popularity for small gov't as "the latest small gov't fad"? A fad...really? How about that 200 year old document called the Constitution of the United States, which contains the 10th Amendment? Perhaps she hasn't read it and therefore doesn't know the 10th Amendment grants states the right to govern themselves in regard to things like education.

The author refers to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the fact that the U.S. and Somalia are the only two nations that have not signed on...but who cares which nations have signed it? In the U.S., again, we follow this thing called the Constitution. We should refer to that document for guidance and not the whims of other nations. Maybe Ms. Goldstein should spend more time reading this nation's founding documents rather than focusing on U.N. conventions?

She also referred to parental rights by placing the phrase in quotations...so is she trying to suggest the right to raise your child as you see fit is not a legitimate right?

Naturally, Ms. Goldstein has not failed to use classist divisiveness. What's her point regarding a statistic that successfully home schooled students come from more affluent families? Should these more affluent families not have the right to teach their children in a successful style simply because other families can't afford the same method? When do successful families stop being punished for their success?

How a parent raises a child - including educating that child - is a personal decision. Our public school systems are a mess and nobody denies that reform is necessary but I hardly think more federal oversight is the reform we need. Federal oversight hasn't helped so far, why would any logical person think MORE federal oversight will do the trick? To spin the Tea Party's concern for a failing education system as an attempt to destroy reform is absolutely incredulous. The fact is, when compared to other developed nations, with federal oversight of our education system we've managed to rank 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. Federal government has proven it is a failure at education reform and our kids can't afford to give them another chance.

Posted in: , , | 0 comments | |  

The Supremacy of Reason: An Interview with the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights


For New World Radical's very first interview, it seemed only logical to speak with the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a staunch advocate for capitalism and a big believer in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. The quote just below this blog's title, if you hadn't noticed, are words taken from one of Rand's many essays on capitalism, Conservatism: An Obituary. In an age where both political parties seek to increase the scope of government, it struck me as an even more timely statement today than when it was written in the 1960s and published in the collection of essays titled Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Don Watkins, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, took time away from his busy schedule as a columnist at Forbes.com and a writer for “The Objective Standard,” to chat with NWR about Adam Smith, "The Giving Pledge" and, among other things, the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism.

New World Radical: As an avid supporter of laissez-faire capitalism, I often look to Adam Smith's writings as well as Ayn Rand's. Both writers champion free markets yet there seem to be a few notable differences in opinion. For instance, Adam Smith was against tariffs and regulations on business yet he also believed some government intervention would be necessary to "protect" society from monopolies. What can the Ayn Rand Center say about government intervention as it relates to monopolies as well as individual liberty?

Don Watkins: At the time Adam Smith was writing, "monopoly" referred to a special grant from the government that legally protected a company from competition. The Post Office is a modern example of a government-backed monopoly. If you try to compete with them in traditional mail delivery, the government will shut you down.

It was only after Smith that critics of capitalism like Karl Marx started to claim that monopolies could exist on a free market, without a favor from government. The definition of monopoly shifted from "special grant by the government" to the deliberately vague "sole or dominant firm in a given market." In order to protect us from such "monopolies," critics of capitalism called on the government to intervene in the market via mechanisms like antitrust.

I agree with Adam Smith that government-backed monopolies--monopolies created by the government's coercive restrictions on competition--are a menace. The cure for such monopolies is economic freedom, i.e., capitalism.

For the same reason that I oppose government-backed monopolies, I staunchly oppose any form of antitrust (and the non-objective notion of "monopoly" that underlies it). For more, I highly recommend your readers watch a talk by my colleague Alex Epstein, The Monopoly Myth: The Case of Standard Oil.

NWR: Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Ted Turner are among a couple dozen American billionaires involved in the "The Giving Pledge," an invitation to the wealthiest individuals and families in America to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes. What is your opinion of "The Giving Pledge"?

DW: ARC's executive director Yaron Brook and I recently wrote a piece for Forbes.com on this issue. Here's part of what we had to say:

It is no accident that the Giving Pledge is not a call for charity but a public pledge to give. As Matthew Bishop and Michael Green observe, 'Richesse oblige is part of American culture. The peer pressure to give is great (for donors large and small) . . . The Giving Pledge has upped that peer pressure . . .' The Pledge treats your wealth, not as a justly earned reward, but as a gift from society--one that came with plenty of strings attached. The message is: Fulfill the obligation that came with your riches, give your wealth away--or hide your face in shame.

But your wealth was not an undeserved gift. Every dollar in your bank account came from some individual who voluntarily gave it to you--who gave it to you in exchange for a product he judged to be more valuable than his dollar. You have no moral obligation to "give back," because you didn't take anything in the first place.

NWR: When asked what he attributes his wealth to, Warren Buffett told journalist Christiane Amanpour that he was simply "born in the 1930s in America, born in the right country at the right time." Do you think that is an accurate assessment of his success? Buffett went on to remark, "The idea of dynastic wealth is crazy...it's kind of un-American." Do you think that's a healthy view of wealth and inheritance?

DW: The fact is, many, many people were born "in the right country at the right time" and they did not become Warren Buffett. All of us experience our share of luck, good and bad. The question is, what choices do we make in the face of the "hand we're dealt"? Buffett exercised the judgment and effort necessary to make himself a spectacular success. The fact that some part of his success was due to fortunate circumstances outside his control doesn't dilute his achievement one bit.

The central issue regarding inheritance is that your wealth belongs to you, and no one but you has a right to decide who gets it after your death. That said, a parent can legitimately decide he doesn't want his children to inherit so much wealth that they don't have to earn a living.

Finally, notice that Buffett's attitude is contradictory. If his success really was a matter of luck, as he claims, then why should he make a distinction regarding between whether one's luck involves being born an American or being born a Buffett? When Buffett calls inheritance un-American, he does so on the premise that in America people earn their wealth--which is precisely what he denies by chalking his fortune up to lucky circumstances.

NWR: Everybody agrees the U.S. needs to get a handle on its debt. November's election brought in an allegedly new breed of politician, one whose focus lies in economic issues and more specifically, is geared towards cutting spending. In which direction does ARC think our government needs to head, economically speaking? Should the so-called "Bush era tax cuts" be renewed? And in terms of cutting spending, which areas would you say are ripe for cutbacks?

DW: There is no question that government spending is out of control. But that is a derivative issue. If you hold the view, as most people do, that government should do everything in the world (and in space), then there is no way to curtail government spending. You can see the conflict many on the right are confronting as they demand cuts in government spending, and at the same time are defending the biggest sources of spending: entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

My view is that the central question is not "How much should government spend?", but "What is the government's proper function?" I agree with the Founding Fathers: the only role for government is to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud. If the government got back to that highly delimited role, then there would be no problem of spending.

NWR: This question is from a reader: How are Ayn Rand's economic and political ideas similar to, and different from, Libertarian thinking (ie, The Cato Institute)?

DW: Ayn Rand once wrote that "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

Rand did not believe that one could effectively advocate capitalism apart from a philosophic view of human nature and morality. She did not regard it as an accident, for instance, that the United States was created during the Enlightenment, by men committed to reason, individualism, and the inalienable rights of man. Those ideas, she argued, are the indispensible foundation of a free society.

"Libertarianism," as an ideology, is based on the idea that freedom can be defined and defended without a philosophic base, or, what amounts to the same thing, on any philosophic base. Ayn Rand was a staunch opponent of this view, to say the least: Whereas these "Libertarians" seek to maximize people's ability to do whatever they feel like, she aimed to protect the individual's right to act according to his rational judgment.

Today, however, "libertarian" is little more than a vague political label, which is applied to anyone who claims to support free markets. If one uses "libertarian" in this broad sense, the basic difference between Rand and libertarians is that she advocates a unified, consistent philosophy--a philosophy which holds that the only proper political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.

NWR: What issues have been priorities or areas of focus for ARC recently?

DW: ARC's mission is to fight for laissez-faire capitalism, and that goal determines our priorities. One of our central aims is to help the public better understand capitalism and its moral and political foundations. That involves as one crucial element explaining how free markets are the solution to today's political policy debates. As a result, we have written extensively on issues such as:

• The cause and cure of the financial crisis
• The need for freedom in health care
• The irreplaceable value of industrial energy, and the threat posed to it by environmentalism
• The meaning and value of free speech
• The need for a foreign policy of American self-interest
• The central importance to a free society of private property rights

NWR: How can readers get involved and take action if they see something on ARC's site that inspires them? How can someone get involved with ARC, either directly or indirectly?

DW: The list is practically limitless, but I'll name two things.

First, you can visit our website: www.aynrandcenter.org. On the main menu just click on "Participate" and you will find out how you can, for instance, engage in activism or bring an ARC speaker to your city. Our site will also explain how to provide financial support to ARC or how to become a volunteer.

The second point I'll mention is this: if you see an interview, an article, or a book of ours that you like, tell other people about it. Send it to a friend, post a link to Facebook, or mention it on your blog. We believe that ideas determine the direction of a culture, and by helping our material gain a wider audience--even if it's just a few of your friends or co-workers--you are helping to fight for a free society.

Posted in: , , | 0 comments | |  

Just How Neutral is "Net Neutrality?"


The Internet is one of the most incredible examples of what happens when you leave the marketplace to its own devices. Left untouched by government regulations, the internet has transformed every aspect of life, from education to business to how we communicate as a society. Nobody could have predicted just how important and world changing the internet would be, including those in government. Why, then, is the F.C.C. prepared to argue that government interference of the internet is necessary to guarantee continued innovation?

Julian Genachowski, Chairman of the F.C.C., claims that in order to prevent freedom of the internet from being stolen, the government must seize control of it. He is currently hard at work on a regulatory order that amounts to yet another power grab by big government, this time claiming authority over the internet. Dubbed “Net Neutrality,” the regulatory plan is anything but neutral. It is not neutral on the issue of commerce. It is not neutral on the issue of private property. It is not neutral on the issue of liberty.

Genachowski’s policy would forbid Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from blocking the content they choose to block. The F.C.C. claims this is to prevent censorship but that becomes a suspicious defense when you look at the bigger picture. In 2008, The F.C.C. found cable giant Comcast to be in violation of federal internet policy because they blocked their customers’ access to information from the peer-to-peer service, BitTorrent. Comcast brought the case to a U.S. Court of Appeals and won on the grounds that the agency had no authority over how Comcast manages their business. The F.C.C.’s issue with Comcast was the fact that the company blocked, or censored, use of the file-sharing site, yet just last week the federal government shut down the domains of multiple peer-to-peer sites, a significantly more censoring move than anything Comcast engaged in. What we can glean from this is not that the F.C.C. is aiming at preventing censorship but that they want to be the censors. Referring to an internet free of regulations, Genachowski says, “There are real risks to the Internet’s continued freedom and openness.” In fact, the only real threat to the internet’s continued freedom is the government. It is only government that has the power to censor. A private ISP can certainly choose what kind of internet access it offers customers but they can’t do anything to prevent those users from taking their business to other providers. A free marketplace allows for competition, and competitors will be happy to offer an internet service that gives consumers what they want in exchange for their cash.

To make the policy seem fair, Genachowski points out that the F.C.C. “would allow” ISP providers to tier their pricing based on usage. It “would allow” broadband providers to decide what rates they charge. It “would allow” providers to manage their traffic. It “would allow” them to experiment with specialized services such as a medical, legal, or security specific superhighway…so long as the ISP company can provide justification for the business venture. I have one question for the Chairman: “Why do ISP companies need government permission to develop their business model as they choose?” Genachowski wants to create transparency rules, requiring ISPs to disclose the way they manage their business and he wants to monitor “anti-competitive” and “anti-consumer” behavior. Anyone who doesn’t understand that the market, itself, monitors competition and consumer behavior should play absolutely no role in overseeing a business model of any kind.

Mr. Genachowski is working on this monstrosity of a regulation right now. He plans to finalize it and bring it up for a vote at the commission’s next meeting, scheduled for December 21st. You should begin contacting your elected officials now, letting them know you stand firmly opposed to net neutrality and that they should, too. You can be sure I’ll be calling Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) urging them to oppose this sort of regulation should they be faced with a vote in the future.

Posted in: , | 0 comments | |  

Is "Christmas" a Four Letter Word?


It is if you follow the City of Philadelphia's logic.

For three years in a row, the German Christmas Village has successfully set up booths and tree vendors at City Hall. Each year a festive archway with the words, "Christmas Village," is mounted, announcing its name to the public. Until this year, that is. Due to complaints, the German Christmas Village will now bare the words, "Holiday Village." The city's managing director, Richard Negrin, requested the change. In defense of the name change, Philadelphia's city spokesman Mark McDonald said, "As a city of great diversity, one shouldn't be surprised that there's a difference of views when it comes to symbols and words." To that I say, "As a city of great diversity, one shouldn't be surprised to see religious holidays mentioned on public property." As a free society we have to see different views and opinions all the time. Some we'll share, some we won't. The sensitivity over simply seeing reference to a holiday you might not celebrate is a little more than outrageous.

About a week ago I posted an article on separation of church and state, pointing out the fact that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion while protecting the expression of religion. In other words, freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion. This Philadelphia story is a perfect example of confusing the two. Where does the Constitution state that religious imagery - or in this case, the name of a specific holiday (even more ridiculous) - shouldn't or can't be on public property?

I'd like to know when the word "Christmas" became such a vulgarity, and how in the world is it an offensive word? I suppose it doesn't matter in this case because ultimately Thomas Bauer, manager of the Christmas Village, says he was happy to change the name. "People have to go to public buildings," Baur states, "They shouldn't feel offended." It's convenient for the city that he feels this way but I think its pretty idiotic to be "offended" by a holiday most people celebrate, including many who aren't Christian. I hope those on my "Christmas Card" list will let me know in advance of any offense they may take to my use of the word Christmas. I can save myself the stamp because in this rough economy, every penny counts.

Posted in: | 0 comments | |  

The Senate Is Returning to Some Leftover Business

With a fridge still full of Thanksgiving leftovers, our Senators are planning to get back to work and continue their efforts in their war on food and small farmers. The Senate will be making a critical vote on S. 510, the so-called “Food Safety Modernization Act,” on November 29th. This is an awful, liberty grabbing bill that gives the FDA significantly greater authority over family farms and what you put into your body.

There’s been a lot of talk about how new provisions in the bill protect those small, family farmers but the reality is the FDA will impose costly regulations which, if not adhered to, give it power to shut down these farms. Also troubling is how Big Agra farms benefit form this bill; small farms will be saddled with additional costs that could threaten their survival while Big Agra will be able to absorb the increased financial burden.

I’m certainly no enemy of big, corporate farms. I love capitalism and all the big business it brings. Even more than this, I love competition of the free market and the choices it affords us. One of those choices is whether to consume genetically modified organisms (GMO). I choose to eat natural fish, meats, poultry and vegetables because I’m worried about the potential health risks posed by GMO food. I don’t want to eat salmon that was created in a lab. I also prefer raw milk over pasteurized because it is easier for me to digest and has more nutritional value. Additionally, dairy farms offering raw milk have much higher quality and care standards for their cows because they can’t pump them full of steroids and antibiotics like large scale, corporate dairy farms. The fact is S. 510 threatens my ability to make these choices.

The bill would raise costs for small farms that offer organic and all natural produce as well as raw dairy products. This will lead to an increase in food costs for those who eat those foods, something that could have a devastating effect on these small farms during this rough economy if we can’t afford that increase. Big Agra farms have no reason to truly “compete” if their competition is forced out of business due to the government’s intervention. It’s no wonder Big Agra farms and unions have backed this bill!

S. 510 is bad policy. It is not the sort of policy our government should be creating in a free market, capitalist system. In an attempt to offer “food safety,” the FDA threatens to strip away our ability to make our own decisions. Government exists to protect our freedom, not prohibit it; we should never support policy that aims at restricting our rights regardless of any good intentions the policy is created with.

Please go here to get information on contacting your Senators via phone, fax, or email. Leave a message for them when they get back to work on Monday. I know your weekend is hectic with family in town and holiday shopping but think of those leftovers in your own fridge. How will next year’s holiday be affected by choices made this week?

Posted in: | 0 comments | |  

"This Is For Your Own Good..."


Am I the only person who cringes when I hear those words? More and more frequently our civil liberties are being taken away and that is the line of reasoning offered.

First we had the Paycheck (un)Fairness Act, forcing employers to pay equal wages regardless of the individual situation. We've got the Food Safety Modernization Act, placing ever increasing regulations on small, local farmers and ensuring the Big Agra reaps the benefits. Let's not forget about the current TSA situation which requires citizens to give up their 4th Amendment rights (not to mention their dignity) just in order to travel. Oh, and in San Francisco, as of December 1st Happy Meals must be met with nutritional requirements before a toy can be included with the meal.

Luckily, the Paycheck (un)Fairness Act failed in the Senate. We might not be so lucky with Food Safety Modernization Act as that is scheduled to go to vote on November 29th. If you support local farmers and their right to manage their own seeds, sell raw milk, make artisan cheeses and so forth and so on, please contact your Senator's office and urge them to vote "NO" on S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act (aka The Monsanto Bill).

Speaking of contacting your elected officials...we have to reclaim our dignity and respect while traveling. This is not Nazi Germany or an Israeli checkpoint, this is America. Allowing a government agency to virtually undress us or molest us in order to travel is absurd. And just think about how fast we've lost rights...TSA didn't even exist prior to 2001! Contact your Congressman and urge him or her to support Rep. Ron Paul's American Traveler Dignity Act 2010 (HR 6416).

These are not partisan issues, though I'm sure they will be turned into such. These are issues that are impediments to the freedom this nation was formed upon. Please get on the phone or send an email to your elected officials. Tell them we won't stand for anymore liberties being stripped away, especially in the name of safety. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Those words ring loudly today.

Posted in: | 0 comments | |  

Separation Anxiety


Much debate surrounds the topic of religion’s role in American government, specifically Christianity’s role. Everyone from scholars to clergymen to elected officials and candidates seem to disagree on where, exactly, the First Amendment’s limitations on religion end. Most recently notable on this front was Christine O’Donnell, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Delaware. O’Donnell was criticized, and may have even lost her bid for Senator, over her perplexing comments regarding what the First Amendment’s establishment clause says (or doesn’t say) about separation of church and state. So what does the First Amendment say about religion and politics?

The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The portion that directly applies to religion’s role is that first clause, dubbed the “establishment clause.” But what is meant by the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and how can we know what the framers intended with that phrase?

The Founders were Christian men, mostly of the Protestant Church. There may have been a few who weren’t but that’s not only difficult to prove, it’s irrelevant. The Founding Fathers prayed before meetings, they often spoke of Christ and God in their speeches and God is mentioned throughout the Declaration of Independence. It was written into Federal law that Congress is to begin with a prayer and this is practiced even still today. To try suggesting the nation was not founded by men of the Christian faith is absurd and just as absurd is the desire many liberals have to prohibit expression of religion in the public sphere. The Christian faith played, and still plays, a major role in American life. It would never have been the intent of these men to forbid public or governmental expressions or faith and religion. So how literal do we take the words, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion?”

Many look to the personal letters written by some of the Founders, others look to speeches such as George Washington’s Farewell Address to determine the intentions of the establishment clause. However, the Constitution was written to establish all men’s rights as citizens of the United States. Any personal letters or speeches delivered convey only the feelings of the author or speaker, not their position on laws and what other men must be forced to do. Because a Founder may have believed Christianity offers the best morals and values by which one should live does not mean he also thought Christian principles should be manifested into law. In fact, on June 7, 1797, John Adams introduced the Treaty of Tripoli to the Senate. The people of Tripoli were Musselmans and to assure that no religiously based complications would arise, Article 11 of the treaty contained a clear statement on the religious position of our nation: “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” This treaty was unanimously approved b the Senate and signed into law by John Adams. This is a crystal clear illustration of the political mindset of our Founders and though they were inarguably Christian men, they had no intention to be “a Christian nation.”

The First Amendment states that the nation will have no established religion but will protect the expression of religion. It does not say that religious imagery must be removed from government buildings. It does not state that public schools must ban prayer – a notion that seems all the more ridiculous when contrasted with Congress’s opening prayer ceremony. The First Amendment does not free us from the religious expression of others but on quite the contrary, it protects others’ right to publicly express that religion. The First Amendment also offers no limits on individual liberties based on the religion of those writing law. What the First Amendment does provide is the security in knowing that any person, from any creed, can enjoy all the freedoms our Constitution protects and Declaration of Independence speaks of. Rather than use the Constitution to prohibit rights, we should be championing the freedom it protects.

Posted in: | 0 comments | |  

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)