Dear Rutgers Libertarians,
I’m sure it’s already obvious, but I’ll inform you anyway: I am graduating and passing the torch of the club. Really, I would like to say thank you.
You all have made the dream of freedom a reality because you have demanded that your voices be heard. I asked you to come with me on a journey that met resistance by default, yet you were brave. You held steadfast in your critique of a society that has grown increasingly dependent on its government. Your desire for freedom allowed all of us to have an avenue to express our distrust in things that are outside of individual control. You met the scores of naysayers with vigor, and laboriously helped this organization to grow; for this, I can never thank you enough.
I may never take another L or B bus in my life. I may never again be assaulted by the cookie lady at Tillet. I may never again drink 8 red bulls in one day. I may never again witness the fury of a 2 am fat sandwich. I may never again wait on line for an entire night for student tickets to a Louisville football game. I may never again have the honor to be at a place where everyone knows every word to every Bon Jovi song.
But I will always have what you gave me; you instilled in me the fire to understand the world in a new and meaningful way. Most importantly, you gave me the inspiration to counter the masses and make sense of four of the most important years of my life.
I’ll part with some advice from perhaps our last responsible President—a man that receives my (nearly) unparalleled respect:
"This spirit, however, without knowledge, would be little better than a brutal rage. Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution." -John Adams
For those of you who will still be on the banks of the Raritan next year, carry this with you. Always question what is before you. When your freedom is infringed upon, be sure to sound the horn of alarm; let your fellow Rutgers students in on the (not-so) secret that is freedom. Life is too short to accept anything less.
In Liberty,
Josh Hagewood
President, Rutgers Libertarians
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A Plea for Peace
A friend recently sent me a YouTube video of Representative Ron Paul speaking about the War Powers Resolution to a panel of Congress members. Congressman Paul spoke in favor of repealing the law, but unlike the other members of Congress who stood both for and against it, he stressed that there is no need for a new law to replace it. Rep. Paul emphasized that the Constitution states very clearly that the United States cannot go to war unless war is declared by Congress.
Rep. Paul outlined the ridiculous, bureaucratic maze that the War Powers Resolution makes Congress find its way through in order to stop a hawkish President from going to war without their permission. Jim Baker shoots down the congressman's ideas on technicalities without addressing the real issue (Imagine that: the issue at hand NOT being discussed in Congress). Rep. Paul shot back at Jim Baker with, at least to me, the defining quote of his argument: "I put most of the blame on the Congress for being derelict in their responsibility, but if presidents just go out and start wars, well then sure the Congress should have something to do with it. They shouldn't fund him, and if necessary, they should impeach the President." This comment was met with incredulity from the panel, specifically Baker, who was appalled that Paul would go as far to talk about impeachment of the President over something as petty as war.
I think, as a country, we need to take a collective step back. In fact, on the subject of war, we need to run backwards for a few miles. You see, that's the problem, it's always the subject of war. It's never the subject of peace. The War Powers Resolution, The Summit on War, War Regulations, Terms of War, War Crimes. This is what Americans hear from the media and the government in a daily, constant stream. Congressman Paul mentions that the U.S. has been in an almost perpetual state of war since World War II. Many conflicts have been unpublicized (because the government didn't want them getting out, and the media is their lapdog); many have been swept under the rug.
As a country, many of us are, sadly, used to and hardened against the daily reports of our proud soldiers dying overseas. It's part of war, we think. While it is a sad reality of war, war does not have to be a sad reality of everyday life. War should be an anomaly, not a political strategy. It's a horrible, disgusting thing that wrenches human rights away from the poor citizens of whichever side that has less military might. We don't experience that because we're mightier than all (The media has no problem reminding us just how powerful our military is). But even in our case, thousands of families have wept for lost loved ones, and thousands more, including my own, have feared and continue to fear for family and friends stationed overseas. Perhaps we are used to it as a country, but ask those individuals who have lost those they love to needless war, and see just how accepting they are of it.
I believe Congressman Paul's oratory is, at its heart, an outcry for peace. He believes with the power to declare war firmly back in Congress' hands, it will be much more difficult for any President to start conflicts for inadequate reasons. As a people, we're jaded; how easy it is to name war a "conflict" for a "reason," a reason that, of course, must be adequate because our deeply compassionate government would never send a steady stream of young, capable men and women to die for something not worth fighting for.
Wrong. The government is indifferent, and always has been. It is military commanding officers who have to walk up the driveways, sidewalks, and dirt roads of America to hand folded flags to the hands of hysterical mothers and fathers wailing and standing in disbelief. Not the President. Not the Congresspeople. They sign the bill and hope they get votes for it in the end.
War should not be political maneuvering. Look throughout American history. The candidate who runs on a platform of peace consistently wins every four years. Yet have any of them lived up to their campaign promises? Hardly (There's another surprise). War is a horrid, revolting thing and like so many other horrid, revolting things, both the media and government have made it a sorry fact of everyday life in America. Elvis Costello's question seems like a simple one, but from the way the government reacts whenever it's posed to them, you begin to wonder: Just what is so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
Mike Gilch is a freshman at Rutgers University. He is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians and plans to major in Journalism and Music Education.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Price Tag on Attention
By Rob Michael
Spring 2009
Does the attention span of Americans have a price tag? It may sound too subjective to answer, but I would approximate it at $165 million. If this number sounds familiar, that's because it is how much AIG executives will be receiving in bonuses. This seemingly large amount of money is currently causing outrage in Washington, DC. Democrats and Republicans seem to agree when the issue is raised; action must be taken. Action, however, would require ignoring the legal powers that contracts hold in our society. If our government decides to do this, it will be up to the people to cry out about the dangers associated with such a powerful government.
The situation is more complex than the unmoral gift of $165 million. Afterall, how could intervention by the state be wrong if its only meant to serve the people? The answer is that it can be much more dangerous than it appears. These bonuses were given as part of contracts, which are legally binding by definition. If the government steps in to breach these contracts, it will disregard one of the most fundamental notions of our free, capitalistic society. If contracts are stripped of their ability to bind agreements in certainty, the health of the private sector will be placed in jeopardy.
The impact of foresight like this is lessened every day as people are continually fed the idea that capitalism has failed us. The AIG bonus gifts have been chalked up to the greed of capitalists. However, any amount of investigation leads to more educated explanations. It was, in fact, the government that is responsible for the survival of the AIG bonuses. Specifically, it was Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) who added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The amendment disallowed taxation on the bonuses by making an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009." Why in the world would Mr. Dodd include such a thing? Might it have anything to do with the $103,100 he received from AIG during the election cycle? No, no... of course not.
Worst of all is that the outrage being created about this legal $165 million is a drop in the bucket when compared to the waste in the stimulus bill. After all, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says that "the American people really don't care" about pork. Interesting then that this $165 million is grabbing the attention of all the media outlets. By focusing on this legal $165 million, people are surrendering their attention as to forget about the actual corruption involved in the stimulus bill. The friendliness of our Democrats and Republicans up on the Hill is nice to see, but it would be a lot sweeter if there wasn't so much as stake.
So how much does it cost to destract the public? In this case it seems to be $165 million. As we worry about this legal blunder, we seem to be ignoring something Glenn Beck brings to light. Of the billions of dollars alloted to AIG, the amount of money AIG gave to banks overseas is larger than the amount given to American banks. This means that in the case of AIG, our stimulus money benefited other countries more than it did the US. While everyone else is wondering about the $165 million, it might serve you best to wonder about the $1 trillion that is being spent in other places.
Rob Michael is a sophomore at Rutgers University.
Spring 2009
Does the attention span of Americans have a price tag? It may sound too subjective to answer, but I would approximate it at $165 million. If this number sounds familiar, that's because it is how much AIG executives will be receiving in bonuses. This seemingly large amount of money is currently causing outrage in Washington, DC. Democrats and Republicans seem to agree when the issue is raised; action must be taken. Action, however, would require ignoring the legal powers that contracts hold in our society. If our government decides to do this, it will be up to the people to cry out about the dangers associated with such a powerful government.
The situation is more complex than the unmoral gift of $165 million. Afterall, how could intervention by the state be wrong if its only meant to serve the people? The answer is that it can be much more dangerous than it appears. These bonuses were given as part of contracts, which are legally binding by definition. If the government steps in to breach these contracts, it will disregard one of the most fundamental notions of our free, capitalistic society. If contracts are stripped of their ability to bind agreements in certainty, the health of the private sector will be placed in jeopardy.
The impact of foresight like this is lessened every day as people are continually fed the idea that capitalism has failed us. The AIG bonus gifts have been chalked up to the greed of capitalists. However, any amount of investigation leads to more educated explanations. It was, in fact, the government that is responsible for the survival of the AIG bonuses. Specifically, it was Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) who added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The amendment disallowed taxation on the bonuses by making an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009." Why in the world would Mr. Dodd include such a thing? Might it have anything to do with the $103,100 he received from AIG during the election cycle? No, no... of course not.
Worst of all is that the outrage being created about this legal $165 million is a drop in the bucket when compared to the waste in the stimulus bill. After all, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says that "the American people really don't care" about pork. Interesting then that this $165 million is grabbing the attention of all the media outlets. By focusing on this legal $165 million, people are surrendering their attention as to forget about the actual corruption involved in the stimulus bill. The friendliness of our Democrats and Republicans up on the Hill is nice to see, but it would be a lot sweeter if there wasn't so much as stake.
So how much does it cost to destract the public? In this case it seems to be $165 million. As we worry about this legal blunder, we seem to be ignoring something Glenn Beck brings to light. Of the billions of dollars alloted to AIG, the amount of money AIG gave to banks overseas is larger than the amount given to American banks. This means that in the case of AIG, our stimulus money benefited other countries more than it did the US. While everyone else is wondering about the $165 million, it might serve you best to wonder about the $1 trillion that is being spent in other places.
Rob Michael is a sophomore at Rutgers University.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Nearing the end to Jersey’s War on Drugs?
By Zaid Abuhouran
Spring 2009
In a highly controversial topic, the New Jersey State Senate recently passed a bill
that will allow the use of medical marijuana for patients with “debilitating medical conditions”. This has caused debate among Senators and is receiving mixed reactions from New Jersey residents. To become New Jersey law, the bill still needs to pass in both houses and be signed into law by Governor Corzine. Even then, there will be restrictions on who can use it and who can’t.
Although this is only a small step towards is the end of the drug war, it is a sign that politicians are waking up to the reality this is costing us. According to Students for Sensible Drug Policy, more than $50 billion is spent EVERY YEAR waging the failed War on Drugs, and %55 of inmates are incarcerated for drug related offenses.
This governmental restriction of personal freedom violates the fact that a person is in control of their own body, and, regardless whether it is for medical use or not, it demonizes a drug that is more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. Everyone’s hero Barry has admitted to “inhaling”, along with other prominent politicians and Supreme Court justices. I’m sure that if they were arrested they wouldn’t be where they are today.
I personally have never tried marijuana, nor do intend to in the future. However, those who choose to smoke in private should not be restricted from doing so, as long as they do not harm other people in the process and violate their liberties. A person owns their own body, and no one else should be given authority over what that person can do with their body, especially not the government.
Friday, February 20, 2009
A is A: What is Taxation?
by Ryan Felder
Spring 2009
Anyone who is familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand has most certainly heard the phrase "A is A." This idea is known in logic as the law of identity. The idea simply means that any act or object is itself. It seems like a silly point to make, as it appears to be an obvious redundancy. But the meaning that we can extrapolate from it is actually quite profound.
Let's take the idea of taxation. Most people dislike the idea of paying taxes but view it as a necessary evil. They see it as the price we pay for societal organization. But let's take a closer look at what taxation really is. In taxation, the government essentially reaches its hand into the individual pocket and demands money. The government then takes the money and distributes it as it sees fit, whether in the form of welfare programs or administrative expense. Often, corrupt politicians will skim off the top and keep the money for themselves. Most of the time, however, taxation is touted as a kind of forced charity which makes people do their fair share to help less fortunate people. Now, if an individual were to walk up to you on the street, point a gun at you, take your wallet, and give your money to charity, he would be arrested and punished as a thief. But if the government does the exact same thing (and it does; see what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes), it is celebrated as serving the people.
Now let's return to the idea of the law of identity. Since anything is inherently itself, it seems to follow that an act of theft is an act of theft, regardless of what you call it. Since one would normally consider an act where one agent forcibly takes property from another agent against the latter's will an act of theft, it seems that the government does this all the time. Call it our civic duty, say that the ends justify the means, but A is still A, theft is still theft. It follows that taxation is little more than theft with written words justifying and codifying it.
Ryan Felder is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is a School of Arts and Sciences Freshman majoring in Psychology.
Spring 2009
Anyone who is familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand has most certainly heard the phrase "A is A." This idea is known in logic as the law of identity. The idea simply means that any act or object is itself. It seems like a silly point to make, as it appears to be an obvious redundancy. But the meaning that we can extrapolate from it is actually quite profound.
Let's take the idea of taxation. Most people dislike the idea of paying taxes but view it as a necessary evil. They see it as the price we pay for societal organization. But let's take a closer look at what taxation really is. In taxation, the government essentially reaches its hand into the individual pocket and demands money. The government then takes the money and distributes it as it sees fit, whether in the form of welfare programs or administrative expense. Often, corrupt politicians will skim off the top and keep the money for themselves. Most of the time, however, taxation is touted as a kind of forced charity which makes people do their fair share to help less fortunate people. Now, if an individual were to walk up to you on the street, point a gun at you, take your wallet, and give your money to charity, he would be arrested and punished as a thief. But if the government does the exact same thing (and it does; see what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes), it is celebrated as serving the people.
Now let's return to the idea of the law of identity. Since anything is inherently itself, it seems to follow that an act of theft is an act of theft, regardless of what you call it. Since one would normally consider an act where one agent forcibly takes property from another agent against the latter's will an act of theft, it seems that the government does this all the time. Call it our civic duty, say that the ends justify the means, but A is still A, theft is still theft. It follows that taxation is little more than theft with written words justifying and codifying it.
Ryan Felder is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is a School of Arts and Sciences Freshman majoring in Psychology.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Steep Bills on Capitol Hill
By Rob Michael
2.19.2009 at 4:45 PM
If you thought you might catch a break from on the financial talk in Washington, you are sadly mistaken. GM and Chrysler are back on Capitol Hill asking for more money. The auto giants that are commonly considered "too big to fail" were instructed to return by the Bush administration to present their plans for survival in the auto market. Although we might have hoped otherwise, the plans are accompanied by requests for some pretty big checks. Is your patience running thin yet? Maybe it should be.
The debate here is not a simple one, but the answer is rather clear. These "bankrupt" auto companies need to be allowed to actually go bankrupt. It seems that despite our country being founded on ideas of freedom, like democracy and capitalism, we have allowed our democratically elected officials to ignore the role of markets. Socialism is at the door and our doormen are not even questioning its presence.
By dragging the companies through the recession we are doing the closest thing to throwing our money away. They have proven their capability to fail, but the response is to keep them around in hard times because we think that now they have a better chance to succeed. The government has either forgotten how the market works, or is using this opportunity to grab more power. My pessimistic side seems to favor the latter.
It is true that the auto industry is having a difficult time for reasons outside of management. Gone unseen to the majority of the public is the pressure created by unions. By refusing to allow GM to lower its overhead cost, the unions are much of the reason American cars cost so much more to produce. Due to the all of the benefits secured by the United Auto Workers, GM reports its worker costs at $69 per hour. This is a result of health care, pensions, and wages. In contrast, Toyota employees receive the equivalent of $53 per hour. Even before the recession hit, American companies seem to be at a bit of a disadvantage.
Regardless of what problems may be aiding in failure, the call for more billions is still unacceptable. GM is asking for another $13.4 billion and Chrysler for $4 billion. Reasons are rooted in the too big to fail mentality, but a lot of the numbers on the scene are sneaky (as usual). GM estimates that job loss could be between 1.5 million and 3 million workers. The low end of this spectrum is actually only if one company's failure results in the other companies' failures along with the loss of dealerships and other outlets. For some reason, this is given as the low end. On the higher side, the prediction is rooted in the notion that GM failing will cause all auto work in America to disappear. This means that foreign companies with factories in the U.S. are also goners. I think its a little ridiculous to believe that Americans will simply choose to live out their lives without automobiles from now on, but if I was fighting for my life I might make some outrageous claims too.
The truth is that the government is letting the people down here in a big way. When conservatives lack fiscal conservatism and liberals are given leeway to spend even more liberally, it is the people who get the short end of the stick. It might be a good idea to stop and think about where this money comes from. The government does not have an independent revenue system. Any money it spends will somehow fall on us, the people. Letting all of this slip by only means future generations will foot the bill.
Rob Michael is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is an SAS sophomore majoring in Psychology.
2.19.2009 at 4:45 PM
If you thought you might catch a break from on the financial talk in Washington, you are sadly mistaken. GM and Chrysler are back on Capitol Hill asking for more money. The auto giants that are commonly considered "too big to fail" were instructed to return by the Bush administration to present their plans for survival in the auto market. Although we might have hoped otherwise, the plans are accompanied by requests for some pretty big checks. Is your patience running thin yet? Maybe it should be.
The debate here is not a simple one, but the answer is rather clear. These "bankrupt" auto companies need to be allowed to actually go bankrupt. It seems that despite our country being founded on ideas of freedom, like democracy and capitalism, we have allowed our democratically elected officials to ignore the role of markets. Socialism is at the door and our doormen are not even questioning its presence.
By dragging the companies through the recession we are doing the closest thing to throwing our money away. They have proven their capability to fail, but the response is to keep them around in hard times because we think that now they have a better chance to succeed. The government has either forgotten how the market works, or is using this opportunity to grab more power. My pessimistic side seems to favor the latter.
It is true that the auto industry is having a difficult time for reasons outside of management. Gone unseen to the majority of the public is the pressure created by unions. By refusing to allow GM to lower its overhead cost, the unions are much of the reason American cars cost so much more to produce. Due to the all of the benefits secured by the United Auto Workers, GM reports its worker costs at $69 per hour. This is a result of health care, pensions, and wages. In contrast, Toyota employees receive the equivalent of $53 per hour. Even before the recession hit, American companies seem to be at a bit of a disadvantage.
Regardless of what problems may be aiding in failure, the call for more billions is still unacceptable. GM is asking for another $13.4 billion and Chrysler for $4 billion. Reasons are rooted in the too big to fail mentality, but a lot of the numbers on the scene are sneaky (as usual). GM estimates that job loss could be between 1.5 million and 3 million workers. The low end of this spectrum is actually only if one company's failure results in the other companies' failures along with the loss of dealerships and other outlets. For some reason, this is given as the low end. On the higher side, the prediction is rooted in the notion that GM failing will cause all auto work in America to disappear. This means that foreign companies with factories in the U.S. are also goners. I think its a little ridiculous to believe that Americans will simply choose to live out their lives without automobiles from now on, but if I was fighting for my life I might make some outrageous claims too.
The truth is that the government is letting the people down here in a big way. When conservatives lack fiscal conservatism and liberals are given leeway to spend even more liberally, it is the people who get the short end of the stick. It might be a good idea to stop and think about where this money comes from. The government does not have an independent revenue system. Any money it spends will somehow fall on us, the people. Letting all of this slip by only means future generations will foot the bill.
Rob Michael is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is an SAS sophomore majoring in Psychology.
Is the Minimum Wage Really Beneficial to Workers?
By Matt Simcha
Spring 2009
At first glance, a proposal to abolish the minimum wage would appear to be an attempt to allow wealthy businesses to take advantage of the poor working class. Upon examining the issue more deeply, however, it becomes apparent that there is sound economic theory supporting the notion that just about everyone, including the lower class, would benefit from the elimination of the minimum wage.
The first thing we must consider is that labor is a commodity, just like any good or service, whose price is determined by its supply and demand. This means that the actual price of labor is the wage at which the amount of qualified people willing to do the job at that wage is equal to the amount of people employers want to hire at that price. For the vast majority of jobs, this so called “equilibrium” price of labor is well above the current national minimum wage of $7.15 per hour. However, let’s examine a situation where the equilibrium price of labor for a certain job, set by nothing other than natural market forces, is say $5 per hour. We already know that by law, workers must earn no less than $7.15 per hour, so let’s say that the employer in this situation pays that wage for this job. The wage being offered for the job in question is now greater than the equilibrium wage set by the supply and demand for the job; what will happen? The answer is that there will be a surplus of labor. That is, the amount of qualified people who are willing to work the job will vastly exceed the amount of people that the employer can hire. This, of course, is known as unemployment, and it means that more people who want to work are jobless and have no legitimate source of income. The vast majority of economists believe that minimum wage laws cost the U.S. economy hundreds of thousands of jobs per year.
You may be asking yourself, how would elimination of the minimum wage benefit “just about everyone,” as stated earlier? With business not paying wages above market price, they will run more cheaply and more efficiently. This means lower prices and greater production, which gives you, the consumer, more purchasing power.
One major concern people have about elimination of the minimum wage is that hard working citizens who labor for long hours will still be unable to support themselves. This could occur in some instances, but typically, jobs whose equilibrium wage is below the minimum wage are held by teenagers who are not intending to support themselves, but rather looking for some extra cash while their parents support them. Thus, a person who is working hard but unable to support him/herself would be the exception rather than the rule, and in these exceptions some aid should be provided (the government would still have to give out less aid overall, due to the greater overall efficiency of the economy).
If you are still not convinced, try looking at the minimum wage from a different angle; not as a restriction on employers, but as a restriction on workers. It is essentially the government telling people, “If you’re offered a job that only exists at a wage below the minimum we set, you may not accept that job.” This kind of government encroachment into people’s personal choices needs to stop at once.
Though minimum wage laws are well meaning, they are a major contributor to the single greatest problem that exists in the world of economics, unemployment. Unemployment not only leaves people without any source of income, it also causes the entire economy to be inefficient, driving up prices of many goods and services, making life more difficult for everyone. Elimination of minimum wage laws would reduce the economic burden that is unemployment and make society as a whole better off.
Matt Simcha is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is a School of Arts and Sciences Sophomore majoring in Economics and Statistics.
Spring 2009
At first glance, a proposal to abolish the minimum wage would appear to be an attempt to allow wealthy businesses to take advantage of the poor working class. Upon examining the issue more deeply, however, it becomes apparent that there is sound economic theory supporting the notion that just about everyone, including the lower class, would benefit from the elimination of the minimum wage.
The first thing we must consider is that labor is a commodity, just like any good or service, whose price is determined by its supply and demand. This means that the actual price of labor is the wage at which the amount of qualified people willing to do the job at that wage is equal to the amount of people employers want to hire at that price. For the vast majority of jobs, this so called “equilibrium” price of labor is well above the current national minimum wage of $7.15 per hour. However, let’s examine a situation where the equilibrium price of labor for a certain job, set by nothing other than natural market forces, is say $5 per hour. We already know that by law, workers must earn no less than $7.15 per hour, so let’s say that the employer in this situation pays that wage for this job. The wage being offered for the job in question is now greater than the equilibrium wage set by the supply and demand for the job; what will happen? The answer is that there will be a surplus of labor. That is, the amount of qualified people who are willing to work the job will vastly exceed the amount of people that the employer can hire. This, of course, is known as unemployment, and it means that more people who want to work are jobless and have no legitimate source of income. The vast majority of economists believe that minimum wage laws cost the U.S. economy hundreds of thousands of jobs per year.
You may be asking yourself, how would elimination of the minimum wage benefit “just about everyone,” as stated earlier? With business not paying wages above market price, they will run more cheaply and more efficiently. This means lower prices and greater production, which gives you, the consumer, more purchasing power.
One major concern people have about elimination of the minimum wage is that hard working citizens who labor for long hours will still be unable to support themselves. This could occur in some instances, but typically, jobs whose equilibrium wage is below the minimum wage are held by teenagers who are not intending to support themselves, but rather looking for some extra cash while their parents support them. Thus, a person who is working hard but unable to support him/herself would be the exception rather than the rule, and in these exceptions some aid should be provided (the government would still have to give out less aid overall, due to the greater overall efficiency of the economy).
If you are still not convinced, try looking at the minimum wage from a different angle; not as a restriction on employers, but as a restriction on workers. It is essentially the government telling people, “If you’re offered a job that only exists at a wage below the minimum we set, you may not accept that job.” This kind of government encroachment into people’s personal choices needs to stop at once.
Though minimum wage laws are well meaning, they are a major contributor to the single greatest problem that exists in the world of economics, unemployment. Unemployment not only leaves people without any source of income, it also causes the entire economy to be inefficient, driving up prices of many goods and services, making life more difficult for everyone. Elimination of minimum wage laws would reduce the economic burden that is unemployment and make society as a whole better off.
Matt Simcha is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is a School of Arts and Sciences Sophomore majoring in Economics and Statistics.
Unions: The Downfall of Good Hard Work
By Scott Thompson
Spring 2009
Scott Thompson is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is an SAS sophomore planning to major in Information Technology and Informatics.
The Bush torture tradition carried on by Obama
By Zaid Abuhouran
Spring 2009
In a not-so-surprising turn of events, evidence last week shows that the Obama administration may continue the failed Bush policies of illegal detention and torture.
As per this Times article
, the Obama administration is using the same “national security” excuse employed by the Bush administration to illegally detain prisoners who they deem a threat. Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian native, sued Boeing for assisting in the Bush administration in its “extraordinary rendition” program, where Mohamed and four other men were expedited and tortured abroad. The case was dismissed by the Bush administration on the notion that it threatened national security and international relations.
Instead of carrying out the “change” that he has been preaching, the Obama administration is following in the notorious footsteps of the Bush administration. In regards to Mohamed’s case, the same “state secret” excuse is being used by government lawyer Douglas N. Letter to keep Guantanamo open.
To further the damage, Solicitor General Nominee Elena Kagan said to a key Republican senator that she believes the government has the legal authority to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely and without trial. It is clear that the Obama administration is trying to appease a wide spectrum of people and to forge political allies instead of keep the promise of “change”.
Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy has called for an independent investigation into the Bush crimes, regardless of support from the Obama administration. Knowing that the Obama administration will carry on these crimes leaves for an unpromising overall outcome. In a meeting with the White House, Leahy said:
I would hate to see us take the attitude that that was then and this is now, let’s not worry about any of the mistakes or the abuse of the law and give it a pass … because it is my experience that you continue to make mistakes until somebody calls you on it.
The Obama administration knows that the legacy they are carrying on is illegal. They are becoming increasingly accountable of campaign lies and the same failed policies of the Bush administration. It’s only time until the masses who fell for their savior’s pretty talk will realize that he is just another false hope.
Zaid Abuhouran is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is a School of Environmental and Biological Sciences freshman, majoring in Biology and Political Science.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The New Continental Divide
By Mike Gilch
Spring 2009
Before I get into that, let's get a few important things straight:
-I was neither and Obama nor a McCain supporter. In fact, I've completely lost all faith in our government and the way in which it governs. It's forgotten it's a government; instead, it masquerades as one big, greedy corporation.
-A few friends suggested the idea of not voting at all in protest. While I think their arguments hold some water, I think they're a bit misguided by believing in the two-party system. I voted Libertarian because from what I can tell, it's the only political party who hasn't completely lost sight of what government is supposed to be. I like to hold out hope that if a large enough percentage votes Libertarian each election, knowledge and recognition will increase, and, most importantly, maybe people will bother to get informed.
With this said, let me launch down all your throats. Based solely on what I saw and heard after the election, I have only this to ask: Why are the vast majority of people so quick to blindly follow a candidate based on unimportant things? The Obama supporters are acting like this is the second coming of Christ. He wasn't born in a manger; he was born in Honolulu. He's a politician, albeit a charismatic one, just like the rest of them. Let it be known that I am not knocking anyone's ideas, ideals, or ideologies. I just wish people would bother to become more informed about the candidates they so blindly follow. Obama preaches change. Change, change, change. Political change. Economic change. Social change. Spare change. Sex change. Diaper change. Well, that's all well and good, and for those of you who believe him, for your sanity's sake, I hope you're proved at least somewhat right. We could use some serious change around here. Why is the man calling so vehemently for the tearing down of the political machine run crookedly by money money money --- why is that man's memoir being advertised adjacent to the very text box I'm writing this in? He's making money off his recent run of popularity. Once again, I stress that there's nothing wrong with that. A few years ago, he released the book, and it did nowhere as well in the sales charts as it did during the campaign period. Now that he's known, he can make money off the book. I say, good for him! That's the way capitalism should work, no? However, this is just one example of how he's just another politician, driven by money just as much as every other pseudo-sincere talking head in this country.
And the McCain people! (Notice how I didn't say "the rest of you?" There are more than two parties, people. Do your research.) Did you sign up to his campaign's e-mail list? Did he shoot you a quick message on election night, when Pennsylvania fell into Obama's electoral vote column and it became apparent who the President-Elect would be, saying to change all your Facebook statuses to claim you're moving to another country? " So long, America. I'm moving to Canada." My personal favorites were the ones who said they would move to Europe. Especially France. For real, people? France? You claim you're staunch Republicans who are just frothing over with outrage at the audacity of the American people to elect a black supposed Socialist to the presidency, and your anger has driven you to move to France, possibly the most socialist country on the most Socialist continent on the planet?
You non-informed, misguided, gullible, ignorant, zombified fools.
If you're going to believe in the system, then by all means, go ahead. But wield your vote wisely! Do your homework on the candidates before you pull the lever. Learn what they stand for if possible, not just what the media says they do. Learn what they stand against, that is, if they have actual stances on anything. You couldn't really tell from the debates. Don't be conservative because your parents are. Don't be liberal just because your geography tells you to be. I was raised in Jersey City, just outside of New York, as the son of a family who long lived in the same European immigrant section Downtown all their lives; all statistics say I should be one of the crazy people chanting Obama's name in the streets. But I'm not. I refuse to be a statistic created by the media, talking heads, and pollsters. I'm not kicking dirt in your face and shouting my correctness and others' failure. I'm saying that at least I researched the candidates and made my own, personal, thought-out decisions, whereas so many people I knew simply pulled the lever their surroundings told them to.
Getting back to my starting point, I'm blown away by the post-election fallout. Facebook implied that Obama supporters could now only type in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AND USE EXCESSIVE PUNCTUATION!!1!! and McCain supporters were all moving to foreign countries, some of which didn't make sense at all for all they were being made into conservative havens. McCain made, what I thought to be, a humble, peaceful concession speech to then President-Elect Obama, but apparently his supporters were so mad at the nation that they decided to leave it altogether.
And we wonder why there's such a divide in our nation?
I see a new divide. The important divide no longer lies between the urban coasts and "Pennsyltucky," no longer does it run down the Rocky Mountains; the important divide now lies between the informed and the ignorant.
As aforementioned, maybe I just haven't noticed it before. Maybe it's because this was the first time I was eligible to vote. But it seems to me, that whether the working people, especially the students, of America voted for a candidate that went on to the Oval Office or one that dropped back into Congress, governorship, or Dukakis-ville, there was always a common thread afterwards: they rejoiced or they shrugged their shoulders, but they all kept on working. The lived life. They wrote music. They kept the arts alive. They kept going.
I don't buy into the corporate morass that America's become. They can't fool me, because I choose to pay attention and be informed. However, I do buy into the country that has always been here: the workers who kept going no matter who they voted for. They knew even if they agreed with what the candidate said he was going to do, the guy with the winning smile probably wasn't going to make those changes, anyway. Government was accepted as too big, and out of hand, and spending money the wrong way. And we all knew it, but we kept going. These people are the America I believe in. They are the reason this country hasn't crumbled under all the hypocrisy its bloated government has put it through.
So people, please. I truly beg of you. Let's close this most important of Continental Divides. Let's be informed. I walked out of my dorm after Obama officially became the President-elect, and someone ran up to me and screamed, "Obama or McCain?" Tehcnically, she didn't ask me anything, but I replied calmly, "Bob Barr" (the Libertarian candidate). She didn't ask who he was (I'm positive she didn't know), but instead replied like a third grader who just threw some other kid's lollipop in the sandbox, "Ha-ha! You lost!"
Really? This isn't some Yankees-Red Sox game at the end of August that has possible playoff implications; it's the election of our leader for the next four years! If you want to be so wildly behind a cause, then support knowing more about the people you vote into office, instead of blindly following the parade out on campus.
I'm not trying to be a party pooper, here. For the people who buy into Obama's proposed policies, I'm glad your candidate got elected, and for your sanity's sake, I hope he does at least some of what he promises to do. But do you even know what those promises are? Or do you just chant his name and his slogan, "Change," blindly? For the McCain-ers, you have a right to be upset over your candidate's loss, but leaving the country? To a Socialist state? Any so-called conservative making those claims doesn't even know what his party stands for. For a party that's so violently against embracing Hispanics and Spanish as an official language, a lot of you sure talk Stupid pretty fluently.
There are more than two parties. There are always more than two candidates, two choices. Wake up, people.
Mike Gilch is a member of the Rutgers Libertarians. He is a Rutgers University freshman, majoring in Journalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)