Come one, come all as we inaugurate another semester of Students for Liberty. After a brief introduction to the club and our plans for the school year, we’ll dive right into one of the hottest issues right now: Online Piracy and SOPA/PIPA.
Location and Time:
87 Evans Hall
Tuesday January 24
7:00 – 8:30 p.m.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
With the Republican presidential primary in full swing, we libertarians have been doing what we do best—squabbling! This year’s object of infighting is Congressman Ron Paul, the constitutionalist candidate who is trailblazing the race riding the rhetoric of freedom. So many questions have surrounded this underdog, not the least of which comes from within our movement.
Is Ron Paul truly beneficial to liberty? Are his positions on immigration and abortion libertarian enough to be worthy of support? Or, is he a just rambling old racist who will only wreak havoc on outsiders’ image of our movement? These questions and many more permeate an endless array of articles, blog posts, and Facebook threads scattered across the Internet. At the end of the day, these debates often boil down to one central question regarding how to implement libertarian social change. Namely, should the movement engage in political action through endorsing a candidate like Ron Paul? Or, should it remain content with the educational niche it has carved out for itself through think tanks, lectures, and literature?
Quite frankly, I find this debate to be completely futile because it is premised on the misguided assumption that education and political action are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is perfectly possible—and, in my opinion, healthy—for the libertarian movement engage inboth education and political action. Indeed, it’s already happening! As the old saying goes, it is never wise to “put all your eggs in one basket.” So, why are so many libertarians seeking some one-size-fits-all strategy to social change? Dare I say, that sounds rather statist!
Rather, for liberty to truly flourish, our movement should resemble the market principles we so loudly laud through encouraging individuals to engage with their comparative advantage. The more education-oriented among us can work at universities, think tanks, and nonprofits dedicated to promoting liberty through intellectual means, while the election-oriented can take action through political parties, campaigns, special interest groups. In this manner, the two camps of education and politics can happily coexist. In fact, like the yin yang concept of Chinese philosophy, this coexistence often give rise to each other.
Education and politics: the yin and yang of libertarian social change.
To illustrate this elusive concept and return to Ron Paul, I’d like to share an anecdote from Students For Liberty‘s first Campus Coordinator Retreat in July 2010. During the icebreaker session on day one, SFL’s first class of Campus Coordinators were asked to introduce ourselves and briefly explain how we were introduced to libertarianism. Personally, reading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as a teenager made me “see the light,” and I expected most students to answer with a similar story of some educational experience that caused them to convert. Instead,almost all of the SFL leaders present that day proudly proclaimed that it was Ron Paul who introduced them libertarianism, and since his 2008 campaign, they had been thoroughly engrossed in the philosophy of freedom. In other words, it was Ron Paul’s political presidential campaign than inspired them to educationally explore liberty.
Thus, contrary to the common misconception, education and political action are not mutually exclusive. Rather, like the yin and yang, they strengthen and give meaning to each other. Just as political action is meaningless without an underling ideology, so too are ideas useless without attempting to implement them in action.
So, while it may seem unlikely that Ron Paul wins this year’s Republican primary, it is a disservice to liberty to ignore his “r3VOLution.” Ron Paul singlehandedly reinvigorated the libertarian movement in 2008, introducing thousands, if not millions, of people to the philosophy of freedom—probably including most of SFL’s leadership! This year, he is doing the same with an even stronger campaign and popular support. That is why I as an individual am both a proud leader of SFL and donor to Ron Paul 2012—because I recognize that education and politics are not mutually exclusive but rather are two counterparts to a unitary libertarian movement.
Posted in Elections | Tagged comparative advantage, libertarianism, ron paul, social change, students for liberty, yin and yang | 2 Comments »
After many weeks of waiting, I am happy to announce that our club’s last lecture of the semester is finally online for your listening pleasure. Anthony Gregory, Research Editor at The Independent Institute, gave a talk to our club on November 16th entitled “Civil Liberties Under Bush and Obama.” It is a humorously educational lecture for a sobering subject. Anthony is truly a rising star in the libertarian movement, and our club has been incredibly fortunate to have a close relationship with him. Enjoy!
Posted in Events, Speakers | Tagged anthony gregory, barack obama, civil liberties, George W. Bush | Leave a Comment »
Today, noted economist and blogger J. Bradford DeLong posted a blog entry entitled “What You Are Supporting When You Support Ron Paul” that prominently displays a “Ron Paul Political Report” from 1992 that is rife with tasteless and offensive racial commentary.
To be charitable to DeLong, I will assume that Ron Paul does indeed hold the views that were expressed in the newsletter, even though Paul has publicly denied that he does (Lew Rockwell is the individual who actually wrote those newsletters). Even if we assume that Paul agrees with every word of the newsletters, it should be obvious that the policies of our current President are far more racist than Paul’s political report. The following question should illustrate this point: Which is worse, bombing and torturing individuals because they belong to a certain ethnic group or making highly offensive remarks about an ethnic group in a newsletter? This can be made into an even more general question: Which is worse, murdering someone or labeling someone with an offensive term?
I believe that killing or torturing someone is worse than labeling someone with an offensive term, and I sincerely hope you do too. Ron Paul is vehemently against the wars in the Middle East and torture, whereas Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan as well as continued the Bush Administration policies of torture and detention. It should be noted that Obama could end the detention and torture policies as well as the wars whenever he wants, but chooses not to do so. Ron Paul has claimed that if he were to be elected, he would end the wars and stop torture and detention immediately. His voting record in Congress unabashedly echoes this claim.
So, here is what you are supporting when you support Barack Obama:
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Our club’s third and final speaker event of the semester will take place this Wednesday, November 16th at 7 PM in 56 Barrows Hall. Anthony Gregory, Research Editor at the Independent Institute, will address the state of civil liberties under President Bush and Obama. We hope to see you there!
Anthony Gregory is Research Editor at the Independent Institute, and is a contribubtor to numerous libertarian commentary websites including lewrockwell.com, the Future of Freedom Foundation and Mises.org. Mr. Gregory will be giving an analsysis of the state of civil liberties under both Presidents Obama and Bush, and the differences (or lack thereof) between the two adminstrations’ policies in this area.
Posted in Events, Speakers | Tagged anthony gregory | Leave a Comment »
I wrote the following analysis for my business ethics course. I plan on posting my journal assignments every Thursday night.
When there are conflicting laws covering the same geographical territory, it can be hard for people to make plans. In can be hard for people to know if something is legal or not. And it might soon be much harder for Californians with medical marijuana cards to purchase marijuana products.
The Department of Justice has notified over 16 medical marijuana dispensaries in California they are in violation of federal law and the DoJ has threatened to shut them down and seize their assets. The marijuana dispensaries are complying with California state law but are violating federal law, and this has led to a conflict.
There are four major stakeholders: marijuana users, marijuana producers, Californians, and the Department of Justice.
If the DoJ closes the dispensaries, marijuana users are unquestionably harmed. Marijuana users contain two overlapping groups: medicinal users and recreational users. For all intents and purposes, the California law allows both groups to safely purchase marijuana. It will become harder for them to do so.
Marijuana producers are also harmed. They will lose millions in profits and have to come up with new, potentially illegal, business models.
Californians are losing their ability to make their own drug laws. In 1996 Proposition 215 legalized these dispensaries and the Department of Justice is saying federal drug laws supersede this law. This dispensary crackdown would be a big setback to autonomous state drug policy.
The winners are our friendly overlords at the Department of Justice. Their goal is to use taxpayers’ money to stop adults from using marijuana, and with their coercive power they just might succeed.
Posted in Drug Legalization | Leave a Comment »
The following is a guest submission by Will Tew, my colleague at Students For Liberty and president of UF Libertarians at the University of Florida:
I became a libertarian after reading some economics. I became an atheist after reading the Bible. I rejected the Methodism of my upbringing, not out of any profound conviction that God was incompatible with science, but because I concluded that the God of the Bible was an essentially despotic being with all the pettiness of a child. If the God of the Bible existed, he would not deserve my worship.
Thomas Paine said that the Bible “is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” And while many parts of the Bible are cruel, I do not detest it. Few written works have the range of emotion and depth of thought that the Bible at its best presents. Its place in the western canon is established, but that does not mean that we should accept its precepts. In fact, any libertarian reading through the Bible should be disturbed by it. Much of the Bible approvingly tells of killings, tortures, intolerance, and brute force. I have no doubt that many Christians explain away these episodes, but I could not. I hope that the few examples I present below will encourage both believers and non-believers to revisit the Bible; to think honestly about the problems in it. An atheist may leave more knowledgeable, and a Christian’s faith may be strengthened by grappling with these issues. After all, wrestling with God has a biblical base.
Is this our "loving" God?
I suppose it would do well to start at the beginning. What should trouble libertarians about God’s behavior in Genesis? God makes a contract with a party unable to consent. Adam and Eve, because they have no knowledge of good and evil, because they are ignorant of what might be the most important aspects of human life, cannot consent. Even children are more aware of the implications of their actions than Adam and Eve were. Now, I know that some might say that, since God created Adam and Eve, he had total control over them. That doesn’t seem right, and if it were, it wouldn’t be very fair. Most of us accept that parents do not have absolute control of their children. It’s wrong to be children, it’s wrong to belittle them, and it’s wrong to tell them you’ll kill them if they eat the fruit from a certain tree.
God’s reactions to man’s first disobedience are hardly any better. He curses Eve with the horrible pain of childbirth, and commands that she will be in her husband’s power. God curses the earth so that Adam must toil endlessly for food—sweating day-in and day-out for a crop of thorns and thistles. I’ve been told that this evidence of God’s mercy because, hey, he coulda killed ‘em right there! It’s also telling that it is God who first introduces the sword, a weapon only ever intended for slaying men. Maybe I just don’t get it, but God’s arbitrary imposition of rules and punishment seems rather un-libertarian to me.
Genesis is filled with other examples of disturbingly brutal and deceptive behavior condoned or perpetrated by God, but I’m skipping these. I’m also moving past hallucinogenic encounters with a talking plant, the forced march through Sinai, and the rape and genocide of Moses’ God-willed leadership. We move briefly into Judges, where the redactor, a dedicated monarchist, blames the chaos of the period on the absence of a king in Israel, saying “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Statelessness, apparently, was not highly thought of.
From Judges we begin 1 Samuel, which contains what is probably the most referenced passage of Christian libertarians: 1 Samuel 8. The chapter really is an amazing statement on the evils of kings and of governments. Even if you cynically think that Samuel is just trying to protect his own power, a libertarian can’t help but cheer as Samuel implores the people of Israel not to establish a king. The passage is so powerful partly because it is so anomalous. It’s hard to find similar passages—most of the Bible is pretty clear about accepting kings. 1 Samuel 8 is even different from the rest of 1 Samuel, which describes God’s selection of Saul (and later David) as king, the early building of the Hebrew state, and David’s relentless campaign to wrest his promised crown and scepter from Saul. David’s ruthlessness is praised throughout 1 Samuel. The chant that haunts Saul goes, “Saul has struck down thousands, but David tens of thousands,” and one of Saul’s chief “sins” is his failure to kill absolutely everything in an Amalekite camp. David, of course, as a man after God’s own heart, does not make the same mistake. Once again, we’re forced to question just how reconcilable this is with the value libertarians place on all human life.
Anti-libertarian themes aren’t exclusive to the Old Testament. Usually, atheist libertarians criticize the Gospels’ degradation of the rich, its spurning of material goods, and the idea that this world doesn’t matter. But I’d like to look at a more concrete example of the Lord’s behavior which should unsettle any libertarian. The Expulsion of the Money-Changers, or the Cleansing of the Temple, is a well known story that appears in all four canonical Gospels. In the story, Jesus goes to the temple (a building intimately tied to kingship and empire) after entering Jerusalem. In the courtyard, Jesus sees men transacting. Some are changing local coinage for the temple’s Tyrian shekels, others buy small sacrificial pigeons from vendors. No one is forcing these individuals to interact with each other, and no one is interfering. No one, that is, until Jesus arrives.
Did Jesus Condone Coercion?
Upon witnessing such an unholy sight, Jesus begins flipping over stalls, chasing animal and man alike from the temple. He drives the merchants from the courtyard, stopping all business. The Gospel of John relates an even more damning detail: Jesus makes a whip to lash the money-changers with. Even if we grant that Jesus had some right to do what he did (and there’s no reason to assume he had that right), his method is still wrong. He doesn’t ask the merchants to leave. He doesn’t hire a lawyer to sue them. That would be rational and respectful. Instead, he immediately falls upon them, like David upon Amalekites, whipping and beating his way to victory. He doesn’t just hurt the merchants though; he hurts every pilgrim who couldn’t go about their business in the temple that day. He hurts the temple itself, now unable to collect its expected income. Such a flagrant disregard for property rights, such an assault on individual rights, cannot be reconciled with libertarianism. The Gospels laud Jesus’ violent act, but libertarians should not.
I hope that so far I have not offended (too much), and that I have not bored (too much). I tried to stick to closely to the Bible, but I read it without a believer’s credulity. Constrained by a desire for brevity, I left out many germane passages, some of which will hopefully be addressed as the debate series continues. Specifically, the Book of Job probably deserves its own post, and I recommend that every libertarian, Christian or not, read it and digest it. Rarely has an ancient text so subtly explored the confusing, and sometimes frustrating, relationship between justice and power; man and god.
Posted in Religion | Tagged Christianity, Jesus, libertarianism | 3 Comments »
The following was originally published in the Daily Californian. It can be found in its original context at: http://www.dailycal.org/2011/09/30/campus-hypocrisy-during-bake-sale/
In a letter this past Monday to the full campus mailing list, Chancellor Birgeneau, together with with Vice Chancellors Gibor Basri and Harry LeGrande, claimed that the Principles of Community “require … a positive intent not to hurt, offend, or denigrate others while expressing a reasoned position,” the implication being that Berkeley College Republicans’ “Increase Diversity Bake Sale” somehow violated the Principles. The administration’s paraphrased version of the Principles of Community is simply inaccurate. Rather, the Principles ensure “freedom of expression and dialogue that elicits the full spectrum of views held by our varied communities.”
There is no mention of anything resembling a requirement that campus community members self-censor by attempting not to offend anyone — and there shouldn’t be. Freedom of expression and open dialogue are impossible when each participant in a discussion must make sure not to offend anyone else. Speech that is unoffensive needs no protection, and any “commitment” to free speech that ends at offense is no commitment at all.
The letter went on to “urge, but not mandate” civility (the Principles of Community mention “civility and respect”) on the part of campus community members, again with the implication that he was speaking specifically to the Berkeley College Republicans. On this issue, the Chancellor and administration have my full support. Civil discussion and debate form the foundation of a well-functioning democracy. No argument is so offensive that it ought not to be discussed and respectfully refuted.
It is for this reason that I found the absence of any reference to the recent demands put forth by a nameless “cross-cultural, cross-gender” coalition of UC Berkeley students perplexing. It is incredibly disingenuous and hypocritical to talk about equality and fairness while presumptuously demanding, for example, that all students be required to take courses in the explicitly political Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies and African-American Studies departments.
General education requirements are intended to teach students how to think, not what to think. Demanding anything, no matter how trivial, is totally out of place among supposed equals. Then again, maybe demands are all we should expect from people whose first move at last Friday’s “town hall” meeting was to eject all reporters and dissenters by popular vote.
As much as the ASUC, the Chancellor and many other opponents of the bake sale would like us to believe their objections are based on methods, not content, the real issue at stake was SB 185. All the whining and whimpering about civility and respect for the feelings of all community members was inauthentic in the extreme — why not just say you disagree with BCR’s perspective? I don’t recall the ASUC issuing a unanimous emergency declaration condemning the disruptive protesters who interrupted classes last fall by marching up and down the hallways screaming. Nor do I recall Chancellor Birgeneau labeling the Wheeler Hall occupation “hurtful or offensive” (words he used to describe the bake sale), though I have talked to many students who were outraged at the time.
Indeed, in a string of mass emails during the 2009 Wheeler Hall protest, the Chancellor and other administrators noted that many of the 118 classes scheduled in Wheeler on the day of the occupation had to be canceled, but they did not condemn the methods of the student occupiers. In light of all this, an objective observer might be forced to conclude that on the Berkeley campus, it is acceptable to make a political point by preventing thousands of students from receiving the education they have paid for, but selling cupcakes to make an equally salient point is uncivil and offensive.
For my part, I find it offensive that at the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, many of us still can’t seem to let other people speak. If you are really confident in your political opinions, you should be able to articulate them in a reasonable, measured and, yes, civil way — and let everyone else do the same. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth, and nobody has a monopoly on the right to speak. So go ahead, argue for your opinions, no matter how unpopular they are. If you’re wrong, chances are someone out there will tell you so. Isn’t that what Berkeley is all about?
Posted in ASUC, Campus News, Current Events, Uncategorized | Tagged bake sale, berkeley college republicans, birgeneau, diversity bake sale, free speech | Leave a Comment »
The most common argument in favor of gay marriage is an appeal to the belief that any two adult individuals who love each other should be able to get married. I have no issue with this argument except for the use of the number “two.” I believe that the number “two” should be replaced with the variable n, where n denotes any positive integer greater than or equal to two. To clarify, I want bisexual polygamy to be legal.
In an ideal world, the government would not be in the marriage domain, but the vast majority of voters seem to have no issue with the government’s role in marriage. This is why most libertarians argue for the legalization of gay marriage instead of for the abolition of government involvement in marriage. I do not believe that vouching for gay marriage adequately conveys the libertarian belief that consenting adults should be able to engage in any type of relationship they desire. Vouching for gay marriage is a step in the right direction, but it feels analogous to arguing for a slightly lower tariff on steel imports when one could instead be arguing for completely free trade.
Libertarians often describe their beliefs as socially liberal and fiscally conservative in order to indicate that their beliefs are part-Democrat and part-Republican. This description is inaccurate as it does not convey just how much more socially liberal we are than the Democrats and just how much more fiscally conservative we are than the Republicans. Enthusiastically expressing support for “fringe” viewpoints like the right of a man to be married to a woman who is married to a man who identifies as a woman serve to show those who are stuck in the two party binary just how close-minded their political ideologies are.
Next time you hear Democrats talk about how open-minded they are because of their belief in the legalization of gay marriage, ask them about their view on bisexual polygamy. If they are against it, then they clearly have no basis for claiming that they are socially liberal. If they are for it, then point out that their party officially only advocates for gay civil unions–not even marriage–and that their interest in defending civil liberties is better served through libertarianism.
I look forward to the day when we can laugh at the idiocy of the two person marriage limit at the wedding of Michael to Jane to Daniel to Bob to Sarah who was previously Stephen.
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »
In the States, we’re all familiar with a self-sacrificial image of the cost of liberty. We’re bombarded with Tom Hanks charging the shores of Normandy– or patriot blood spilled in the Revolutionary War. Perhaps one might prefer righteous protesters standing before fire hoses– or being led away under arrest within the framework of civil disobedience. In any case, we see the image of the individual making an active, ideological, self-sacrificial stand for principle. These “sacred” talismans mark the known sacrifice by the people for the government of the people. Other people may analyze and critique the realism, integrity and efficacy of these images.
Because we Americans tend to believe that political action is by nature active, we often forget the other cost of liberty: the passive one. Freedom of expression means that we have to hear offensive speech. We have to hear words we hate, and not gag or harm those saying them. Freedom to bear arms means that we have to read the occasional tragedy of a gun going off when it shouldn’t have, or the abuse of the responsibility it signifies when a gun is misused against another citizen. Though it breaks our heart, we can’t give up Freedom of Expression or the Right to Bear Arms when someone misuses them. The heart of a constitutional democracy is love and maintenance of the Constitution. Sometimes, that means not picking at frayed corners when we see them.
Perhaps, the next time we are feeling the the itch of an injustice, we should reconsider our tactics. Rather than taking up the rifle or the protest poster to abridge a Right, we might congratulate each other on the restraint manifest in paying “the other cost of liberty”, instead.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
 | Anonymous on Happy MLKJ Day! |
 | Jerry Watkins on On Education, Politics, and th… |
 | Anonymous on On Education, Politics, and th… |
 | Hagbard on What You Are Supporting When Y… |
 | Poor Yorick on What You Are Supporting When Y… |
