Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Why I Am a Ron Paul Libertarian by Stan Warford

The following article appeared in The Lew Rockwell Daily following the talk Dr. Stan Warford gave at the FPU's event "Why Should I Care?"

I was born and raised a liberal Democrat. My grandmother, who lived through the Depression, thought that Franklin Roosevelt was the savior of the United States. My father, who was a farmer, explained to me why it was a good policy for the government to pay farmers to not grow crops. For years I thought that gun control laws were necessary to curb violent behavior. At one time I believed that minimum wage laws were compassionate. I used to defend our government in its foreign interventions, especially those based on humanitarian grounds.

But, during the past twelve years, I have rejected many political beliefs taught to me by my family and my schools. I now believe that our country is in serious trouble that only libertarian principles can alleviate.

Furthermore, these problems have a direct effect on your future.

When you graduate, you will look for a job. What if you cannot find one because the economy is in a recession or even a depression?

Your salary will be paid in dollars. What will those dollars be worth after the Federal Reserve decreases their value with its policy of inflation and Wall Street bailouts?

You will begin to save for your retirement. What if you pay into Social Security your whole life but receive no benefits at the end because the system is bankrupt?

And, heaven forbid, what if you must terminate your employment because our country reinstates the draft and sends you off to war as it did with my generation in the 60s?

The Non-aggression Principle

Libertarianism is based on this Non-aggression Principle: It should be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided that he does not initiate violence or threaten violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.

The Non-aggression Principle implies all the common prohibitions against theft, murder, rape, torture, and violence against other individuals except in cases of self-defense of one’s person or property.

But government itself is financed by the compulsory payment of taxes by its citizens. Taxes are not voluntary. If you disagree with the policies of your government you may not withhold your taxes because if you do the government will threaten you with the violence of law enforcement.

It therefore follows that the government that governs best is the government that governs least.

The libertarian philosophy advocates a small government in line with the US Constitution as envisioned by our founding fathers. It is growing in popularity but has a huge uphill battle to wage. Our government is in large part controlled by special interest groups and the leaders of an entrenched two-party system. The maintenance of this system is based on a series of myths that are perpetuated to justify an ever-expanding government that assumes more power year by year, the very antithesis of a government that governs least.

Here are some of those myths.

Myth Number One – That which is immoral should be illegal.

It is true that many actions that are immoral should be illegal – actions such as theft and murder. However, no action by any individual in the privacy of his own home that does not initiate violence against another should be illegal even if it is immoral. Nor should any action between two consenting adults that does not initiate violence against others be illegal even if it is immoral.

We are in the midst of a huge, expensive, failed war on drugs. The war itself produces more harm than the abuse of the illegal drugs. A recent study puts our incarceration rate at 1%, the highest per capita rate of any country in the world. It is estimated that about a half million of these are for nonviolent drug offenses. Alcohol prohibition was responsible for gangland violence in the streets, and drug prohibition is no different. Libertarians call for an end to the drug war.

Myth Number Two – Government regulation is necessary to save us from the failures of laissez faire capitalism.

The prime example of this myth is the belief that laissez faire capitalism caused the Great Depression and that government intervention in the economy ended it. The fact is, however, that the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913, a full 16 years before the fateful stock market crash of 1929. The Fed presided over an expansion of the credit market, which produced the roaring 20’s, the largest economic bubble in history before its collapse.

In recent history, we have seen the dot com bubble and now the real estate mortgage bubble. Both of these bubbles are created by government intervention in the credit market through the Federal Reserve central bank. Libertarians call for an economic policy governed by the principles of the Austrian School of Economics, which includes a minimization of government intervention in the free market.

Myth Number Three – Government intervention in the affairs of foreign countries is necessary for the security of its own citizens.

Ever since the tragic events of September 11, our executive branch has justified its intervention in Iraq and the subsequent erosion of our civil liberties in order to secure our safety. It has even established a policy of preemptive war, whereby it claims the authority to invade another country because that country might aggress against us in the future. Imagine the chaos in the world if every country claimed that authority.

Our intervention in Iraq has made us less safe, not more, because of the unintended consequence called "blowback" by the CIA in its recently declassified report on our policy in Iran. The 9/11 Commission report also describes the blowback phenomenon. Our military intervention, apart from its devastating effects on Iraqi civilians, acts as recruiting tool for extremists. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Libertarians call for a foreign policy of nonintervention in general and an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq in particular.

Myth Number Four – Non-interventionism is the same as isolationism.

Isolationists want to isolate the country from interaction with the rest of the world. To that end, they are for national economic self-sufficiency and protectionist tariffs. Isolationists use trade wars and economic sanctions as foreign policy tools to isolate other countries from the world economy.

Libertarian non-interventionists, on the other hand, support international trade, low tariffs, cultural exchange, and diplomatic contact. They view trade as so beneficial that they refuse to withhold it even from despotic states. A positive example is our continuing trade with Communist China, which serves to open that country to the liberal ideals of the west and is beneficial both to us and to them in spite of their tarnished record on human rights. A negative example is our continuing economic boycott of Cuba, a policy that has failed to remove its leader of a half century.

Myth Number Five – If the government does not solve a social problem, the social problem will not be solved.

This myth is used to justify government provision of social services such as health care, education, and retirement. The myth is based on the conflation of negative rights with positive rights.

Negative rights are rights of prohibition against other people from initiating violence against you. Negative rights are enshrined in the phrase from the Declaration of Independence that all people have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Positive rights force other individuals to provide you with a service. Positive rights are claims that you have a right to a job with a living wage, a right to affordable health care, a right to an education, and a right to a comfortable retirement. Government uses the fiction of positive rights to expand its power in the provision of these services.

Libertarians object to the use of government to provide social services on two grounds, one ethical and one practical.

Because tax collection is not voluntary, people who receive social services from the government do so through a forced exchange of tax dollars. The receipt of such services thus violates the Non-aggression Principle and is unethical.

The practical objection is the observation that no government agency exercising monopoly power can provide a service with better quality or lower price than the free market can under the discipline of the profit motive. We would have better schools and better health care without government interference in these markets.

Libertarians call for a government whose sole function is limited to the Constitutional guarantee of the negative rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Myth Number Six – Libertarianism is idealistic and does not work in practice.

Libertarians are often accused of having a naïve faith in the free market, and having ideas about the way society ought to be governed that are not practical. As with most myths, the truth is precisely the opposite, as can be demonstrated by public choice theory. Public choice scholars analyze the structure of government from an economic and political perspective to explain why certain policies come into being.

Government programs are not effective because the incentive system does not reward bureaucrats for good service or punish them for bad service. The Los Angeles Unified School District is impossible to reform because they do not go out of business when they provide poor service as a private company would. Nor does FEMA.

Politicians cannot be expected to be good stewards of other people’s money obtained through the force of taxation. They are motivated by the same self-interest that motivates all people. Because of the professionalization of the political class, their interest is in winning elections, a process that is only possible by courting special interests.

It is the height of naïveté to place your faith in a governmental system that can only work if its politicians and bureaucrats are saints and angels.

Conclusion

The libertarian philosophy is the ultimate philosophy of tolerance. It is a philosophy of live and let live, of not initiating violence against any other individual, of liberty for all, of peace, and of prosperity.

That is why I am a Ron Paul libertarian.

This is based on a talk delivered at the Forum for Political Understanding, Pepperdine University, on April 7, 2008.

April 10, 2008

Stan Warford [send him mail] is a professor of computer science at Pepperdine University.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Feminists lose sense of objectivity by Ryan Sawtelle

The following article appeared on Pepperdine's news: The Graphic
February 21st, 2008

The feminist movement began as noble progression toward justice for women who were victims of unjust government practices and domestic violence. If that mission were all that it encompassed today, there would be little objection to the cause. Unfortunately, like many other social movements, the feminist movement has evolved to represent something much less credible: the death of objectivity. It is crucial that one understands this distinction; otherwise, critics of the new movement, such as myself, are simply victims of demagoguery and labeled “sexist.”

One goal of the feminist movement was to see that businesses implemented objective standards when hiring applicants; that potential candidates should be judged strictly on merit and achievements as opposed to gender. Now, the feminist movement stands for the complete opposite. The new goal is to curtail objectivity when hiring and accept women, even the ones who cannot qualify for certain positions, to be granted the job based solely on sex. What started out as a campaign against gender bias became a campaign for gender bias.

Who does this hurt? If a female candidate is awarded a job based solely on gender alone (and not merit), would this not hurt company production? Would resentful co-workers not regard such women as an ineffective asset to a firm? How is this helping the portrayal of women in business?

In one of the most popular cases of the new feminist agenda, the New York City Fire Department was sued by a woman who claimed that the physical examination to become a firefighter was too taxing for women. She won. The FDNY was forced to create new physical testing tailored toward women so that they may be allowed easier access to the profession. Here, the goal of feminists to kill objectivity is clear. They are not concerned that tests of that nature are specifically devised to make sure, for example, that one would have the ability of pulling a 200-pound man out of a building and down a ladder. To these feminists, the safety of citizens was second to gender representation.

Tammy Bruce, the radio talkshow host on 790 KABC, was the president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW (National Organization for Women). As president she stated that she collected money, held vigils and collected support for victims of domestic abuse. This was how she envisioned the purpose of the movement. As she left office, things started to change. Instead of giving aid and comfort to victims, the organization started to give aid and comfort to the perpetrator (given that the perpetrator was a female, of course).

Case in point: In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub. As Yates herself recalled in interrogation, Noah, her eldest son of 7 years, and the only surviving child, walked into the bathroom and saw his 6-month old sister floating lifeless in the water. When he inquired about her well being Yates instructed Noah to get into the water. Noah tried to escape for his life and couldn’t. Yates admitted that as she drowned Noah, he asked, “Mommy, have I done something wrong?”

The honorable thing for a women’s organization to do would be to condemn these attacks and show objectivity toward the situation — this would gain credibility for their movement. They didn’t. Instead, because the murderer was a woman and it was a high-profile case, feminist organizations raised money for Yates’ defense and held candlelight vigils on her behalf.

It is not possible to have justice without objectivity, so by focusing on killing objectivity, the new feminist movement is, in turn, promoting the unjust.

Now, the feminism movement is not one of my most dire social grudges but it is an issue I would like to address before Dr. Mike Adams (University of North Carolina professor, columnist and author) speaks at the HAWC on Feb. 28. He has written a new book called “Feminists Say the Darndest Things,” which details the moral outrages and social absurdities of the feminist movement.

Adams’ take on the feminist movement is met with thoughtful insight mixed with amusing banter. With articles titled “Feminist Causes Outbreak of Genital Irritation” and “The Little Feminist Who Could” there is no doubt his speaking engagement will hold some pretty fiery discourse. But do not allow the message to be lost within the delivery.

Along with bringing humor to the issue he also makes note of some serious concerns. What has the feminist movement done to help women and girls in the Middle East, the obvious victims of abuse? What has the movement done to stop the exploitation of women around the world for sexual purposes? He points out that while the current feminists are devoting their time and money towards such things as the Vagina Monologues it is the Christians who are leading the charge against mass rape in Africa and fighting the global war on sex trafficking.

It will be interesting to see where the feminist movement goes from here. Will they once again value objectivity and combat the plight of women around the world, or will they choose to stay the course of promoting the unjust?

Monday, February 4, 2008

What Republicans and Democrats are saying about...immigration by TODD BOULDIN

TODD BOULDIN is The Pepperdine Voyage Director and Asst. Visiting of Social Science

The following article appeared in The Graphic

As immigrants have increased as a percentage of the population of the United States, and moved into regions away from the U.S. borders, Americans have become concerned about the pervasiveness of illegal immigration. The issue has been front and center in the presidential campaign of 2008. This is particularly true in the Republican race where polls show that Republican primary voters believe that immigration is the second most important issue they consider when voting for a candidate, just behind the economy and just ahead of the war in Iraq.

1. What makes an immigrant “illegal?”

Since its very founding, America has been a country of immigrants. Immigrants from all over the world have fled persecution and economic hardship to create a better life for themselves and their family here. Illegal immigrants often come for the same reasons, but they are illegal because they cross United States borders or enter our shores by avoiding U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations concerning the conditions for entry into the United States and the qualifications for obtaining temporary permission (a passport or visa) or for becoming a citizen by law (naturalization).

2. What is the legal status of an illegal immigrant?

The Supreme Court has held that immigrants within the territory of the United States are owed basic legal protections such as due process and a fair trial. Illegal immigrants may not be refused by hospital emergency rooms, and their children often attend public schools. In many cases, these immigrants may also drive on public highways.

However, the rights of illegal immigrants are limited: they cannot vote in national elections and cannot decide to live here permanently without permission. Because of the 1996 immigration reform legislation, and the reaction to the terrorism caused by immigrants on 9/11, immigration regulations have tightened, making legal entry for non-citizens even more difficult. Illegal immigrants may be deported immediately to their country of origin without a court hearing at all.

3. Why are Republicans and Democrats addressing the issue of immigration?

As illegal immigrants have flooded into America’s rural areas and towns far from the country’s borders, a greater majority of the citizenry has become concerned and even angry about the impact of illegal immigrants on the American economy, national security and, in the eyes of some, the “American way of life.”

President Bush, the former governor of a border state, proposed a reform package in his first and second terms that would increase border security, build a fence along the United States border with Mexico, and grant legal status to certain illegal immigrants already in the country (a form of “amnesty”). Bush also favored a temporary guest worker program by which immigrants could apply to work in the United States temporarily in industries that need their labor, with the possibility of becoming a permanent resident over time.

The conservatives in the Republican Party in Congress opposed the Bush plan and prevented it from becoming law in both of the Bush terms. This public debate led to the current concern with immigration in the 2008 race, particularly among Republican voters.

4. What have the Republicans proposed as a solution to illegal immigration?

The Republican candidates for president have proposed that the first priority should be on securing the nation’s borders before offering temporary worker assistance or amnesty to illegal immigrants already within our borders. McCain has proposed a doubling of the size of the U.S. Border Patrol and a border fence, a crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants and a “guest worker” program that offers temporary visas. Romney advocates for a border fence, opposes amnesty for undocumented workers, and wants to institute an employment verification system. Republicans generally oppose amnesty programs.

5. What have the Democrats proposed as a solution to illegal immigration?

The Democrats support a path to legalization for illegal immigrants already in the country that includes learning English and paying a fine for illegal entry. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have proposed toughened penalties against employers who hire illegal immigrants. Both have voted for a fence along the Mexico border. Senator Clinton also has supported a measure to allow undocumented illegal immigrants to gain a U.S. government identification or drivers license.

State of our Union is irrelevant by MARC CHOQUETTE

Marc Choquette is the Perspectives Editor for Global Tides

The original article can be found at The Graphic

With another new year comes another run-of-the-mill State of the Union address from our commander in chief.

As required by the U.S. Constitution, our fearless leader shall “from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

The idea, like many in our country’s early practices, borrows from some sort of traditional practice in the United Kingdom — specifically, it is reminiscent of the monarch’s “Speech to the Throne” given during the State Opening of Parliament.

But times change, and as the monarch has become a mere figurehead in the politics of England, so has the State of the Union become a vestige of the U.S. political system.

The hour-plus parades of pomp and circumstance, vagaries, good and evil terms, insane levels of political spin, mechanized chicanery and bogus, all-too-frequent standing ovations are old and tired. The televised address tells viewers more about the state of the Capitol’s chambers and who’s got a manly handshake than about the actual state of real problems and the specific solutions the government needs to address.

The night begins with glad-handing both sides of the aisle and false pledges of “bipartisan” appeal. It only takes a few minutes for the subtle potshots, pathetic smirks, overzealous cheering, catcalls and numerous interruptions of partial applause to appear, to show it was a night for political pandering, not an actual — or even sincere — call to action.

The literal importance of this speech is nowhere to be found in the hallowed halls of the Capitol. But the VIPs, special guests, hordes of Capitol Police and Secret Service, media honchos and people with the right amount of money are everywhere.

How democratic that, aside from being a Super Bowl champion or a war hero, it is pretty much impossible for an ordinary citizen to attend this speech. Watching the speech with a few friends, we wondered what the chamber would really be like if the galleries above were filled on a first-come, first-serve basis. Surely there would be some arrests, protests and interruptions (i.e. good television).

It would be like ‘question time’ at the House of Commons — the weekly, policy-laden tongue-lashing the Prime Minister receives at the Houses of Parliament in London.

Then it hit me. Why doesn’t our president face question time? Why aren’t our executives held accountable in the same ways that leaders are in other countries under different, yet equally (or arguably more) democratic systems than ours? Somehow, precedent doesn’t seem like a good enough answer.

No, it’s high time for the president to have to face the crowd … personally. No more free passes. No more overlord-like control by the Executive Branch, laughing at the inabilities of Congress to check its power. This weekly report to Congress will greatly improve checks and balances and actually hold the Executive Branch accountable (because nobody can seem to check their power right now).

Seeing Tony Blair get grilled on a weekly basis while in the London program was rewarding — an experience that is surely grounding, knowing that you can’t burn too many bridges and must make progress on issues, lest you get humiliated by hundreds of scary, bad-teethed, old British men pointing and screaming at you in the worst controlled chaos you’ve ever seen.

Of course, the U.S. version of “question time” doesn’t have to be so primal and bizarre. It could be “Americanized” into more gentlemanly methods, like instituting a “one person speaks at a time” rule.

But the ability to hiss and boo when the president doesn’t give an adequate answer is essential, our right as Americans.

And surely, if “question time” was instituted in the House, CSPAN’s ratings would go through the roof — thus, more attention paid to politics. Isn’t this what America really needs?

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Pepperdine's Young Democrats Convention and Republicans Opportunity

Event Info
Name:
Pepperdine Young Democrats Convention
Host:


Time and Place
Date:
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Time:
8:00pm - 9:00pm
Location:
TAC 250
City/Town:
Malibu, CA
Contact Info
Phone:
310.774.7211
Email:

In addition, if you are a Hispanic Republican Female, Univision is looking for some people to interview. If you are interested send an e-mail to: lsa@pepperdine.edu

Monday, December 3, 2007

Today's Event

Today, we welcomed Cato policy analysts Ted Galien Carpenter and Justin Logan to our campus. We had a great turn out to our event (over 50 people, with good questions and an open ear), and we have made a great impression! They have promised to spread the word about our club, and our campus in D.C.! So, thank you and thank God, we had a great turn out, more than enough food, and great discussion.

If you were at the event and have a comment and opinion please send us an e-mail. Or if you want to you can write a small opinion piece for our blog! If you missed the talk, but want to know the details, we'll up date the blog with a small summary within the next week.

If you are interested about finding out more about these speakers, or if you have speakers in mind for next semester please e-mail me! We love to get more people involved and organizing events! Also don't forget to join our facebook club if you haven't yet: http://pepperdine.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2324194878. Thank God, we have had a good semester. I also want to thank Erin Shimata, Robert Ramos, Dr. Chris Soper, Dr. Stan Warford and ICC for all their help! You guys are great.

Below is a recap of all we have done this year. If you are interested in taking a more hands-on position e-mail me. We want to fill up more offices for next year. And with this, looking forward to next semester and to fomenting political understanding with you guys, I wish you a Merry Christmas!

-Sara Benavides
FPU President
Sara.Benavides@pepperidne.edu

FPU- Fall 2007 Mayor Achievements
  • Fulfilled the requirements to become an official club at Pepperdine
  • Started the year learning more about smaller parties, in specific for this semester the Libertarian view
  • Started our blog: http://forumforpoliticalunderstanding.blogspot.com/
  • Participated in the Iraq Week events
    • Created an information poster
    • Provided fliers with information for the events
    • Helped with the advertisement
  • Obtained backing from some of the mayor think tanks: Heritage, Cato, AEI and hopefully more next semester.
  • Semester event: Beyond the Red and Blue: a talk with Ted Carpenter and Justin Logan
Thank you!

Monday, November 26, 2007

This Week

This week has been crowed as "Iraq War Week" and SGA along with the FPU will be hosting a series of events. Though the week formally ends on Friday, on Monday the FPU will be hosting on campus Dr. Ted Carpenter and Justin Logan from the Cato Institute. Below you will find information on the events during this up coming week. As far as, Monday goes:

What: Beyond the Blue and Red: Libertarian Foreign Politics, Re-thinking Iraq and Iran
Who: Cato Institute's Ted Carpenter and Justin Logan
Where: Pepperdine CCB 140

A small reception to follow.

For the Iraq week, the FPU made a poster with public opinions and essays on Iraq. Also, pleas stop and voice your opinion on the freedom wall.

Iraq War Week Schedule:

All week
The Freedom Wall, Tyler Campus Center

Read the arguments. Express your opinions. Respond to others.

Monday, Nov. 26
Iraq War Panel and Discussion (CONVOCATION)
7 p.m., Smothers Theater
Dr. Dan Caldwell, Distinguished Professor of Political Science
Dr. Robert Kaufman, Professor of Public Policy
Richard Nye, Seaver College student and Iraq War veteran

Hear the experts. Debate the issues. Earn Convo credit.

Wednesday, Nov. 28

Pepperdine flag will be lowered to honor the fallen troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thursday, Nov. 29

Civilian to Soldier: writing words of encouragement to U.S. troops overseas
6 - 8 p.m., Sandbar

Encourage U.S. troops. Fellowship with friends. Grab some Jamba Juice.

"Saving Private Ryan" - A screening and discussion of America's past and present military role overseas
10 p.m., Elkins

See the film. Know our history. Discuss the connections.