Banned SNL skit addresses bailout

I came across this video posted on the Bureaucrash Social website. It is a recent SNL skit that apparently did not make it to the air concerning the bailout and the circumstances that prompted it. While the clip begins with the usual caricaturization of Bush, it eventually ventures into territory not typically covered by network programs such as SNL. It (gasp) alludes to the fact that some personal responsibility should be taken and that the events leading to the current fiscal crisis implicate both Wall Street and Main Street. 

You can find the video here

Socrates: Objectivist?

I came across this passage in Plato's Apology (Socrates' speech given at his own trial), and it struck me as having a distinctive Randian flare. I would be curious to hear the interpretations of others as well.

"For I go around doing nothing but persuading both young and old among you not to care for your body or your wealth in preference to or as strongly as for the best possible state of your soul, as I say to you 'Wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for men, both individually and collectively.'"

This reminds me of a certain money speech, and I think that this is a point we don't make enough in response to our critics. We are not pro-money or pro-business per se. We as libertarians are pro-excellence, pro-choice (not necessarily in the abortion sense- that's a little more tricky), pro-market and recognize that people should be compensated according to their achievements. It is not merely about hedonism and greed as it is often construed. It is about worth. 

As mentioned before, your opinions are more than welcome on this and any matter on this blog.

David Boaz event a success!

The speaking event at the National Constitution Center with David Boaz and Bob Barr followed by the Vice Presidential debate watching party that was mentioned before was a smashing success! Approximately 20-30 students from Philadelphia colleges attended, and it was well-received by all. After the debate itself, which was held in a beautiful space on Drexel's campus, David Boaz gave an impromptu speech on the state of freedom today as well as on the election itself. He was then kind enough to answer as many questions as we had before everyone finally dispersed around 11:30. 

There was one part of the impromptu speech that struck me in particular. David Boaz made the point that if Julius Caesar had visited Thomas Jefferson, nothing would have seemed different. He would have found a brilliant man pouring over books and papers by candlelight while slaves took care of everything else. He would have arrived by horse and transactions between the two men prior to his arrival would have been slow and laborious. Over the course of thousands of years very little had changed. But then there was liberalization led by libertarians of sorts, and if either man visited an individual of brilliance 100 years further into the future they would have found themselves in a different world. They would arrive by train, called the individual to let him know they had arrived. Gone would be the candles, replaced by electric light, ad nauseum.

All of this progress was made possible only after the liberalization of people, governments, and markets. Encouraging to say the least. It is now up to us as students, as the future of this great movement, to ensure that this progress is not undone. And not only that, but to ensure that it continues to grow. 

Cato Out Loud: On the Bailout

The Cato Institute has posted a variety of clips from its experts discussing the financial bailout. Given that it's such a hot topic right now, this seems like a valuable clip for people to watch and use: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1DWHwSph58.

David Boaz and Bob Barr on the Libertarian Impact on the Upcoming Election

Tonight marks the second major libertarian event of the year, and it's only October 2nd- very encouraging! This is a perfect illustration of the potential of the Philadelphia Forum for Freedom. It was going to be difficult for any single school to organize and host this event individually, but together, students from Penn, Drexel, and Temple were able to bring into being something great that could not have happened otherwise. Here is a description of the event:

"On October 2, barely a month before the presidential election, the National Constitution Center will host a public event about the impact of libertarian and independent voters on the 2008 presidential race. The Cato Institute’s Executive Vice President, David Boaz, and Bob Barr, former U.S Congressman and current Libertarian Party presidential nominee, will explain libertarian perspectives and ideas, and then address the crucial role that will be played on election day by millions of voters in the U.S. today who are either fully libertarian or who view many key issues from a libertarian standpoint."

After the speaking event, David Boaz will be spending the evening watching and discussing the VP debates at Drexel's Ross Commons with students from Penn, Drexel, and Temple.

This will be an exceptional opportunity for students to interact with influential members of the libertarian world in an informal, intimate setting discussing and debating all of the relevant issues of our time.

Stay tuned for pictures and details of the event!

Facebook for Revolutionaries- Bureaucrash Social

Hello fellow liberty-lovers and welcome back to another year with the Penn Libertarians! While this blog is used for a wide range of purposes, I would really like to dedicate the first one of the year to a new opportunity that can benefit all of us. 

I want to encourage all of you to join Bureaucrash Social, a social networking site for libertarians of all stripes. Bureaucrash has been on the up and up ever since Pete Eyre took over as "Crasher-in-Chief" and they have really outdone themselves with the creation of this website. (For those of you who are not as familiar with this organization, they are the ones responsible for most of the clever liberty-themed shirts out there and were involved in the now infamous arrest for silently dancing in celebration of Jefferson's birthday. You can learn more at http://bureaucrash.com) It is not only easy to use and navigate with tons of features (profiles, groups, chat rooms, events and networking) but also with the added benefit that everyone on the site is working toward the same aim- spreading the message of liberty. 

Through this site, we can advertise events, brainstorm, learn from the successes and failures of others, and meet some new friends along the way. I hope to see you all there soon!

Most importantly, here's the website: http://social.bureaucrash.com/

Venezuelan Student Leader Receives Prestigious Honor

Students are able to change the world. While we all think that as idealistic college students, an international committee of the world's foremost leaders of liberty just said the same thing. The 2008 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty will be awarded to Yon Goicoechea, the leader of the pro-democracy student movement in Venezuela. Yon joins the esteemed list of recipients before him of Matt Laar, Hernando de Soto, and Peter Bauer.

The Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty is a biennial award begun in 2002 to honor those individuals who have made a significant contribution to advancing liberty. With the award comes an unrestricted $500,000. It is the most prestigious award available today for those who advance liberty.

The pro-democracy student movement in Argentina began in May 2007 in reaction to increasing government oppression. The movement is nonviolent and of an enormous size. The movement has been praised with such tangible successes as defeating a constitutional amendment that would have given the Venezuelan government unprecedented power.

Here is a quote from Yon that illustrates his passion and what he has done:

“We have come to tell the ombudsman that there are 182 jailed students who were imprisoned because they were protesting on the streets in favor of Venezuelan democracy… The students of Venezuela are standing up for civil rights that have taken centuries to build… the cry from the students is peaceful."

What makes Yon's selection so important to us is that it recognizes the power of college students to fight for liberty. Yon has been ranked alongside the minister of Estonia who helped transform the country from communism under the rule of the USSR to a thriving capitalism. A 23 year old has been declared one of the foremost leaders of liberty in the world.

It's not just in our heads. As students, we can change the world.

Starve the World, Save the Environment

I'm used to articles about the obesity epidemic or the organic food revolution, so this seemed like a bad joke. But then I cracked open the Economist, and there it was again.

Indeed, it looks like food shortages are replacing food overabundance in the news. Few are surprised by hunger in the third world. The fact that Haitians are rioting in the streets over food shortages and subsisting on mud (yes, mud) "cookies" shocks few Americans.

But now it appears middle-class Americans are beginning to face the food crunch. Rice and wheat prices have soared, causing the price of basic staple foods to rise precipitously. While Americans are unlikely to be making brownies out of their backyard dirt anytime soon, it appears the era of cheap food is over.

Of course when a crisis like this comes up, government's sticky fingers are never too far away. While we may expect this global disaster to be caused by drought or soil problems, no unusual climate patterns are to blame. Instead, it appears government biofuel programs are at least partially at fault. By raising the demand for grain (to turn into ethanol), these programs are literally taking bread out of people's mouths. And as grain prices rise, UN World Food Programme head Josette Sheeran notes:

“For the middle classes it means cutting out medical care. For those on $2 a day, it means cutting out meat and taking the children out of school. For those on $1 a day, it means cutting out meat and vegetables and eating only cereals. And for those on 50 cents a day, it means total disaster.”

Disturbing stuff. Haiti's prime minister has resigned, while Egypt's president has ordered the army to bake bread (!) And American engineers are beginning to hoard bags of rice. I'm really at a loss for words - have any of you noticed this trend in your own food shopping lives?

L(or l)ibertarian Opportunities

A major draw of many organizations, whether political, fraternal, or otherwise, is the idea of the organization as a network. In this sense, liberty-oriented groups are no different, but we fail to advertise this point. To remedy this apparent weakness in our movement, this will be an ongoing column of opportunities and events within the libertarian community.

Although deadlines for many internships and programs have passed, the CATO institute's Cato University is still open for registration, and scholarships are available for those who may warrant financial assistance. I have heard many good things about this program to the effect that it is both informative and enjoyable as it creates, for a week, a micro-utopia of similarly minded individuals coming together for a common purpose. This session's topic is "Freedom's Campaign in the 21st Century" and more information can be found here.

The Drinking Age Isn't the Only Absurd Law Concerning the Scourge of Alcohol

I mentioned in a previous post that the key to a college student's heart is through drinking and drugs. To this end, I recently came across an article outlining some of the more ridiculous drinking laws in states around the country, affecting both young and old. The article itself says it best, so I will leave it at that for now.

Free the Jefferson 1!

True or false: the state is willing to arrest you for dancing.

The answer: true.

This past Saturday, many fans of liberty got together to celebrate the birthday of the great Thomas Jefferson. To celebrate this occasion, they organized a dance party at the Jefferson Memorial in D.C. The plan was for everyone to start dancing for 10 minutes at midnight listening to a playlist they selected on their own iPOD.

The Jefferson Memorial is open to the public 24 hours a day. The people celebrating his birthday were not blaring music, but intentionally avoided this by using their own iPODS. It was late at night so that no tourists would be disturbed. And the intention had no political motive whatsoever. It was just a group of people honoring Jefferson and having fun.

Yet, the police not only decided that dancing was not allowed and so forced the individuals from the memorial, but when one girl asked why they were being forced to leave, the police arrested her! I was not in attendance at this event, but many who were there are my friends, which is why I have taken a personal interest in this debacle.


I recommend you check out the posts on other blogs to get more information on this scandal as well as watch the video footage of it on youtube:

Pete Eyre's Account

Julian Sanchez's Account

The Agitator

The Washington Post even covered the story!

www.freethejefferson1.com

Facebook Group

You Tube: Dancing, Arrest, Post-Arrest

I am personally outraged by this. The videos clearly show that these individuals were not causing any disturbance. If we do not have a right to dance, what rights do we have? I encourage people to call the Jefferson Memorial and express their outrage as well or at least join the facebook group. It is likely that the trumped up charge will be dropped by any halfway competent judge, but that police think they can arrest individuals for no legal cause is frightening.

You Know You're Not libertarian If...

You are having a good day.

Happy Tax Day!

Enjoy subsidizing a random special interest.

Looking to Russia for small government

The fact that IRS fails to collect $345 billion a year in owed taxes is one problem. But now Washington is up in arms over the private debt collectors the IRS has employed to close the tax gap, costing an estimated $37 million - more than the collectors actually managed to collect. Of course, the standard reaction is more government, not less:

"This is a waste of taxpayers' money, and it could be much better spent if it were given to the IRS to hire more employees," said Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 85,000 employees at the IRS.

While I agree with Ms. Kelley that this ineffective collection system is a "waste of taxpayers' money," perhaps the problem lies with the IRS's byzantine tax laws, which judging by the $345 billion left uncollected annually, are complicated enough that some people simply ignore them as much as possible, and hope not to be audited.

If we assume that taxation is a necessary evil (and that's a big if in some libertarian circles!), it's clearly in everyone's best interest to make sure that the tax system is as straightforward as possible, reducing the temptation to skimp on one's taxes.

While it's somewhat heartening that the IRS's desperation forced it to look into the private sector to resolve its problems, perhaps there's a proven alternative?

We have to look no further than Russia, where a 13% flat tax almost doubled tax revenue. At first glance, it may seem unfair that multimillionaires and schoolteachers alike are expected to pay the same portion of the their incomes to state coffers. What's one million more to a billionaire, the progressive tax argument goes. Well: "'Why have a progressive tax system that doesn't work?' asks Vladimir Redkin, an economist at Russia's Bureau of Economic Analysis." Why indeed have a program where $345 billion goes unpaid?

And while tax evasion is still a problem, it's an increasingly lower one: "'It's a small amount, so of course it's worth paying,' says Natasha Diniliouk, an accountant who lives in Moscow." Perhaps a sentiment that may be echoed by successful Americans, no longer needing tax havens and clever accounting to protect their hard-earned money.

So maybe, just maybe something like that would work in the US? Of course, we'd no longer need most of the IRS bureaucracy at that point, but I'm sure that's a sacrifice Americans would be willing to make, if only to compete with those damn Commies...

One more Gravel post and then I'll leave him alone for a while

During the Q&A session on Wednesday of Mike Gravel's speech at Penn, I questioned him on how his support for universal, government healthcare fit in with the Libertarian Party's platform. He responded to the effect of "I don't know of any part of the party's platform that would exclude such a proposal."

The LP's platform, section II, part 3:

"II.3 Public Services

The Issue: Federal, state and local governments have created inefficient service monopolies throughout the economy. From the US Postal Service to municipal garbage collection and water works, government is forcing citizens to use monopoly services. These are services that the private sector is already capable of providing in a manner that gives the public better service at a competitive price.

The Principle: A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Consumers of services should not have their choices arbitrarily limited by law.

Solutions: Libertarian policies will seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals.

Transitional Actions: All rate regulation in utilities should transition to free market pricing. End the Postal Service's monopoly and allow for the free competition in all aspects of mail delivery. State and local monopoly services should be opened to free-market competition. Local and state governments can auction assets such as utility systems and landfills to private industry, thereby immediately reducing the tax burden on their citizens."

Government-sponsored healthcare is a public service. Seems like Gravel needs to read up on what exactly is entailed by the party he joined.

You Know You're Not Libertartian If...

This is shall be a regular post originated by the Penn Libertarian Association's founders, Alexander McCobin and Dan Ludmir.

In honor of Mike Gravel:
Number 1- You know you're not really a big "L" Libertarian if you respect the Green Party as much as the Libertarian Party.

Mike Gravel: Behind the Rhetoric

On Wednesday, April 9^th, the Penn Libertarian Association and the Penn Democrats co-hosted former Senator Mike Gravel to speak at Houston Hall. Senator Gravel has been the center of controversy ever since his decision to register with the Libertarian Party and seek the party’s presidential nomination. The Penn Libertarians and newly formed Philadelphia Forum for Freedom had a very strong showing at the event.

I want to take a moment to summarize my thoughts after this event as it helped clarify Senator Gravel’s positions for me and why he has made such a contentious move. He was a surprisingly powerful speaker that during Q&A was not only engaging, but persuasive. However, when you look past the rhetoric and the traditional maneuverings of an experienced politician, his claims to always being a “libertarian” don’t hold much water.

When pressed on how his positions with universal healthcare and government education fit in with a libertarian philosophy, Gravel was at the height of his political back and forth. On the issue of government education, Gravel argued against financing it with the property tax. He asked, how can impoverished neighborhoods be expected to fund schools from taxes in their area and compete with rich neighborhoods whose schools have more money from having wealthier individuals? Somehow, Gravel was trying to argue that a Robin Hood tax scheme was more libertarian than the current system. Great liberal ideas, but not libertarian.

On his support for universal healthcare, Gravel dodged the issue entirely. He spoke nothing of the government’s intrusion into private lives and mandatory support for the healthcare of all. Rather, he attempted to use his support for a national retail sales tax as the solution. His answer was more of an explanation as to how universal healthcare was a viable plan under his proposal rather than the merits of it being justified under libertarian doctrine.

What about that line he used to leave the Democratic Party, that it was “no longer the party of FDR?” When the PLA Treasurer, Josh Warren, pressed him on this, Gravel gave perhaps his most outrageous answer of the night. “FDR at least tried.” For Gravel, being a libertarian means that it’s OK for politicians to intervene in the economy, destroy the free market and take the U.S. to war just to “try” to do the right thing. Under this logic, one wonders why the current Bush is not his favorite President, because he has certainly tried many remedies to problems during his administration.

It was as though the Fair Tax allowed him to evade responsibility for any government policy. He seemed to think that if we just impose a sales tax, then the government has the right do whatever it wants because it acquires its revenue in a fairer way.

At one point during his speech, Gravel said “clichés don’t carry the day in any of this”, a consistent philosophy does. I cannot more heartily agree with him here. Gravel is filled with the right rhetoric of individual responsibility when he needs to, but he lacks the substantive positions to actually make him a libertarian. While he wears his sheep clothing most of the time, he became sloppy by the end of his speech: “I want capitalism. I want freedom to force competition.” Capitalism 101: force and capitalism contradict one another.

I respect Gravel for running for the LP nomination, but there should be no debate about whether he is a true libertarian or a liberal Democrat who is angry that he, personally, was not given the airtime he wanted. He even said so in his opening remarks, lamenting how he would only receive 4 minutes during the Democratic debates because Obama and Hillary were the chosen candidates. I am glad he takes the LP seriously enough to run for its nomination. But I will be severely disappointed if the LP gives him serious consideration as the presidential candidate.

Upcoming Philadelphia-area Freedom Events

Several members of the Philadelphia Forum for Freedom look on as the Constitution is ratified by the founding members of the Penn Libertarian Association. All members in attendance from Drexel, Temple, and Penn signed the constitution.












1. Penn Libertarians fundraiser- "Take a Shot for Liberty" shot glasses

Sold on Locust walk by the compass Tuesday-Thursday afternoon. $3 each or 2 for $5.

2. Former Democratic Senator and current presidential candidate Mike Gravel

Co-sponsored by the Penn Libertarians and the Penn Democrats, Gravel will be speaking at Penn in Houston Hall 223 to discuss, among other things, his controversial switch to the Libertarian Party on Wednesday April 9 @ 7PM.

3. Penn Libertarians Present: An Evening With the Cato Institute's Senior Editor, Gene Healy

Gene Healy will be giving a speach on his latest book, "The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power," on Wednesday April 16th @ 7PM in Steinberg-Dietrich Hall 209. There will be a Q&A session followed by autograph signings of the book after the speech as well.

4. Drexel's Student Liberty Front is hosting the event "Who Killed the Constitution?"

Martyn Babitz, Esq., author of "The Illusion of Freedom: How to Restore the True Constitution and Reclaim Liberty Now," will be speaking at Drexel's Bossone Auditorium on Tuesday, April 22nd from 7-9 PM.

Although the school year is winding down, the next couple of weeks will be busy ones for the local libertarian movement, making it the perfect time to learn more about what we are about.

Philadelphia Forum for Freedom Conference a Success!

On Saturday, April 5, the first annual Philadelphia Forum for Freedom Conference was held at the University of Pennsylvania. Everyone in attendance agreed it was a tremendous success. Eighteen students from the University of Pennsylvania Libertarian Association, the Drexel Student Liberty Front and the Temple Libertarians were in attendance. Participants talked about effective means of changing society to become freer and best practices for student organizations.

The final action of the conference, though, was the signing of the Constitution of the Philadelphia Forum for Freedom. While intense discussion and debate was held regarding the finer points of the mission statement and veto power of member organizations, all participants signed the Constitution, establishing the Philadelphia Forum for Freedom. The organization will be primarily run by an executive board that is composed of one representative from each member student organization. Three executive board members will be recognized as the President, Vice President of Outreach and Vice President of Logistics and Finance (this will currently be every executive board member since there are three organizations in the PFF, but this will change as more organizations are added). The PFF's activities will include an annual conference, a leadership retreat for all executive board members of the individual student groups, and providing outreach to new schools to help start student organizations dedicated to freedom.

Thank you to everyone who participated for making it a truly amazing conference!

If you would like to learn more about the Philadelphia Forum for Freedom or get involved, please email me at amccobin@sas.upenn.edu.

You Can't Blame Earmarks for Everything

Earmarks this fiscal year: Approximately $18 billion
Budget this fiscal year: $3 Trillion

Penn received 160k from earmarks this year. In 2005, Penn received over $471 million from the National Institutes of Health.

Now if we only get angry about the earmarks as "conservatives" seem to do, then we miss the more important picture. Senator McCain has been calling him self a fiscal conservative and claims he will cut spending. But, earmarks have been his main target.

Right now I am concerned with our $9 trillion debt. Doing away with these annoying earmarks will no hardly put a dent in that number.

Where's McCain?

Since all of the other major players have dropped from the race (or minimally the media radar- sorry Ron Paul), John McCain is harder to find than a lone man with a white striped shirt in a large crowd. While in the long run it may prove to be a benefit to sit back and watch Hillary and Obama take each other down, the fundraising capabilities of each of these candidates cannot be denied. So while the Democrats are traversing the country raising money and promising to spend even more, McCain is telling everyone his life story, a story that, over so many years, must be long and drawn out.
Although I would be perfectly happy watching any and all of these candidates self-destruct, I am wondering how well this strategy will pan out for McCain in the long run of the general election and why nobody from his campaign has remedied or addressed this point. Security in the Primary may feel good for immediate gratification, but I can't remember the last time I saw anything useful about McCain on the news.
Universal health care anyone?

The Polls are Open

Election fever has struck Pennsylvania. No, I'm not talking about the Democratic Primary. The Student government election started today. There are 73 students vying for 61 spots. Sadly, many students will vote for whoever has the cleverest sign on locust walk.

Yet, other students will vote for different reasons. Several student groups will send out an email with a list of endorsements. There is nothing wrong with that, but it really makes me wonder what is the role of our student government. When an email goes out saying, you should vote for x because he supports y (a non Penn related issue), I question the scope of student government.

Recently, the UA spent a session debating the Red Cross ban on blood donations from homosexuals. Sure, this ban affects many Penn students, but it is not directly related to Penn. The UA should not be the venue for that. The UA should only deal with issues within Penn or else we forget the point of our fellow representatives.

Currently student government seems like a waste of time, but I do thank them for bringing the NY Times.

So go exercise your voting powers today, because the other election coming up is going to be depressing.

Mike Gravel, FDR, and the Libertarian Party

Mike Gravel has recently announced that he is no longer seeking the Democratic Nomination for the Presidency. He is now seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for the Presidency.

In an email announcing his new presidential bid, he explained his rationale: "The fact is, the Democratic Party is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views."

Where to begin? First off, the Libertarian Party was founded to oppose FDR'ism and all its evils. FDR's New Deal was the start of big government that the LP was founded to oppose. If it were not for the introduction of so many government-sponsored redistribution and economic intervention programs that came about from there, the LP may have never come about to challenge them. Beginning his candidacy for the LP nomination by invoking FDR is perhaps the best way to summarize the futility of this campaign.

Let me list just a few of Gravel’s positions that are inconsistent with the LP platform:

• Universal health care
• Government sponsored "[p]arent education" (I'm unsure what this entails, but I'm scared by it)
• Universal pre-kindergarten
• Maintaining social security
• "[M]onitoring the flow of immigrants into our country"
• "Parity in health insurance and access to specialized family health care services" (which I can only assume is government sponsored)
  

Second, I would say that the Democratic Party is more the party of FDR today than it was a decade ago. Many references are made to the expansion of government power intervening in peoples' lives. Hillary Clinton has even tried to contrast this election as Hoover v. Roosevelt Round 2. FDR was popular for his support of big government both domestically and abroad. The Democratic Party is doing the same thing today. Ultimately, this should indicate that Gravel is doubtfully seeking the nomination out of a principled belief in any philosophy or need for change, but rather is doing so for the sake of power and fame like most politicians.

But is there any silver lining to this dark cloud? Gravel has in the past spoke out in favor of Reason Magazine (which is very libertarian) and called himself libertarian (even though I disagree with this). He is a very strong social libertarian and he does support the Fair Tax. What's more, his decision to switch to the LP is an indication that the Party Party is growing significantly.

In the end, as a registered member of the Libertarian Party who cast his first vote for Michael Badnarik in 2004, my gut reaction is to feel insulted by Mr. Gravel’s actions. I am glad that politicians like Gravel take the LP seriously enough to seek its support. However, I would rather such support come from someone who has more in line with the LP’s platform than merely an opposition to Bush and Iraq. The onus is on Gravel to convince big "L" Libertarians like myself that we should take him seriously.

The Penn Dems are actually sponsoring a talk by Mike Gravel at Penn on April 9th . I for one plan to attend and ask this question: As a registered member of the Libertarian Party who plans to volunteer at the National LP Convention in Denver, I have to ask, why should I not consider your run for my Party to be a waste of my time?

Drugs and Beer are the Keys to a College Student's Heart

This evening was a big one for the topic of drug legalization. It began with the new South Park episode chronicling the drug phenomenon of "cheesing" that sweeps South Park. In typical libertarian South Park fashion, the moral of this story was far from what we have come to expect from mainstream television- that is, the drug war is futile. The DEA can raid a town of all the cats (or drugs) that it wants, but this will not prove to be effective, and moreover, alternatives will be found. The full episode can be found here.

The next mention of drug legalization also came from Comedy Central on the Colbert Report in which Colbert interviewed the drug lobbyist from the Drug Policy Alliance Ethan Nadelman. The interview can be seen here.
These parodies surely received a warm reception from college students around the country regardless of whether or not they partake in drugs. Students regularly witness the failure of the war on drugs and many would also agree with the point that as individuals we should have the full right to govern what we put into our own bodies. After all, drugs never kept a President out of office (George Bush had quite the drug habit, nobody believes that Clinton didn't inhale, and people loved Obama more than ever upon hearing about his former trists with cocaine), and with all the other problems in the world today, these musings may have people thinking, "Why the War on Drugs?" At this point the only answer we seem to be getting is, "Why not."
The issues of the drug war and the drinking age may be the most effective ways for libertarians to connect with America's youth. Yes, the legalization of marijuana could become the gateway drug into the libertarian movement, and the sooner the major think tanks catch on to this, the better.

Bush's Crocodile Tears

"'One day people will look back at this moment in history and say 'thank God there were courageous people willing to serve' because they laid the foundation for peace for generations to come,' Bush said after a roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers, pushing the toll to the new milestone."

Does this strike anyone else as macabre? The man who sent 4,000 young men and women to their deaths, wasting half a billion taxpayer dollars in the process over five gristly years, still insists we consider his action morally justified and praiseworthy. What could he possibly think we 're achieving in Iraq?

Is the war benefiting the Iraqi people? The current cost of the war works out to almost $20,000 per Iraqi citizen. If we were truly concerned about the Iraqi people, surely that $20,000 per person could be put to much better use than violently seizing control of their country. And if we're concerned about our own citizens - is there any evidence the war is protecting us in any measurable way? Bush's blithe confidence in the war is at best insincere, at worst delusional. Either way, I strongly feel people will "look back at this moment in history" in a much different light.

May I see your national ID... I mean passport card?

I didn't hear about it in the mainstream media. Even my usual online libertarian news sources didn't report on it. I wouldn't have noticed it at all if I wasn't renewing my passport... and was asked if I'd like a passport card as well.
It looks like a driver's license and acts like a passport (but only in North America and the Caribbean.) According to our dear Big Brother, it's sole purpose is to simplify the lives of people who frequently drive back and forth across our immediate borders. Technically.
Now I realize this card will simplify Mexican and Canadian border crossings. And I realize you can't even enter a federal building nowadays without showing ID. But I have a feeling the purpose of passport cards is far more insiduous. It may be a stretch, but this whole situation immediately made me think of Soviet Union era internal passports.
In the good ol' days, I've been told, a "verbal declaration of citizenship" was enough to allow you to cross into Canada. Now you need a passport. And after some initial protest, people buckled down and are now showing passports twice a day at the Canadian border. Would it be paranoid to suggest that people would comply if the passport card became a mandatory, nationwide form of ID? Coded with all kinds of biometric goodies? Indispensable to get a job or conduct any kind of business (need I remind you that Social Security cards once read Not for Identification ?)
The passport card in its present form seems fairly harmless (unless you're concerned about RFID chips...) But if people get used to it, it could pave the way for far more serious government incursions on personal liberties. At the very least it deserves wider media coverage (and a nationwide debate beyond the confines of our meetings in Huntsman G86 twice a month!)

Recycle Mania- Like Fitting a Square Peg Into a Round Hole?

If anyone ever wondered about the feasibility of bureaucratized environmental initiatives (as opposed to voluntary changes taken on by individuals), look no further than Houston Market post- "RecycleMania." Penn currently ranks #77 in this "friendly competition among college and university recycling programs," and while I am unaware of the specific approaches taken by other schools, it is probably safe to assume that numbers 1-76 do not serve food in large square containers that do not fit into the new small round holes of the recycle bins. I have never seen the trash cans overflow like they have in the heat of RecycleMania. I know the logo of the program is "Stop. Think. Recycle." but if there is to be a notable improvement in recycling levels we should not be forced to think (and push, bend, fold, and force) that hard.

The Power of Professors in Introductory Level Courses

I am currently taking Intro to Legal Studies because I have a passion for the study of law. Therefore, unlike many of my peers who take this class because it is required, I have a reasonably solid foundation in this realm. Moreover, because I am a libertarian, I am also well-acquainted with the issues and controversies that surround the ever-changing interpretations of the Bill of Rights. But in an introductory level classroom I am the exception not the rule, and it is unfortunate how professors of these courses occasionally abuse their positions of intellectual authority to cast their own convictions as fact.
This is not to say that professors should be expected to withhold their own analyses of the subjects which they teach. After all, they, like the authors they assign us to read, are experts in their field. However, their opinions, like the opinions of these authors, should be presented and treated us such.
I realized the importance of the distinction between presenting something as one idea of many (a crucial concept in many definitions of jurisprudence) and presenting it as widely-accepted fact in an introductory level classroom while attending a lecture on the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.
Just days after returning from the Students for Liberty Conference where I had the opportunity to attend an inspiring lecture and speak to Scott Bullock, one of the lead attorneys defending Kelo in the now infamous Kelo v City of New London case, about rights protection in the courts, I was forced to sit through an interpretation of the Takings Clause back in the real world (read: antithetical to libertarian ideals) that left the majority of the class thinking that it was an undisputed fact that the government has the right to take your property for any reason, public or private, that it chooses. Of course several students were shocked by this fact at first and proceded to question my professor, but by the end of the Q&A even those students were pacified by the argument that our system, which atleast offers "just compensation", is far superior to feudal England where the king owned all of the land.
Was the controversy surrounding the Kelo decision mentioned? Of course not. Was the aftermath of the decision in which the legislatures of many states, appalled at the wording of the court's decision, narrowed the definition of eminent domain on their own accord considered once? Absolutely not. Or atleast not before I had overcome my shock for long enough to mention them myself. But there is not always someone in a classroom that has the approppriate knowledge to question a professor, and in those classrooms we educate lawyers to believe that individual rights can and should be justly narrowed as courts see fit and society "changes." I overheard a Penn Law admissions officer speaking to a colleague about the fact that only 1-2% of first year law students have any more than a topical knowledge of legal issues. I wonder how many sides of a story these clean slates are presented. Unfortunately, I think the answer to that question may be in the opinion of the Kelo decision itself.

Philadelphia Forum for Freedom Conference at Penn on April 5!

The Penn Libertarian Association is proud to host the first Philadelphia Forum for Freedom Conference on Saturday, April 5! Whether you are a student at Penn interested in liberty or from another university in the area and are interested in attending, we encourage you to get in touch with us about the Conference. We'll be discussing issues of liberty, how to effect change and just having a bunch of fun together. This is sure to be an event you do not want to miss, so if you have any questions,

What: Philadelphia Forum for Freedom Conference
Where: Houston Hall at Penn (3401 Spruce Street), third floor
When: Saturday, April 5, from 12-10PM
Who: Any college student interested in freedom from the greater Philadelphia area
For More Information/How to Register: Email your name, school, cell phone, and email to Alexander McCobin at amccobin@sas.upenn.edu. I will get back to you soon after you send me an email and more information on the Conference.

Strike Down the Ban

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

This morning, the Supreme Court held oral arguments for the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The issue at stake is whether a DC ban on handguns (shotguns are not banned) is constitutional. Because of a lack of precedents on the Second Amendment, today's case, DC v. Heller, grants substantial authority to the current Justices to decide whether there exists a right to own a gun.

There are a number of ways the Court can rule on this case. The Justices can argue there exists an individual right to bear arms or they can state the constitutional grants no such right. Moreover, if the Court establishes the right to bear arms, they can decide what level of regulations can be placed on guns.

If the Court does not agree on a right to own guns, the right to self defense will be greatly impeded. DC is a dangerous city. Banning guns only takes away the guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals do not hand them over. Police response times will never be fast enough to defend all citizens from attackers. When the police can not guarantee safety, as in DC, people should have the ability own a handgun to protect themselves.

Furthermore, the underlying reason for the right to bear arms is to prevent tyranny. Without the ability to bear arms, the ability to form a militia is crushed. Armed citizens serve as a check against governmental power. If citizens are disarmed, government will greatly hamper resistance if tyranny is to occur. As Justice Scalia stated today, "The two clauses (of the Second Amendment) go together beautifully." In order to have a non state sponsored militia, people must retain the right to bear arms.

The first battles of the American Revolution were fought to prevent British troops from confiscating American military supplies. The Supreme Court must not allow the confiscation of our guns two centuries after the Battles of Lexington and Concord.