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.