I came across this meme on Facebook this morning (thank you, Chris) and it made me realize precisely what I find distasteful about the Invisible Children craze, and, more recently, the Kony 2012 craze.
It’s not that I think those who grab hold of these internet sensations are dumb or actually believe their status updates or “likes” will change the world. But I do think they are perpetuating (either fully aware of their contribution to this phenomenon, but more likely not) the notion that activism is easy. Or at least, to be a good human being is easy.
America is already the land of the complacent. This nation has gone from the epitome of rabble-rousers to a swath of middle class no-nothings, who would rather ensure the security of their jobs and homes (which they still owe the bank for) than to have true, unquestioned freedom.
And it’s this philosophy (or, rather, LACK of a philosophy) that concerns me. When we think we can be activists by clicking a button, there’s something wrong.
The Occupy movement showed that there are still so many people in this country willing to fight for what they believe in – even if that message is skewed or a bit uneducated, it’s something to FIGHT FOR. And yet, those people were ridiculed by the middle class no-nothings, by the baby boomers (not all of them, I know, but in general) who fought for security and safety and complacency.
And that’s the real problem. Our parents and grandparents fought to be complacent. They lived through a depression, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War. All they want is to sit back, flip on the television and watch Wheel of Fortune.
And I get that. But this generation hasn’t had its Vietnam or its Great Depression – even though we call our recession “great,” it wasn’t.
And so, what do we have to fight for? To fight against?
We are fighting the most dangerous enemy of them all – tyranny. And it’s not a vibrant, in-your-face kind of tyranny. It’s a tyranny that is sneaky up from behind, using our complacency against us. We are losing our freedoms left and right, but we can’t see past our Facebook pages to notice that they have been taken.
And so, what our parents and grandparents fought so hard to obtain is what will ultimately kill all that America once stood for. They thought complacency and the ability to feel safe and secure was the ultimate form of freedom. But they were wrong. Freedom is the ability to fight. To constantly battle tyranny in all its forms. And that is the freedom we need to get back.
Filed under: Economics, Libertarianism, Politics | Leave a Comment
Tags: activism, depression, freedom, invisible children, kony 2012, Libertarian, recession, uganda, vietnam
In California, the majority of voters decided to vote in Democrat Jerry Brown as governor, but failed to recognize the importance of legalizing marijuana. I am beyond disappointed.
I should probably preface this post with who and what I voted for – just so you know why I am so disappointed:
I voted for Meg Whitman for governor, mostly because I knew that the Libertarian candidate, Dale Ogden, would get pretty much zero votes. Call me a sell out, but anything would have been better than a big-spending, no-nothing “liberal”. She lost to Brown.
In all other political positions, I voted for the Libertarian candidate. They all lost.
I voted yes on Proposition 19 because it is the individual’s right to consume whatever the hell they want. It lost.
I voted yes on Proposition 23 because our economy is more important than “climate change”, which hasn’t even been proven and because the government should not be regulating business, especially in times like these. It lost.
I do not understand why such simple, coherent, rational and consistent views are not shared by the majority.
It is time to change the way Libertarians present themselves in society. I know that we all believe that our views are so damned obvious, but for some reason, the general public is still lost.
And so, I propose the Libertarians start making connections with the Tea Partiers. Almost 50% of Tea Party constituents consider themselves Libertarians already, according to the Cato Institute. So why aren’t we trying to get the rest of them on our side?
The biggest difference between Tea Party members and Libertarians is religious and moral belief. Luckily for the Tea Partiers, Libertarians couldn’t care less what you believe, as long as you believe it on your own, without government enforcement and without entitlement, and as long as you understand and accept that everyone believes something different.
Government should only be dealing with things that have been proven. Not morals. Anyone who understands that the government should not, and CANNOT legislate morality is a Libertarian.
So it is time to accept that we need to try a lot harder to educate others about how vital this point of view is and why we need Libertarians in public office. I am sick of not being represented AT ALL by this government. And as a Libertarian, I take full responsibility to change what I don’t like. I suggest you all do the same.
Filed under: Libertarianism, Politics | 1 Comment
California’s Prop 19 will afford its citizens some level of individual freedom, and I understand how large of a step this is in American history, but I am not completely satisfied with this somewhat small-scale of liberalization, not to mention the federal government’s reaction to it.
First off, decriminalizing drugs is a sound fiscal policy for any nation, as seen in Cato’s Drug Decriminalization Policy Pays Off, in which Glenn Greenwald discuss the success of decriminalization in Portugal. Many of the fiscal benefits are not news to Americans: fewer criminals in jail, fewer criminals needing public representation, taxing the sale of drugs, etc. But imagine that on a larger scale.
The key difference between the policies in Portugal and the policies in the US is that Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs. Indeed, the policies in Portugal have been in effect for 10 years, enough time for the negative effects of legalizing “hard drugs” to dissipate. But the fact remains: decriminalizing all drugs, including the most addictive and dangerous, is a sound policy.
Secondly, decriminalization is socially responsible. It acknowledges that individuals are free to do as they please, and to ingest what they please, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. But here is where the argument for criminalizing hard drugs holds a tiny bit of weight.
Obviously the two major concerns surrounding legalization of hard drugs are addiction and death (be it caused by production-related accidents, or consumption-related accidents). There is no question that these are legitimate concerns.
But HOW legitimate? Legitimate enough to forgo scientific research that could shed light on some of the most mysterious questions about the human psyche? Legitimate enough to continue to facilitate the black drug market, which contributes overwhelmingly to gang-related deaths and adolescent deaths?
Yes, more people will use, though it will not be a very significant increase, as the Cato article above clearly shows with empirical, not moral, evidence. Decriminalizing drugs will contribute to the overall safety of our society.
On a more specific note, I find it terrifying that the United States Federal Government has gotten away with threatening the citizens of California, scaring them with what it will do should they decriminalize marijuana. It is not the federal government’s job to enforce what we smoke, eat, drink, feel, think, or even need.
The people are to blame for the government’s flagrant misuse of regulation – the people have let the government consolidate power to this frightening point, and the people have to take that power back. Our freedoms are not safe until the government has no say over what we smoke, who we marry or how we run our businesses.
Filed under: Economics, Libertarianism, Politics | Leave a Comment
Missing rationality
As government gets bigger, we as individuals are giving away the functionality of our inherent rationality. A government entity will never be able to implement a plan as effectively as an individual because it is inherently inefficient, which would be okay if we didn’t put so much faith into it. Government is not our savior, we cannot look to it for answers – any answers. It is so disappointing to hear those who frown upon religion preach big government in their own twisted way. Government is not the alternative to religion, and once it becomes that we have lost what makes America truly great – our ability to determine the difference between the rational individual and the powerful organization.
Here is an example of how an individual is able to use his rationality to solve some of the simplest government-caused problems.
Filed under: Economics, Politics | Leave a Comment
I’m going to apologize in advance for this post not having any references. It’s production week for my college newspaper, and I’m beat.
I am taking a comparative politics class this semester, and the overarching theme of the class was the conflict countries have between freedom and equality. Every topic we discussed would relate back to whether a country favored freedom or equality. For instance: America favors freedom more than equality because the American government does not spend a lot of money on the poor, while Sweden favors equality because it spends everything it has on social benefits.
I understand that using the dichotomy of freedom versus equality makes it easier for people to understand why countries choose the policies they implement, but I feel that it is a bit misguiding.
As I see it, you cannot have equality if you do not have a certain respect for freedom. One could not argue, however, that freedom comes out of equality. It’s not a fair comparison.
With freedom comes a level of equality that you cannot get by mandating economic equality. It is a comprehensive and all-encompassing equality. By understanding that all individuals have the right to freedom, you are automatically supporting a much deeper level of equality.
And, furthermore, a government cannot mandate equality in any sense other than through enforcing every individual’s right to freedom. A government should not be allowed to decide who is worthy of extra benefits outside of their unalienable rights. The government is not an individual capable of making both sound and efficient decisions for others or for itself.
Equality becomes superficial and inefficient once we start believing that it has to encompass every aspect of our lives and that it must do so through the implementation of government policy.
Without freedom, a government is left to rule its people without any balance of power. That is the very essence of inequality – man against god.
People are not equal. We are all different. And we know that the government cannot be given the authority to govern our benefits when it comes to our gender and race, so why should we let it do so based on any other differences among individuals?
By promoting freedom, a government is automatically supporting equality as much as it possibly can without diluting its efficiency and morality. There is no dichotomy, equality is inherent in freedom and freedom is what keeps humanity alive.
Filed under: Libertarianism, Politics | Leave a Comment
Tags: equality, freedom
One of the most beautiful things about the human mind is that it is able to take huge masses of information and sort it out into categories, much like a computer does, according to the mind’s subjective understanding of each thing it evaluates. The reason we categorize data is because our minds cannot analyze each and every thing we encounter throughout our life to its very core. We generalize and stereotype for good reason: It is this categorizing that allows us to pick and choose which information we want to study further and which information we are content to only partially understand.
Categorization also allows us to differentiate between things that are objective facts and things that are personal to us. By being able to sort out subjective information, we are able to organize our minds into things that are, and things that we think should be.
Things that are: trees, ants, coffee cups, governments, slavery, guns, prostitution, drugs, daisies, finger nail polish…you get the picture.
Things that I think should be: small governments, individual freedom, capitalism, legalized drugs, free use of finger nail polish…again, I think it’s understood.
The first list of things are in existence whether or not I like them, and my liking them or disliking them will not change them as facts of life. For instance, trees will always be trees whether or not I am morally opposed to them. These things are objective because they are not philosophies or values – this is not to say that they cannot be valued, I am simply saying that the fact that trees exist is not a question of morals. Also, objective things can be studied and compared using the scientific method. How trees grow, the difference among trees and how they affect their surrounding environment are all scientifically understood.
The second list reflects my personal values. I value individual freedom and a small government. Luckily, I live in the United States where most everyone values individual freedom and small government to a certain extent. It is because the people of the United States value these things that the United States maintains (for the most part) a system based on individual freedom and small government. It is our collective appreciation for these things that make them exist (again, to a certain extent). These are values. Though some values have more objective basis than others, they are still subjective and personal. Capitalism is notproven scientifically to be the best economic system because there are certain inherently subjective aspects of economics that cannot be analyzed or compared (Though, at the moment, it is certainly the most convincing method based both on morals – its strong connection to individual freedom – and facts – it produces the most affluent and fiscally successful countries). And because these things cannot be objectively compared with one another in order to determine those things that are “good” and those that are “bad”, they cannot be successfully regulated.
This is a very long way to say that the federal government should not and cannot regulate things that fall under the category of should be. That is the job of the individual, and, at most, the state or local government. This is a good example of what goes wrong when the federal government starts playing with subjective fire. If you do not want to read the whole thing, let me summarize: It’s a hell of a mess.
Filed under: Libertarianism, Politics | Leave a Comment
Tags: objectivity, Perfect storm, regulation, subjectivity
Robert A. Levy discusses the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate proposed in the recent health care reform bill. It’s cases like these that make me want to become a lawyer.
April 2, 2010: “Obamacare’s Unconstitutional Coercion” featuring Robert A. Levy
Filed under: Health Care | Leave a Comment
Tags: Cato, Health Care, Obamacare
Where I get my inspiration
Some good places to learn more about Libertarianism:
The Cato Institute’s blog
And, of course, the Constitution of the United States
For an entertaining approach to real critical thinking and political research, watch Penn and Teller’s Bullshit. It’s both rationality and humor at their best.
Filed under: Libertarianism | 4 Comments
Tags: Cato, Libertarian, Penn and Teller, United States
College – the real reason to go
We are told as children that going to college will be our ticket to success. “Going to college” turned into “Going to university” because we all know that prestige is most important when talking about an education.
I went to a small private school from kindergarten through eighth grade. I was one of 300 students school-wide that was told that a college education was worth the price because it would give me credibility.
While most of my classmates went to private high school (because, they said, you have a better chance of getting into the top universities if you attend a private high school), I chose to attend my local public high school, to my parents’ relief. Now, I am back in private school. I attend a small private liberal arts college. Full-time tuition is 35,196 dollars a year. After adding on the student activity fee of $140, the transportation fee of $96, the campus comprehensive fee of $896, the insurance plan of $2,024 and room and board at $11,480, we are talking about $49,832 to attend school for one year. This of course leaves out the variable cost of the meal plan, which is required for those living on campus. I, personally, have the cheapest meal plan, at $4,198, so my annual cost of attendance is $54,750. I do not pay it all. I have scholarships coming out my ears and loans that will cost me dearly in a couple of years.
It is not so much the cost that worries me, it is the fact that people are paying for the wrong reasons. You can be successful without graduating, or even going to college. College is for those who feel they want to continue learning in a structured environment. And for those people, the time and cost of going to college is of no debate.
I am not going to sit here and pretend that I am attending college only for the pure and simple joy of learning. I, too, have been brainwashed. I am also going to college because I want a good job, and this is the only way I know to do that. But why is it that I do not know of any other path to success? Because no one ever taught me that there was another way.
When I was younger, I wanted to be an actor. My family was supportive, for the most part. But, they saw my going to college a much higher priority because the likelihood of me actually succeeding as an actor was very slim. They never told me that I could indeed be an actor for the rest of my life; they never told me that it could be a career if I worked really hard. It wasn’t until after the dream had passed that I realized that acting could have been my profession and that I could have been successful and my life could have been meaningful – even without going to college.
Education is important, there is no doubt about that. But if we start molding education to fit the individual interests of students early on, families could save hundreds of thousands of dollars on education. By allowing students to focus on their interests from the beginning, those who do not need or want to attend college will not feel pressured to do so. Interdisciplinary education is important, but if one studies a specific subject long enough, that person will find all the ways that topic fits in with the rest of scholarship. Instead of forcing a federally mandated standard for math, science and english, we should be supporting each student in the areas he or she is interested in and showing that student how his or her topic of interest incorporates all the other areas of study. In this way, students will not only be more engaged in school, but we can more accurately portray the meaning of success, without defaulting to the idea of “college” as the only key to success.
Filed under: Education | 3 Comments
Tags: college, Education, success
via www.youtube.com
Besides the important point Arnold Kling brings up about the federal government’s inability to micromanage anything (hence it being the federal government), there seems to me to be another point that is equally important. Is healthcare truly a public good? And can the government treat it as such?
It is the federal government’s job to provide the citizens of this nation with public goods. Public goods are those goods (and, I suppose, potentially services) that will not, and cannot, be provided by the market alone. The reason the market cannot provide these goods is because they will inevitably benefit everyone, regardless of the distribution of contribution. This, of course, leads to free-riding (when some individuals will stop paying for a good because they know that others will pay for it anyway). Public safety and education are examples of public goods that our government currently provides (whether or not these public goods are provided successfully is up to debate). These are not goods forced upon individuals, but are there to be used by any individual who wants them. If healthcare is to be considered a public good, then this is the shape it should take. It is not something the federal government can force onto us, but something that is supplied for those who want it.
The real question is, which public goods should the government be spending the most time and money on? We have safety, education, roads…the list goes on and on. Adding health to this list is not the problem, it is funding it and managing it that causes difficulty.The federal government does not have the authority to dapple in each and every one of these public goods without fully committing to any of them, thrusting the rest of the costs onto individuals and their businesses. If we do not all wish to pay for healthcare (and we do not all want to pay for healthcare – it isn’t event a majority that is supporting this bill, and even if it were, that is not enough to support it being considered a public good that everyone has to pay for.) it is not a public good. Because of this, the federal government should either subsidize the entire program it suggests, or it should spend its time and money elsewhere – far away from me.
I don’t want to make it seem like there are only moral reasons behind the irrationality of the healthcare bill, though there are moral reasons – many moral reasons. The fact of the matter is, it is not going to work.
Filed under: Libertarianism, Politics | Leave a Comment
Tags: Public goods
Search
-
Blogroll
Entertainment
Information
Social
Recent Entries
- The truth hurts – but it’s important
- The fight for representation has begun
- Decriminalization – both fiscally and socially responsible
- Missing rationality
- Freedom versus equality – a false dichotomy
- Regulations – if it’s subjective, leave it alone
- “If the government can mandate the purchase of health insurance, then, of course, they can mandate anything.”
- Where I get my inspiration
- College – the real reason to go
- Public goods and how they should be provided
- Liberalism
Categories
- Economics (3)
- Education (1)
- Health Care (1)
- Libertarianism (8)
- Politics (8)
