Liberty and Me in Berkeley

Although it has only been slightly over two months, Students for Liberty has become a thriving club at Cal. It is extremely rewarding to think that the idea a few friends and I had last semester has come to life. However, what has been the most rewarding aspect of starting up a club is the whirlwind of different people I have met and continue to interact with everyday.

Through starting up the club, I have met over a dozen anarchists (including my roommate) who regularly advocate for complete abolishment of the government.

I have attended dinners with prominent Bay Area libertarians including a respected clinical psychologist and acclaimed author, a well-off businessman, a professor, the Editor-in-Chief of Campaign for Liberty (who knows Ron Paul), and the Republican congressional nominee who is running against Nancy Pelosi.

I’ve tabled with a dedicated (and stylish) anarchist who regularly rolls joints in public and wears semi-casual clothing seven days a week.

I have met a homeless drug addict named “Monsoon” who says he believes the government should pay everyone to spy on their neighbor, and who believes in ALLAH (that is, “an Arm, a Leg, a Leg, an Arm, and a Head”).

I have met a black student who openly hates Obama, hates any type of positive discrimination and can dominate anyone in a debate on the Constitution.

I have come in contact with the Chairman of California’s Libertarian Party.

I have emailed Milton Friedman’s grandson.

Lastly, I have met a successful bisexual male escort and porn star who charges $150 an hour to his clients and was a defendant in a landmark California legal case.

Although these people come from all walks of life and may judged by society in different ways, they are all good people. They all believe in pursuing their own happiness while displaying respect  for the lives of other. They all believe in liberty. For their core belief and the virtues they derive from it, I am proud to associate with everyone of these individuals. I am proud to be a libertarian.

Two Panoramics

This was taken at Sproul Plaza during the September 29th UC-wide walkout. Although I did not participate in the walk out because of philosophical disagreements, it was fascinating to observe Berkeley’s greatest tradition– protesting.

This is Memorial Stadium at the October 3rd football game against USC. Although we brutally lost, it was still by far the most exciting football game I’ve attended. Being in the student section was quite amusing that day.

The Capitalist Misconception

While tabling today in Sproul Plaza for Students for Liberty, the libertarian club some friends and I started, a local nomad came up to our table and immediately started chastising me. “How can support capitalism in this day and age? Just look what it’s done to the economy! Look at the health care crisis! All those greedy corporations are taking all of the money. Capitalism ruined this country!”

My immediate reaction to his rant was fear. I was scared. Not because he was a rambling hobo yelling at me, I’ve dealt with such situations before. I was scared because he truly meant it. He genuinely believed that capitalism is the root problem that is destroying our country. And he is not alone. In a recent poll done by Rasmussen Reports found that only 53% of Americans believe that capitalism is better than socialism. The same study also found that 33% of Americans under thirty believe that socialism is better than capitalism.

Yet, it is very easy to understand why these people would believe such a falsity. With banks and corporations being bailed out left and right, it seems as if big business, the very manifestation of capitalism, is a failure. Right?

Wrong. The truth is that our current economy is nowhere near capitalistic. It is a hellish mixture of capitalism and socialism. Yet because our country was founded on liberty, our market is still perceived as being free, when in fact is is pseudo-capitalism.

Take, for example, corporatism. This seems to be the biggest problem that capitalist-haters seem to point to. However, what they do not understand is that in a free market economy, it would be much more difficult for corporations to exist. In our current economy, the government places heavy taxes and regulations on business, therefore increasing start-up costs and discouraging competition. Even supposedly “socialist” countries like the Scandinavians have lower corporate taxes and regulation than America.  Thus, our government’s intervention takes away the free aspect of the market and creates an economy of scale. Think back to before the 1950s. Taxes were low, regulation was low, and corporations for the most part did not exist. Well, corporatism did not magically spring up overnight. It was exactly because of this intervention that created the dangerous mixed economy that exists today.

So the next time you hear someone ranting about our damn “capitalist” market, politely point out that comparing our current market to capitalism is like comparing apples to oranges.

Blog Update 8/26

Well, the new semester has begun here at Cal. Although I do miss my summer in the scenic Yellowstone area, I’m happy to be back at school. I have so much planned for this next semester. Not only do I plan to work hard for a strong GPA, but I have ambitious extracurricular intentions. I am going to rush a pre-law professional fraternity and help start up a libertarian group at Cal. In fact, I was appointed the office of president for Students for Liberty just today. Hopefully my ambitious plans will be successful.

As closure for my summer, here are some pictures I took of the Grand Tetons just outside my cabin in Island Park, Idaho.

Government: Threatening Humanity Since Adam and Eve

To many in the political world, libertarians are perceived as having an unreasonable fear of government. After all, most libertarians want the state’s presence out of just about every portion of the economy. Some extremists even advocate the privatization of roads, police, courts, and other entities that most people believe is more efficiently run by the public sector. This minuscule role of government is so greatly contrasted with the state’s current size that the massive difference makes the ideology seem ridiculous.

After my libertarian conversion, I too thought my fellow lovers of freedom were a bit too paranoid of “big government.” However, while reading Ayn Rand’s magnus opus, Atlas Shrugged, I had a mind-blowing epiphany about the perilous potential of government.

Throughout the first half of the novel, the State Science Institute, a fictive federal bureau, is working on a mysterious expensive program anonymously called “Project X.” Before its unveiling, the Institute brags to the industrialists of the world that Project X will change the world forever, make America safe, and end all wars. Midway in the book, the product of the program is revealed to be a weapon of mass destruction that completely destroys all life within miles.

Rand’s Project X is a fictive parallel to the very real Manhattan Project of the 1940’s, a federal government program that produced the atomic bomb. This connection made me realize a truth about the funding of nuclear weapons: all major weapons of mass destruction have been created by government. That is, nuclear weapons would not exist if government did not exist.

Imagine for a minute that the state did not exist, a world where the concept of government is not present. In this hypothetical universe, there is no possible way that an atomic bomb, nuclear weapons, or any tool of mass death could exist. No private individual could muster up enough money to fund the research necessary to create such weapons. Not even Bill Gates would have sufficient funds to finance such an exorbitant project and still get by. Furthermore, even if he could hypothetically do so, he would have no market to sell the weapons for profit because of the grand amount of research, materials, and labor put into the product.

Only a powerful institution with an endless piggybank could accomplish such a daunting task: the government. Thus, the atomic bomb and other similar weapons are the very manifestation of the evil of big government.  I am not an anarchist; I do not think that the world would be any safer without the state playing a role. Although the government’s power of coercion and endless supply of money is scary enough to be considered evil, the state certainly fulfils some necessary roles that would be more difficult to do so in the private sector (i.e. the military, police, courts, roads). Thus, the government is a “necessary evil,” as Thomas Paine defined it in the eighteenth century. We should fight to get the state back to its limited, necessary role before it comes out with its next product that could threaten humanity.

Rainbow

I took this photo last week outside of my cabin in Island Park, Idaho. This is by far the best rainbow I have seen in my life. I’ve never seen a complete rainbow before; it seems like the average rainbow stops halfway.

Literary Classic or Cultish Nonsense?: A Review of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”

This is the first draft of a review I have written of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged for the next issue of Berkeley’s conservative student magazine, The Patriot.

Picture this: The United States is in the midst of a financial crisis. Businesses both large and small across the country are shutting their doors for good. Unemployment steadily rises as people find it harder and harder to get by. Politicians blame capitalism and greedy industrialists for causing the crisis and laud socialism as society’s savior. Sound familiar? Not only does this description fit our country’s troubling current events, but it is also the setting of Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged.

In fact, the parallels between the plot of the twentieth century philosopher’s magnum opus and our current recession are so shockingly similar that there has been a great surge in interest in the book recently. Thus far in 2009, sales of the book have tripled compared to the previous year, far surpassing 2008’s total of 200,000 copies sold. Fans of Rand’s 1,200-page epic have described the book as “eye-opening” and “life changing.” In fact, in January of this year, Wall Street Journal columnist Stephen Moore wrote, “If only Atlas were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration, I’m confident that we’d get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.”

So, does the book live up to its hype? Or is it merely gibberish, the nonsense of a cult leader preaching the sham of a philosophy she calls “Objectivism” (as her critics claim)? After thoroughly reading the novel, I opine that Atlas Shrugged is indeed as great as its sensation has painted it to be.

First, on a surface level, the novel is simply a fun read. The book captures the reader with its thrilling plot. The protagonist, Dagny Taggart, is a proud industrialist in a time when such types are politically hated. She considers herself to be one of the few sane people left in a growingly insane world. As Operating Vice President of Taggart Transcontinental, the premier railroad of the book’s fictive world, she struggles to keep her trains running as dozens of her customers, the industrialists of the world, mysteriously disappear without a trace. Intrigued by the vanishings of her professional colleagues and close friends, Dagny sets out to search for the cause of these disappearances, and to find an answer to the question that people mindlessly mutter every day; that is, “Who is John Galt?” These intriguing mysteries had me turning the pages faster than Obama’s spending. Even better, the resolutions to the book’s enigmas are as intriguing as the buildup to them.

However, the book’s real strength is its logicality. Rand successfully lays out her philosophy in such a rational manner that it is very hard to intelligently disagree with by the end. Specifically in the chapter “This is John Galt Speaking,” Rand’s character John Galt (who is the manifestation of Objectivism) beautifully explains Rand’s philosophy in such an eloquent and logically airtight manner that it leaves the reader in awe. Galt explains that the axiom of his philosophy is that existence exists, that A is A, that an objective reality exists (hence the name “Objectivism”). Thus, actions can be deemed objectively good or evil. Since mankind’s standard of value is life (that is, people value objects and actions that promote their own life), actions that advance life are morally good, whereas actions that cripple or destroy life are morally evil. Galt’s speech is so philosophically dense and logically valid that it would make any student of reason smile.

As an outsider of Objectivism, its idea that the moral purpose of our lives is to live for ourselves may seem rather radical and unfounded. However, Atlas Shrugged soundly explains this idea in such a rational manner that by the end of reading the novel it is hard not to take the central oath of Objectivism as written in the book; that is, “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Ayn Rand: Literary Genius or Cult Leader?

UC Corruption: An Alternative View of the University’s Troubles

This is the first draft of an article of mine that will be published in the next issue of The Patriot, Berkeley’s conservative-leaning student magazine.

Last May, the Board of Regents of the University of California announced a 9.3% system-wide fee increase in response to the budget crisis the University is facing. This announcement was followed shortly by reports that the newly chosen chancellor of UC Davis, Linda Katehi, will receive a $400,000 annual income upon her term in office. These two increases, in the midst of a financial crisis, have caused a lot of outrage among affiliates of the UC system. Students and parents object that tuition is exorbitant for a public university.  Taxpayers argue that the UC’s executive payroll, which averages at $305,000, is excessive for so-called “public servants.”

California’s State Legislature has taken notice of this outrage. Efforts have been made to decrease the UC’s autonomy, to try to make our “public” institution act more publically. State Senator Leeland Yee of San Francisco has headed these efforts by introducing SCA 21, a bill that would give power to our state’s legislature to pass statutes affecting the University. Senator Yee argues that this proposed public oversight is similar to that of the California State University system and will keep the UC’s student fees down while maintaining its sterling reputation.

But is more public oversight really a good thing? Undoubtedly the Regents have made rather poor decisions recently with giving some executives higher incomes than the President of the United States, especially in a time of financial crisis. However, is eliminating the Regents’ autonomy an apt punishment for their actions, or will it in turn end up punishing the innocent students of the University?

Before our state legislature makes any rash decisions, I think it should step back and analyze the situation more closely. First and foremost, the University of California in its present state is a top-rate collective of colleges. Our school, Berkeley, is presently the #21 top university in the country according to U.S. News & World Report, outranking famous private schools like Georgetown University and New York University, as well as being the top public school on the list. Similarly, UC Los Angeles is #23, outranking its private rival school, University of Southern California. Additionally, the UC’s sites at San Diego, Davis, Irvine, and Santa Barbara all make the Report’s top hundred list, making them Tier 1 institutions. The UC is the educational pride of California, as well as the finest public collective of colleges in the nation.  This superlative institution has been functioning under autonomous control from the state legislature since 1952 and has greatly increased in prestige over its 57-year run of independence. Thus, the present problems are just minor bumps in the well-oiled machine that is the UC, not long-term obstacles it has been enduring for decades.

So why exactly should the University have more public oversight? Why suddenly change a system that has been run more or less excellently for over a half of a century? Why hand the controls of the UC to politicians who cannot even balance our state’s budget? Senator Yee argues, “Only five other public universities in the country have a similar status, with UC receiving the greatest level of autonomy. This completely outdated model results in the Regents thinking they are above the law.” Although the senator’s statement regarding the five other privately-functioning public universities is true, what he fails to mention is that this group of five includes the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, and the University of Michigan, each of which are top-tier schools ranked in the Report’s top 50 best universities.

Under SCA 21, the UC would function very similarly to the CSU system. California’s State Legislature would have power to pass statutes affecting the University. However, as Berkeley Graduate School of Education professor W. North Grubb, who specializes in studying higher education, told The Daily Californian, it is unfair to treat these two separate systems equally. “[The University of California] is not really a public institution in the sense that all of its money comes from the public.” In fact, only $3.25 billion of the University’s $19.6 billion budget is public funding. That’s roughly 16.5%, far less than a quarter. “I acknowledge the university’s failure,” he said. “[But the amendment] will create an additional level of bureaucracy, slowing down the nimbleness the UC system needs in order to respond to those concerns.”

It is very easy to get caught up in populist rage when an injustice arises. But before we shout with the masses for public oversight and government takeover, we must step back and analyze the situation closely.  In the case of the UC, it is very doubtful that a system that has run efficiently for 57 years will function under control of politicians who cannot balance a state’s budget. Instead of focusing our attention on an unjust demand for a government takeover of a top-tier university system, we should focus our attention on a just demand for a fair payroll for UC executives.

Casey Given Makes an Economic Prediction

Over the last few months, I have been following the news closely as the U.S. economy has gone into a recession. Although many public figures have claimed that this recession was unpredictable, they are utterly wrong. As a close follower of prominent libertarians, I have noticed that public figures like the newly famous economist Peter Schiff (who is also a Cal alumni) and Dr. Ron Paul predicted the downfall of the banking system and the housing crisis years before the disasters of September, 2008. The following two videos are proof of their shockingly accurate predictions they made years before the crises of 2008:

In the last few months, both Dr. Paul and Mr. Schiff have been making more chilling predictions regarding inflation. The two have been outspoken critics of the Federal Reserve’s injection of $3 trillion into the U.S. economy to pay for it’s massive bail-out programs. The two have both asserted that this printing of money from thin air will lead to hyperinflation and only make the U.S.’s economic situation worse. Having heard these predictions and looking over the history of the economic collapse of the U.S.S.R. and Japan, I firmly believe they are correct. Therefore, I wish to make a prediction.

I, Casey Given, predict on  June 30, 2009 that within the next three years the currency of the United States  will experience hyperinflation as a result of the Federal Reserve’s reckless injection of over $3 trillion into the economy, thus causing a financial situation even worse than the one at present.

Why do I make such a prediction? I believe that such a forecast can add to my knowledge (and other’s) wether i am right or wrong. If I am wrong, than I will learn not to have such faith in free-market economists, and learn that maybe Keynesians like Paul Krugman and the Obama administration might have some validity to their plans. However, if I am right, I will only affirm my beliefs that free-market capitalism is the most efficient economic policy. Also, if I am right, I hope this post will be a testament to others of the truth behind free-market ideals. If I am right, I hope that others will learn that the status quo is not acceptable and that freedom is the only solution.

The Root of a “Right”

This post is essentially a second draft of an earlier post of mine entitled “Human Rights or Human Wrongs?” I decided to fix up the post because I immensely disliked the ending of the last one. I thought it ended too broadly and did not completely verbalize my thoughts on the issue. I am much more satisfied with this second draft. I hope you will be as well.

I believe that if there were a competition for the vaguest phrase in the English language, it would definitely be “human rights.” The term “human rights” has been used and abused infinitely throughout time that it is currently in the deepest state of ambiguity.

After all, what exactly are “human rights”? The definition of the term has continuously evolved over time. In the early 17th century, the British philosopher John Locke asserted that we have three human rights, the rights to “life, liberty, property.” A half a century later, Thomas Jefferson modified this definition by replacing “property” with “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. Over two hundred years later, people hear and use the word “right” all the time. The government says we have the “right to freedom of expression” or the “right to bear arms” or the “right to remain silent” or “the right to an education.” Some even dare to claim that we have the “right” to food, or shelter, or transportation, or healthcare. Our society’s definition of a “right” is constantly inflating like a balloon.

I’d like to pop that balloon. I immensely dislike the word “right” because many people who speak it do not understand the implications of its use.  To say one has the “right” to a certain good or service is the equivalent of saying that someone else has the obligation to give the good or service. In other words, claiming that humans have the right to food or health care or education is also claiming that someone has the obligation to provide it. But who exactly is that “someone”? That is what these ignoramuses fail to address. The “other” must only either be a fellow man or an institution, like the government. Thus, claiming that one has the right to healthcare is also claiming that another has the responsibility to give it to the person through coercion.

Therefore, a “right” is equivalent to a shift of responsibility. It is an assertion that you are not responsible for certain protection, but rather someone else is. It is to say that your life is not entirely your’s, but that another person or institution has partial ownership over you, and thus has obligations. It is socialism at its very core.
Although having a right is indeed advocating the socialization of an institution, we must not look at “rights” entirely negatively. After all, many rights are good. It is absolutely the role of the state to socialize the police industry to give the populace the right of protection, and to socialize the judicial system for the right of justice. A functional society would be highly difficult if not impossible to achieve without these rights. However, beyond this realm of basic rights, it can get quite dangerous. Socialization of other industries is historically proven to lead to great inefficiency, if not failure.

So, the next time you hear a peer ranting about how we have the “right” to food, or transportation, or shelter, or health care, please gently remind them that the USSR included each of these rights in their lawbooks… and look how they turned out.