Fight for Freedom Alive and Well in Berkeley

This is an article of mine about my experience forming Students for Liberty that will be published in the next edition of the California Patriot, Cal’s student-run conservative-leaning magazine. Just recently, the staff of the Patriot offered to reserve a column specifically for Students for Liberty for every issue. Naturally, we gladly accepted, and the following is the first article for the column.

On a warm, September night early this semester, I nervously sat in front of a sparse crowd at 263 Dwinelle Hall. It was the first general meeting of Students for Liberty, a new freedom-oriented political club at Cal, and I was the president. Weeks of preparation had built up to that moment. From hours of tabling on Sproul Plaza to sending countless emails, my friends and I had tried to spread the news of the formation of our new club across campus. As the time to start the meeting came closer, more and more students came trickling in. By the start of the meeting, we had nearly a full classroom of about twenty, and by the end, my dream of starting a liberty-oriented club at Cal had come to life. Students for Liberty was born.

Students for Liberty traces its origins back to my first semester at Cal. In January 2009, I entered Cal as a bright-eyed spring-admit freshman. However, as I strolled around Sproul looking for a good club to join, I was disappointed at the lack of a libertarian group on campus. After making friends with Ashok Krishna, the current Vice President of the club, we realized that it was our destiny to fill in the void. When a graduate student acquaintance of our’s, John Wyrwas, told us he was also considering starting a freedom-oriented club, we jumped on board. And thus, Students for Liberty came to life.

So what exactly is Students for Liberty? We are a non-partisan political group dedicated to promoting the ideas of limited government, free markets, sound money, non-intervention, and maximum individual liberty to campus and the surrounding community. We do not have any official affiliation with any political party, special interest group, or school of thought. We are rather a group of freethinking individuals who are dedicated to the cause of limited government. Although most members of the club identify themselves as libertarian, we welcome anyone who believes in restoring freedom to the people.

I am happy to say that our first semester has been a great success. We held regular meetings every Wednesday where we discuss current issues, usually ending in a social trip to Top Dog (Berkeley’s most politically sensible food joint). We tabled on Sproul at least two times every week, often engaging in political or philosophical debated, which sometimes even drew a crowd. We had three different speakers come to lecture during the club. Professor Mark Brady of San Jose State University gave a talk entitled “Why Be a Libertarian?” in which he discussed why freedom is the most logical political philosophy. Dr. Michael Edelstein, clinical psychologist and author of the award-winning book Three Minute Therapy, gave a lecture entitled “How to Stay Happy in a Statist World” in which he discussed techniques to stay sane in an insane world. Lastly, Anthony Gregory, Editor-in-Chief of Campaign for Liberty (Dr. Ron Paul’s official advocacy group), spoke to the club about business cycles and the Federal Reserve. We also had a debate with Berkeley College Republicans on drug and prostitution policy. The Daily Californian also asked for our club’s perspective on healthcare, which resulted in an op-ed being published. In short, we had a very busy and very exciting semester, and our plans for next Spring are just as action-packed.

Next semester, we plan to target some bigger name speakers to come speak to the club. Patri Friedman, the grandson of respected economist Milton Friedman, has confirmed that he would like to speak to the club on the Seasteading Institute that he works for. Kevin Takanaga, Chairman of California’s Libertarian Party, has expressed interest in giving a talk to the club. Lastly, John Dennis, Republican candidate for San Francisco’s congressional district has also expressed interest in speaking to the club, possibly in a joint event with Berkeley College Republicans. Next semester, the club also plans to hold several debates against various political clubs on campus, maybe with Cal Berkeley Democrats or one of the many socialist organizations. We are also considering holding a legalize marijuana rally on Sproul Plaza. It is going to be a very exciting Spring!

One would not think that a libertarian club on an infamously liberal campus would be very successful. Well, I am proud to say that the movement for freedom is alive and well in Berkeley. From my experience of tabling on Sproul Plaza, I have seen in the faces of people who come up to our table their apathy with the current political system and their yearning for freedom. Indeed, the fight for greater liberty is alive in Berkeley, and our club pl

The Road to Totalitarianism: An Op-Ed About Healthcare

On the evening of Wednesday, November 11th, I was contacted through a Facebook message by the Opinion Editor of the Daily Californian, Cal’s independent student newspaper. Somehow she found out that I was the president of Students for Liberty at Cal and thus asked me to write an op-ed about my reaction to the House of Representative’s passage of the recent healthcare bill. seizing upon the opportunity, I immediately wrote an article and submitted it to her. The following is the article. It was published in the Daily Cal on Friday, November 12th.

The House of Representatives’ recent passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962) is troubling both philosophically and pragmatically.

On the first note, it is concerning to see that our government is abandoning the principles of freedom and voluntary exchange that it was founded on. It is fact that America’s financial success throughout its history was caused by free markets. From the 19^th century Industrial Revolution of the mills to the 21^st century Communication Revolution of the Internet, the philosophical theories of liberty and individual choice have guided our country to economic success. HR 3962 abandons these principles by stripping all citizens of their right to choice. Under the bill, the government will coerce every citizen to purchase some sort of insurance, even if they are young, healthy, or unwilling.  This infringement of liberty is a dangerous step in the direction of totalitarianism. The people should be managing the government, not the government managing the people.

On the latter note, HR 3962 is not practical. That is, the quality and affordability of healthcare will not improve under the bill and will most likely get worse. This is because the bill was constructed around a popular misconception that the health industry’s market environment is the cause of its failure. However, the healthcare market is nowhere near free; corporatism, not capitalism, rules the industry. When one takes a close look at healthcare over the last century, it is evident that government regulation is the cause of the excessive inflation of healthcare. In the 1950’s, healthcare was affordable for nearly all Americans, being roughly 4.5% of GDP. At the time, those who could not afford insurance could receive free care from their local charity hospital. However, with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 as well as the expansion of the Department of Health and Human Services in the subsequent decade, the government began to heavily regulate the industry. As a result, costs skyrocketed and charity hospitals were regulated out of business. By 1970, health care was 7.2% of GDP. Today, it is a whopping 17.6%.

Thus, to make healthcare truly affordable for all Americans, the government should stop its constant meddling in the industry, remove its excessive regulations, and allow for the natural forces of the free market to take place. Some may argue that healthcare is a basic necessity for life and should not be dealt with in a market environment. However, food is also a basic necessity for life and yet is distributed very effectively under the free market system in place today. Thus, necessities can still be efficiently distributed in a market environment. The free market is the remedy to the ailment. HR 3962, unfortunately, is nowhere near an effective solution for the crisis. A similar Massachusetts act requiring citizens to buy insurance was passed in 2006 and since then has been widely perceived as a failure because of its inability to lower costs and maintain quality. Further, HR 3962 will most likely cost exorbitantly more than projected being that the government is notorious for underestimating its costs. For example, when Medicare was passed in 1965, the federal government projected it would cost $12 billion, adjusted for inflation, by 1990. However, when 1990 rolled around, the actual cost was $107 billion, an 892% increase from its original projection. Being that our country is in the midst of a financial crisis and our annual budget deficit has just hit a record high of $1.42 trillion, it will be impossible to fund this massive program.

Therefore, the Affordable Health Care for America Act is philosophically contradicting, pragmatically ineffective, and fiscally impossible. Until the people and statesmen of America realize that liberty and voluntary exchange is the solution to the crisis, healthcare costs will remain exorbitant and unaffordable for many.

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.