In Defense of the Electoral College

by Gerard Emershaw

Every four years during a presidential election year, blowhard pundits—typically of the neo-progressive persuasion—decry American’s electoral college which awards presidential candidates all of a given state’s electoral votes in a winner take all fashion instead of proportionally. This leads to the very real possibility that the winner of the popular vote will not be elected president. This has happened four times in American history—John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George W. Bush in 2000 all became president without winning the popular vote over their competitors. Some see this as unfair and anti-democratic. The organization National Popular Vote is attempted to rectify this alleged evil in the American federal electoral system. Ten states have already pledged to award their votes not to the winner of the popular vote within the state but to the winner of the national popular vote in the presidential election. It does seem plausible that the winner of a presidential election should be the winner of the popular vote. But is this preferable to the Electoral College system currently employed?

States are free to decide how its presidential electoral votes are awarded. A state is free to award them winner take all, winner and loser take proportionately, winner of national majority take all, or taller candidate take all. However, a state that wishes to deviate from the traditional winner take all based upon popular vote within the state is doing itself qua state and its citizens qua state citizens a disservice. The United States was formed as a union of individual and sovereign states joining together. The state guarantees that its sovereignty is more likely to be respected by the federal government by employing the traditional electoral college method and by ensuring that the Tenth Amendment is always respected by the federal government. If presidents were to be elected merely by national popular vote, then states lose their sovereignty and individual characters. This would lead presidential candidates and political parties to ignore smaller states. It would also be yet one more dangerous step toward eliminating the federalist system. Tyrants have traditionally eliminated federalism within totalitarian nations. The Nazis, Soviets, and Maoists all did this. Eliminating the electoral college system will be yet one more step toward eliminating states as a vital check and balance against federal power. The Seventeenth Amendment, removing the right to elect Senators from state legislators and giving it to the voters was one step towards the neutralization of states as a check and balance against federal tyranny. The gradual weakening of the Tenth Amendment has been another. With the three branches of the federal government increasingly unwilling to act as checks and balances against one another, eventually a loss of federalism will mean that a triumvirate of federal dictatorial branches is cooperating to divide up the power to tyrannize Americans.

Those states that are so willing to trade their own sovereignty and that of their citizens—Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Hawaii—are by and large “blue” states. It is apparent that the powers that be in these Democratic strongholds care more about the future of their political party than the future of their citizens. It is more important to them that another election similar to Bush defeating Gore does not happen than that the sovereignty of their state and citizenry be defended. This is partisan cynicism and is dangerous to the health of the Republic.

Psychiatry and Social Control

by Gerard Emershaw

The FDA is currently weighing whether to ban “electrical stimulation devices” used by mental health professionals to modify aggressive or self-injurious behavior in patients suffering from severe emotional problems or developmental disorders such as autism. Critics of these devices have compared them with shock collars used on dogs. The devices are applied to the arms or legs and deliver a two-second shock that has been compared to a “hard pinch.” These devices are rarely used, but they have been widely employed at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Canton, Massachusetts—a residential facility which treats children and adults with severe developmental disabilities. Former Rotenberg students have likened this “aversion therapy” to “torture, in the plainest sense of the word.” One former student said it feels “like a thousand bees stinging you in the same place for a few seconds.” Rotenberg students have claimed that these devices have burned them and caused them to feel anxiety, fear, and depression and that the devices were employed to give shocks “for things like noncompliance with staff direction, talking too much and being disruptive in class.”

The most troubling thing here is the very idea that punishment someone constitutes therapeutic treatment. Punishment is meant to do harm, so how can such practitioners honor the Hippocratic Oath? Forms of aversion therapy have been employed in the past in the dubious effort to treat homosexuals. Such treatment will forever be associated with the Kubrick film A Clockwork Orange based upon the Anthony Burgess novel. The iconic image of Malcolm McDowell’s Alex being forced to look at violent images while being sickened by drugs and forced to listen to his beloved Beethoven will forever be burned into the public consciousness.

Psychiatry seems to be alarmingly becoming more a tool of social control than a therapeutic discipline. Psychiatry was widely abused in the Soviet Union and used as a means of stifling dissent. Political dissent was defined arbitrarily as a form of mental illness and treated as such. As the United States becomes increasingly authoritarian, it is alarming to see how the psychiatric profession is becoming more like that of Soviet psychiatry.

An astounding 19% of American boys between the ages of 14–17 have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and about 10% are taking medications such as Ritalin for it. Ten percent of high school girls have been likewise diagnosed. Between 2007–2012 sales of stimulants such as Ritalin to treat ADHD have more than doubled from $4 billion to $9 billion. At some point, the public education system transformed overly energetic and fidgety students into mentally ill patients. If students are not “normal”—e.g. they will not sit quietly and do exactly as they are told—then they are sick and need to be medicated. There is no telling what effect generations of Ritalin zombies will have as they enter adulthood in greater numbers. Judging by the increasingly poor academic performance of American public school students, this treatment of ADHD as if it is an epidemic has not been particularly helpful.

A symbol of American psychiatry’s move away from medicine and toward political control can be seen in the disorder Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). ODD is a personality disorder defined by a persistent and disruptive pattern of  negativity, hostility, disobedience, and hostility by children toward adult authority figures. What is even more troubling is that there is some movement within the psychiatric establishment to characterize ODD as an adult affliction as well as a childhood personality disorder. If Adult ODD manages to gain acceptance as a legitimate disorder, it will only be a matter of time before it is used in Soviet-fashion to label dissidents, protesters, and government critics as mentally ill. One wonders what forms of psychiatric medications or “aversion therapy” might be used upon such individuals.

The Department of Homeland Security seems intent on categorizing difficult school students not just as mentally ill, but as terrorists. On April 15, 2014, Lisa O. Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, delivered a speech entitled “Countering Violent Extremism and the Power of Community” at the Harvard Kennedy School Forum. Ms. Monaco spoke of American youth as if they were a gang of ticking time bombs or Al Qaeda sleeper agents. She claimed that 80% of cases involving “homegrown violent extremists” involved “warning signs” that had been observed by members of the community. These “warning signs” were allegedly subtle:

What kinds of behaviors are we talking about? For the most part, they’re not related directly to plotting attacks. They’re more subtle. For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational. Religious leaders might notice unexpected clashes over ideological differences. Teachers might hear a student expressing an interest in traveling to a conflict zone overseas. Or friends might notice a new interest in watching or sharing violent material.

Despite the best unconstitutional efforts of the NSA, FBI, and CIA:

The government is rarely in a position to observe these early signals, so we need to do more to help communities understand the warning signs, and then work together to intervene before an incident can occur, while always respecting our core commitment to protecting privacy and civil liberties. During the past several years, that’s what we’ve attempted to do.

So, the government not only may wishes to declare difficult adolescents mentally ill, but now it wishes to suggest that moody teens may be future bin Ladens.

Ultimately, the more Americans that the federal government can stigmatize as being “mentally ill,” the more Americans whose rights it can take away. The government will attempt to violate rights such as the Second Amendment right to bear arms from such individuals. It will not be a shock if one day the growing numbers of American students diagnosed with ADHD will be placed on lists which prohibits them from legally owning firearms. When any part of the medical profession is coming so perilously close to becoming a cadre of social engineers instead of a community of healers, it is time for conscientious practitioners to champion reforms to get the field back on track. Such reform in the psychiatric profession is long overdue.

New Constitution?

by Gerard Emershaw

“You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head”

Lennon/McCartney

“I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around”

Townshend

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wants to amend the Constitution. Among the tweaks to “the law of the land” that the elderly jurist wishes to make are major changes to the First and Second amendments. In his latest book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Justice Stevens argues for the following amendments to the Constitution. He wants the First Amendment to remove protection against “reasonable” campaign spending limits at both the federal and state levels. He wants the Second Amendment to be rewritten to state that only members of the state militia have the right to bear arms. He wants an amendment to prohibit political gerrymandering to create “safe” Congressional seats. He wants to eliminate the anti-commandeering rule by which the federal government may not force the states to carry out federal government activities. He wants to eliminate sovereign immunity for violations of constitutional rights. He wants to amend the Eighth Amendment to state that the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment.”

In general, Justice Stevens’ suggestions would lead to fewer rather than greater rights. Americans would have their natural rights greatly diminished by his suggested changes to the First and Second Amendments. Campaign finance contribution limits are unnecessary and violate the natural right to free speech. The natural right to bear arms is a necessary safeguard against tyranny which cannot be infringed without inviting inevitable totalitarianism. States would come dangerously close to becoming slaves of the federal government if the anti-commandeering rule were eliminated. Eliminating sovereign immunity is a good idea, but it ought to be unnecessary since that concept is not enumerated within the Constitution. Limiting the use of political gerrymandering would be a good idea, but certainly not at the cost of the other rights that Justice Stevens wishes to eliminate. Furthermore, a Constitution-sized government is one in which political parties would have less reason to gerrymander, and the gerrymandering they did do would have less of a practical effect. Stevens is also likely correct about wishing for Eighth Amendment clarification. The government should not have more rights than the people. If a citizen can only kill in the defense of self or others from imminent harm, then the same is true of the government. Therefore, capital punishment should be eliminated.

Many individuals all over the political spectrum have suggested that the United States ought to have a new Constitutional Convention. The question is whether this would be an improvement. Would this be likely to lead to more rights being protected or fewer? Activists of all stripes would bitterly contest one another in the crafting of a new constitution. Would civil libertarians be able to win the day or would statists? Any compromise concerning natural rights is unacceptable. If civil libertarians wish Americans to be completely free while statists wish Americans to be complete slaves of the state, how would a compromise in which Americans wind up being merely half enslaved by the state be a positive outcome? The major political machines of both party have become hopelessly statist. On the Democratic Party side, the Blue Dogs and fiscal conservatives—of which the unfairly economically maligned Presidents Carter and Clinton were good exemplars—are gone. Neo-progressives rule the party roost. These Wilsonians are the architects of the Nanny state, fascistic wars of aggression, the Social Security Ponzi scheme, and Obamacare. These are the individuals who champion FDR’s collectivist “Second Bill of Rights.” On the Republican side, true conservatives have long been dominated by progressive RINOs and Trotskyite warmongering neoconservatives who care not about deficits or sane fiscal policy as long as the military-industrial complex, oil companies, and U.S.-friendly Middle East governments benefit. Is there any doubt that if these two nasty political machines began compromising, the only true losers would be the American people?

Even if the Constitution were changed to fit the will of the people, it is not clear that natural rights would not be lost. A poll taken in 2000 found that only about half of the American public would vote for the United States Constitution. A 2013 poll found that 34% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in guaranteeing freedom. According to Gallup, nearly half of all Americans believe that gun control laws should be more strict than they are now.

A new Constitution would inevitably wind up being a legal version of New Coke. What is the point of that when the United States Constitution is Classic Coke? The problem with the Constitution is that it is being obeyed less and less by the government. Time and again, when there is a problem, it is not due to a deficiency in the document but a deficiency in the government’s willingness to be bound by the document. What is the point of either a New Constitution or the current Constitution if the government refuses to obey it?

The true answer is for the American people to hold their elected leaders accountable. The voters must hold their elected representatives’ feet to the fire. Primary them and vote them out if they do not obey the Constitution. Deny support to candidates and political parties which are not true to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The problem is with our elected officials and with us for putting up with them. There is no significant problem with the Constitution.

Wild Horses

by Gerard Emershaw

Wild horses couldn't drag me away
Wild, wild horses, we'll ride them some day

Mick Jagger/Keith Richards

In the wake of the recent Bundy ranch standoff, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is facing a wave of bad publicity. To make matters even worse, the BLM has recently been involved in a situation that has angered animal rights activists and horse lovers. The BLM rounded up a herd of horses that roamed free on federal land in northwest Wyoming and gave the horses to Wyoming state officials. In turn, the Wyoming state officials sold the 41 horses that had been rounded up to Bouvry Exports, a slaughter house in Canada, for a grand total of $1,640—$40 per animal.

Wild horses are protected by the federal government. However, the government declared that these Wyoming horses were not wild horses despite the fact that they were descendants of stray rodeo horses from the 1970s. The reason these horses were not considered wild is that they had not interbred with other wild horses.

The slaughter of horses is a big industry in Canada and Mexico, but it had effectively been banned in the United States since 2006 when the federal government ended the funding for a program of regulators or horse slaughterhouses. Congress has recently lifted the ban, and many are planning to open horse-slaughter plants around the country. There is a large international market for horse meat, which costs 40% less than beef.

Several issues are at play within the Wyoming horse slaughter story. First, the federal government has no business owning large tracts of land. In fact, owning such land is unconstitutional. The Constitution permits the federal government to purchase and control land within states only “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” There are no “needful Buildings” in the wilds of Wyoming or in any other similar areas in other states. Even if it were not unconstitutional, the owning of land by the federal government should be opposed for pragmatic reasons. Government ownership of land leads to the spoil of the commons. Since there is no true owner, federally owned lands often fail to ruin. This is why devastating forest fires on federal lands are so common. Federal ownership of land also leads to corporatist arrangements by which politically connected corporations may use the land via a permit for purposes such as livestock grazing or oil drilling. Thus, federal government ownership of land leads to inefficient and unfair uses of the land.

If all land in the country were privately owned, then the herds of wild horses—including those wild horses which the federal government in its Socrates-like wisdom arbitrarily deems to not be wild enough to be wild—would all be privately owned. Some owners of these horses would simply allow them to roam wildly on their private lands. Some might even attempt to profit by making these lands into private preserves or parks where people could pay to observe and enjoy these horses. Other others might round up the wild horses and sell them to the highest bidder. Some of these horses would be bought by horse protection groups seeking to save their lives. Some would be bought by ranchers or the like seeking to attempt to domesticate them. However, many of the horses would likely be sold for slaughter.

This in turn raises the question about horse-slaughter in the United States. It was illegal, then it was effectively banned, and now it is legal again. Should the practice be legal or illegal in the United States? Given that slaughtering horses does not violate the natural rights of any American citizens or residents or any other human beings, it seems that the “crime” of horse slaughter is victimless. It appears prima facie that there can be no legal objection to slaughtering horses that one owns. With the price of beef reaching all time highs, more economical sources of meat are going to become highly sought after. While the morality of meat eating can be debated, the legality of it from a libertarian perspective cannot.

But from an ethical and psychological perspective, is there a line that must be drawn in terms of the consumption of meat? It is obvious that the slaughter of humans against their will for the purpose of consuming them as meat violates the natural rights of those individuals. But what about if some private entity wished to sell human meat as a Soylent Green delicacy and only made the corpses of willing human beings into meat? Should I be able to sell my body to be consumed as meat the same way that I can now donate my body to science? For many reasons, it seems unlikely that widespread cannibalism is going to occur within the human race. This is especially true in the West. Aside from the occasional Hannibal Lecter-like individual such as Jeffrey Dahmer, the vast majority of Americans have no desire to consume human flesh. However, if you craved human flesh, and I willed my body to you for the express purpose of having you feast upon my remains, it seems that the government should not interfere with this regardless of how distasteful it seems.

If the consumption of human flesh is even possibly permissible, then it seems that the same would be true of horse flesh. However, it is interesting to consider where Americans commonly draw the line. Even the most carnivorous Americans tend to believe that certain domestic animals are not to be consumer. For example, common pets such as cats, dogs, hamsters, gerbils, parrots and other companion birds as well as horses—which serve both as pets and as useful domestic worker animals. Cats have been useful for hundreds of years as mousers while many breeds of dog have proven useful as hunters, shepherds, guard animals, aids to the handicapped, etc. Some animals such as certain varieties of pigs as well as many other common farm animals are sometimes kept as pets and sometimes consumed as food. As distasteful as it may seem, there seems to be no justifiable reason why Americans should not be permitted to consume Shetland ponies, beagles, Persian cats, parakeets, hamsters, etc. However, it would be unsurprising if consuming certain domestic animals turned out to be psychologically harmful. While it may turn out that eating meat of any kind is unenlightened, it is even more likely that it says something very negative about a human being if he or she is willing to eat certain domesticated animals which are commonly friends and co-workers of human beings.

Voter ID Laws

by Gerard Emershaw

Democrats and Republicans are partisanly divided over the issue of voter ID laws. Whether or not a potential voter must present identification in order to vote, and if so, what forms of identification are acceptable, varies from state to state. Thirty states have enacted some form of voter ID law for the alleged purpose of preventing voter fraud.

Some claim that voter ID laws serve to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. President Obama has recently claimed that voter rights are threatened by voter ID laws. According to a study conducted by NYU’s Brennan Center, 11% of voting-age citizens (21 million) lack necessary photo ID. A disproportionate number of these Americans lacking photo ID are low income, racial and ethnic minorities, and the elderly. Many of these people cannot afford the fees associated with obtaining a photo ID. Some Americans—particularly elderly rural blacks—do not have a birth certificate and sometimes lack the means to acquire one in order to be eligible to receive a photo ID.

Those who support voter ID laws do so because they claim voter fraud is a significant danger. However, there is little evidence that voter fraud has been a widespread problem in American elections. For example, a 2007 analysis done by The New York Times found that there were only 120 cases of voter fraud filed in five years by the Department of Justice, and these resulted in only 86 convictions.

One need not be a cynic to view much of this as what it really is. Part of it is clearly a ploy by desperate RINOs to disenfranchise votes that are more likely to go to Democratic rivals. Instead of staying true to conservative principles and seeking to attract non-traditional Republicans to the conservative cause, RINOs simply wish to shrink the voting pool. This will not work for long, and will eventually just lead to the demise of the GOP. If Republicans want to ensure that voter fraud does not occur, why not in addition to voter ID laws, fund and staff programs to ensure that every adult American has an acceptable form of ID? The fact is that many Republicans want to disenfranchise Democratic voters and many want to have the issue to use as red meat to energize its conservative base.

However, Democrats are equally guilty here. Coming up with a national or state-by-state strategy in which citizens lacking a photo ID could be aided financially and logistically to obtain one would not be particularly difficult or costly. The federal government and the state governments clearly waste taxpayer money on nonsense, so certainly some bored and lazy government workers and the necessary funds could be found to make this a reality. The truth is that the Democrats do not want those without photo ID to be empowered. They want these people to be dependent upon the government in general and upon the Democratic Party in particular. The Democrats want to have the race card to play as red meat for their base. The best way to prevent alleged racists from disenfranchising poor minority voters without photo IDs would be to help these voters get photo IDs. Yet, year after year, this does not happen.

Even if cases of voter ID prosecuted are rare, this does not mean that voter fraud is not a problem. Even if no cases are ever prosecuted, this does not mean that voter fraud does not occur. Even the possibility of voter fraud is unacceptable if it can be prevented. Democracy does not mean merely that periodically there is an election and people vote. Many nations have elections, but many of these nations are not even close to being true democratic republics. Consider Afghanistan and Iraq. Between candidates and parties being barred from running, crooked criminals and American puppets running, violence intimidating voters, and fraudulent practices, neither of these nations is likely to have a truly fair and democratic election anytime soon. American elections need to be kept as clean and fair as possible. There is often only a razor’s edge between a true democratic republic and a banana republic with bogus elections.


While the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee citizens a right to vote, it is obvious that such a right would be covered by the Ninth Amendment. Thus, in an important sense, denying eligible voters the ability to vote due to voter ID laws without ensuring that they can easily obtain the required type of ID is a violation of a natural right. 

This controversy is easily solved. Institute programs within the states to ensure that all American adults have photo IDs. Then institute and enforce voter ID laws. How difficult is this? Instead, despite the fact that there is generally so little relevant difference between the major American political parties, the Republicans and Democrats feel the need to play games and use the issue for propaganda purposes. This is yet another reason why mainstream American politics needs to change.

On Taxation

by Gerard Emershaw

With tax day approaching, it seems a good time to discuss a few various and sundry issues concerning taxation.

The Economic Royalist Mantra

Almost half of all Americans pay no federal income tax! Many so-called conservatives have been lamenting this for years. If Sean Hannity did not have this dead equine to clobber, his show would only be a half hour long instead of an hour. Libertarians tend to believe that taxation is theft. Many go so far as to claim—following those like Ayn Rand—that taxation is akin to slavery. One would think that conservatives would share the view that forcing Americans at the barrel of a gun to pay tribute to the government is a bad thing. So why do so many on the right act like whiny economic royalists? Complaining that 43% of Americans pay no federal income tax is like saying that 43% of Americans are not enslaved. The goal should be to one day say with glee that 0% of Americans pay no federal income tax not to one day say that 100% of Americans pay federal income tax. Complaining about those who pay no federal income tax is a perverse sour grapes view that is like a wrongly imprisoned political dissident complaining that there are like-minded dissidents who are not in prison.

One might say that the problem is that those who do not pay federal income tax have no skin in the game. Therefore, since they do not pay federal income tax, they will be willing to support increases for those who do. Of course, one way to solve this problem would be to increase the size of the economic pie so that there is more prosperity and more wealth. One way to get more people to pay federal income tax is to create a state of affairs where more Americans earn more money, and hence, are legally required to pay federal income tax under the current system.

The whiny economic royalist mantra also ignores that many who do not pay federal income tax nevertheless have income tax withheld during the year which is later refunded. Given that these taxpayers are denied the time value of their money, they do in fact pay a tax. Those Americans who do not even have any income tax withheld still pay the myriad of other taxes imposed by the bloated and out of control federal government. And, of course, all but the wealthiest and best politically connected pay the “inflation tax” that is imposed by the Federal Reserve as it continues to “print” money and destroy the value of the dollar.

Whiny economic royalists help the tyrannical government with its “divide and conquer” strategy. Americans of all races, religions, socio-economic classes, etc. should be united against an increasingly despotic government and not fighting among themselves.

The Flat Tax

Many conservatives and even some libertarians have espoused a flat tax in which all Americans would pay the same amount of federal income tax. Oddly, such advocates of a flat tax often say that it is only fair that everyone pay the same percentage in tax. Such a regressive tax proposal is monstrous and would target the middle class and the poor unfairly. The reason that it would be unfair is that the wealthy simply receive more government services than the poor. Even if the nation followed a non-interventionist policy, it would still be true that defense spending would protect the considerable wealth and assets of the wealthy far more than that of the less affluent. The military simply does not protect the mansion of the homeless man. A corporatist military such as the United States currently has wastes tax money protecting the interests of multi-national corporations. The poor person who does not own considerable stock in Halliburton, an oil company, or the like simply does not benefit from this the way the wealthy do. To make matters even worse, corporate welfare costs taxpayers more than welfare for the needy. This is yet another example of how the government provides more services to the rich than the poor. Hence, the “fair share” of a wealthy individual or corporation should be much higher than that of a less affluent person. Even more egregious than corporate welfare is foreign aid. In 2012, the federal government gave nearly $37 billion in foreign aid. Giving money to rich foreign dictators hardly seems fair.

National Sales Tax

Another suggestion often made is a national sales tax. One problem with such a suggestion is that the federal government is most likely to install a national sales tax without abolishing the income tax. In essence, it will come in for yet another pound of flesh. Even if it were to abolish the income tax in favor of a national sales tax, this would be monstrously regressive. Poor people spend all of their income and then some whereas the wealthy spend only a fraction of their income. Basically, a pure national sales tax would be a massive wealth redistribution program which would employ a reverse Robin Hood strategy of taking from the poor to give to the rich.

A national sales tax would most likely lead to an increased black market. This will give organized crime yet another entry point into the economy. If anything, the government should be decreasing the influence and profitability of organized crime by ending drug prohibition. Instead, instituting a national sales tax would simply be giving the Mafia, the Triads, and street gangs another large stream of income.

The FairTax is a national sales tax that includes a “prebate,” which refunds the amount of sales tax that would be paid by a family at the poverty level. While this makes such a plan less regressive, it makes the system expensive to administer and ripe for fraud.

It is a general rule that one should tax something that one wants less of. A national sales tax is a way to decrease spending. This is no better than a federal income tax which decreases the incentive to work. The government should seek to remain neutral and not discourage either human activity. Of course, back when the federal government was Constitution-sized, it relied mainly on tariffs. Non-protectionist tariffs and excise taxes might be at least the start of a rational alternative to both federal income and sales taxes.

What Is the Problem with Mozilla CEO Incident?

by Gerard Emershaw

On April 3, newly appointed Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich stepped down. Following Eich’s appointment as CEO of the internet browser company, a number of its employees took to Twitter and began tweeting their displeasure over this appointment. In addition, three members of Mozilla’s Board resigned following Eich’s appointment. At issue was political contributions that Eich made in 2008 in support of California’s Proposition 8 which opposed same-sex marriage.

The question is why anyone other than a Mozilla shareholder or a Mozilla shareholder cares about this. What exactly is the problem here? Mozilla has the right to have any CEO that it chooses. Brendan Eich has the right to take the job when offered but also has the right to step down from the job if he so chooses. Mozilla employees have the right to their opinion. The government is not involved in this situation in any way, so neither the First Amendment nor any other Constitutional right is at play.

Conservatives have been complaining about a politically correct “lynch mob” mentality at Mozilla. Oddly, these types of critics tend to be the very same kind of people who champion the rights of corporate entities. So why should Mozilla not have the right to do what it did? If the employees of a Christian company demanded that their CEO step down and the company forced that executive to do so after it was revealed that he or she had donated $1,000 to Planned Parenthood, would right wing critics whine about that? Doubtful.

Should Mozilla employees have been more tolerant? Perhaps. But they have a right not to be tolerant. The truth is that people on both the left and right of the political spectrum tend not to be tolerant. Would critics of Mozilla and its employees prefer that the Nanny State step in and mandate that social libertarians “play nice” with traditionalists? Or vice versa? Hopefully not.

New Poll on the Pulse of America and the Future

by Gerard Emershaw

 

Reason–Rupe recently polled 1,003 adults on a number of important  social and political issues. The results present an interesting picture of the attitudes of Americans and give hints of what may be ahead for the nation. What follows is a summary and analysis of some of the data revealed by the poll.

Satisfaction (or lack thereof)

According to the poll, 30% believe that the United States is headed in the “right direction” while 60% believe that it is headed in the “wrong direction.” Only 43% approved of President Obama’s performance while 51% disapprove. Only a tiny 7% approve of the job that Congress is doing while 74% disapprove. One would think that this indicates a likelihood for political change in November of 2014 and 2016 at the polls. One may be wrong about that. Regarding the hot button issue of “Obamacare,” 36% have a favorable opinion of the law while 53% have an unfavorable opinion. All this suggests that President Obama’s presidency is viewed as a failure by the American people as he heads toward lame duck status.

The 2014 and 2016 Elections

40% said that if Congressional elections were held today they would vote for a Democratic candidate while 36% said they would vote for a Democratic candidate. 29% said that they would prefer the Democrats to control Congress, 24% said that they would prefer the Republicans to control Congress, and 43% would prefer neither in control. This indicates that most likely the current status quo will be maintained after the elections later this year with the Democrats maintaining control of the Senate and the Republicans maintaining control of the House. Divided government is often good since it means that fewer laws are likely to be passed.

2016 looks gloomy to say the least. A whopping 64% of self-identified Democrats say they would vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. While Republicans are divided, the highest total is 15% who say they would vote for Mike Huckabee. However, Independents favor Rand Paul over Mike Huckabee. It does not require Nostradamus to tell that Mike Huckabee will never be president. If the Republicans do nominate such a candidate, Hillary Clinton will certainly win the White House in 2016 if she opts to run.

Of those surveyed, 23% identified as Republicans, 31% identified as Democrats, and 38% identified as Independents. This indicates that unless a Republican candidate can win a large majority of Independents, a Democrat is likely to win the White House in 2016. A candidate such as Mike Huckabee will simply not appeal to Independents. According to the poll, only 3% of Independents would vote for Huckabee in a Republican primary compared with 11% for Rand Paul, 8% for Paul Ryan, 8% for Chris Christie, and 6% for Jeb Bush.

Minimum Wage

On the issue of raising the minimum wage, the survey found that 67% favor and 32% oppose. A plurality of 40% believe that raising the minimum wage will have no effect on jobs, while 38% believe that it will increase the number of jobs, and 20% believe that it will somehow miraculously increase the number of jobs. When it is stipulated that raising the minimum wage would decrease the number of jobs by causing employers to lay off workers, 58% oppose raising minimum wage while 39% still favor it. When it is stipulated that raising minimum wage will lead to price increases, 51% favored raising it while 46% opposed.

Raising the minimum wage is almost certainly going to lead to both fewer jobs and higher prices. The fact that the majority do not want to raise minimum wage if it leads to lost jobs is a good sign. However, the economic illiteracy demonstrated here is a bit troubling.

Foreign Policy

The poll indicates that Americans are weary of American interventionist foreign policy. When it comes to the present situation in Ukraine, 58% said that the United States should stay out of the situation, 31% said that the United States should continue imposing economic sanctions, while a mere 8% were apocalyptic-minded enough to say that the United States should send troops and assets to Ukraine.

Even if Russia were to invade Ukraine, Americans are wary of intervention. In such a situation, 76% would oppose sending American troops while only 20% would favor it. Regarding military aid and weapons to Ukraine, 62% oppose and 33% favor. Unfortunately, Americans still appear to believe in the morality and effectiveness of sanctions as 61% would favor imposing stricter economic sanctions against Russia if it invades Ukraine while 32% oppose. However, overall this paints a picture of a growing spirit of non-interventionism in the United States.

Privacy

Americans believe that the NSA (36%) is more likely to invade their privacy than Facebook (26%), the IRS (18%), or Google (12%). However, they trust the IRS (35%) and the NSA (18%) more with their private information than Google (10%) or Facebook (5%). While the country is becoming so blatantly corporatist that sometimes it is difficult to determine where the government ends and powerful crony capitalist corporations begin, it is alarming that people would trust the government more than private internet companies when it comes to their private information. Companies like Google and Facebook clearly spy on their users. However, they are most likely to use this information to sell to other companies or to tailor the experience of their websites with particularity for their users. Even if these companies do abuse or misuse private data, they do not possess the ability to herd their users into prisons or concentration camps or assassinate them like the federal government does.

Big Government

Finally, Americans appear to favor a smaller rather than bigger and more powerful federal government. 50% believe “The less government the better,” while 47% believe “There are more things government should be doing.” 54% believe “People would be better able to handle today’s problems within a free market with less government involvement” while 43% believe “We need a strong government to handle today’s complex economic problems.” 49% believe government should not favor any particular values while 47% believe that government should promote traditional values.

This all suggests that Americans are now beginning to feel that the moralistic Nanny State needs to be scaled back. However, the problem is that people often claim to favor smaller government up until the point that they find out that smaller government means that they will be receiving fewer goodies from the government. It remains to be seen whether Americans are in love with smaller government or merely with the idea of smaller government. The former requires sacrifices while the latter is purely hypothetical and costs nothing. Of course, the latter also solves nothing.

Are Members of Congress Underpaid?

by Gerard Emershaw

Virginia Congressman Jim Moran is clipping coupons and searching in between the cushions of his sofa for loose change. Perhaps one day soon he will have to join the 47 million Americans on food stamps. Yes, Congressman Moran thinks that members of Congress need more money or they will be carrying signs that read “WILL FILIBUSTER FOR FOOD.” Moran recently said: “I think the American people should know that the members of Congress are underpaid. I understand that it’s widely felt that they underperform, but the fact is that this is the board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world.” According to Moran, members of Congress simply cannot afford to live decent middle class existences on a mere $174,000 per year. The median American income is just over $51,000. Approximately 15% of American live below the poverty rate. If the federal government were to use honest unemployment figures, they would show that nearly one in four Americans is unemployed or underemployed. The median wealth of members of Congress was $2.8 million in 2012. Yet, Congressman Moran wants the American public to feel sorry for him and his colleagues.

Congressman Moran is calling for members of Congress to receive an additional housing stipend of $2,800 a year in addition to their salary. Over 600,000 Americans are homeless, so apparently Congressman Moran does not wish to add to that total. Of course, most homeless Americans make considerably less than $174,000 a year with excellent benefits.

In fairness, Congressman Moran is one of the poorer members of Congress. Of course, he has been a millionaire in the past due to marrying into money. A divorce and huge loses in options trading have contributed to his financial decline. It should also be mentioned that Congressman Moran received a sweetheart $450,000 loan at a low interest rate in 2002 as a possible quid pro quo. Apparently, a half million dollars does not go as far as it used to.

If Jim Moran is such a great asset, he is always free to leave office and work in the private sector. On the free market, he will be paid what he is worth. In fact, he has announced that he will retire at the end of his current term. Prior to becoming a Congressman, Moran worked as a government bureaucrat in Washington following a brief career as a stockbroker. One imagines that he will do fine after he leaves office and becomes a lobbyist or the like. In many ways Congress can be like a college that trains its members how to later become lobbyists. Like an undergrad student, a Congressman learns important skills while in office—such as gaming the system and getting around the law. Like an MBA student, members of Congress also meet the right people.

Moran should be made aware that initially members of Congress earned only $6 a day. Taking inflation into account, $6 in 1800 is equal to just over $80 today. Members of Congress did not become fulltime until the middle of the 19^th century. If members of Congress cannot make ends meet, perhaps they should return to the days of the part-time Congress. A Constitution-sized federal government would only require a part-time Congress anyway. Members of Congress can simply keep their day jobs and work on the Hill for a few weeks a year. Or perhaps taxpayers can simply pay them to stay home. If Congress would simply stay away from Washington and follow the Hippocratic Oath of “do no harm,” then that would actually make it worthwhile for taxpayers to kick in that additional $2,800 housing stipend.