Are Americans Hypocritical? The Problem of Undocumented Immigration

In a widely read Opinion Editorial that appeared in newspapers across the US, Gregory Rodriquez argued that basically all Americans are hypocrits when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration.

What does he mean that we are all hypocrits?

When it comes to illegal immigration, nobody seems to take responsibility, and we are all, through action or inaction, complicit.

It should be no surprise that illegal immigration is one of the primary means by which the U.S. economy gains access to low-skilled, low-cost labor. As the share of low-skilled native-born Americans falls – in 1960 half of U.S.-born working-age adults had not completed high school, compared with 8 percent today – employers have become ever more dependent on illegal immigration as a steady source of cheap labor.

According to a 2009 Pew Hispanic Center study, 40 percent of the nation's brick masons, 37 percent of drywall installers, 28 percent of dishwashers, 27 percent of maids and housekeepers and 21 percent of parking-lot attendants are undocumented. In California, those percentages are likely to be higher. A 2006 U.S. Department of Labor survey estimates that most California farm workers have no papers.

So whatever your feelings about illegal immigration, if you eat vegetables, enjoy restaurants, reside in a house built in the last 30 years or ever let a valet park your car, the chances are you're implicated in the hypocritical politics that allows 7 million to 8 million people to work illegally in the country....

And the more we blamed those awful illegals for coming to this country, the less willing we became to claim any responsibility for their being here – or for treating them decently. As illegal immigrants were increasingly cast as a threat, Americans cast themselves as victims.

What do you think? Are American's hypocrits on the issue of illegal immigration? Are American employers who are seeking out cheap labor partly responsible for the immigration problem? Are American consumers partly responsible for the problem of illegal immigration? In more personal terms: Are you willing to pay more for vegetables so that better paid, legal, American labor will pick and package the vegetables? Are you willing to pay more for your new home because it was built by better paid, legal, American labor? Or, is there no hypocracy here? Are American employers and consumers not at all responsible for illegal immigrants? Should Americans expect to have their cake and eat it too? That is, should Americans expect cheaper vegetables and houses, better wages for Americans to pick the vegetables and build the houses, and no undocumented immigrants? Whatever your response, explain yourself. Tell me why or why not you believe what you do?

Is the US a Neocolonial Power?

Compared to any other country, the US maintains a lot of military bases around the world.

According to the Pentagon's own list PDF, the answer is around 865, but if you include the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan it is over a thousand. These thousand bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country's territory.

What do these military bases mean to different people around the world?

Many people, especially many Americans, see these bases as playing an important part in maintaining US national security.

Other people, especially those people in foreign countries impacted by US military bases, see these installations differently. For sure, some people see the US military bases as important for their country's national security, but certainly not everyone sees the US bases in that light. Others see the US military bases in their country in less positive terms. For instance, many of the people living in Vieques, Puerto Rico were unhappy with the use of their island as a bombing range by the US Navy. There have been protests in Seoul, South Korea outside US military installations against US involvement in North-South Korean relations. Japanese citizens living in Okinawa have reservations about US Navel and Marine bases. In Ghana, Kwame Nikrumah, an important African politician and anticolonial intellectual, argued that:

Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world.

Who really rules in such places as Great Britain, West Germany, Japan, Spain, Portugal or Italy? If General de Gaulle is ‘defecting’ from U.S. monopoly control, what interpretation can be placed on his ‘experiments’ in the Sahara desert, his paratroopers in Gabon, or his trips to Cambodia and Latin America?

Lurking behind such questions are the extended tentacles of the Wall Street octopus. And its suction cups and muscular strength are provided by a phenomenon dubbed ‘The Invisible Government’, arising from Wall Street’s connection with the Pentagon and various intelligence services. I quote:

‘The Invisible Government ... is a loose amorphous grouping of individuals and agencies drawn from many parts of the visible government. It is not limited to the Central Intelligence Agency, although the CIA is at its heart. Nor is it confined to the nine other agencies which comprise what is known as the intelligence community: the National Security Council, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence and Research, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

‘The Invisible Government includes also many other units and agencies, as well as individuals, that appear outwardly to be a normal part of the conventional government. It even encompasses business firms and institutions that are seemingly private.

‘To an extent that is only beginning to be perceived, this shadow government is shaping the lives of 190,000,000 Americans. An informed citizen might come to suspect that the foreign policy of the United States often works publicly in one direction and secretly through the Invisible Government in just the opposite direction.

‘This Invisible Government is a relatively new institution. It came into being as a result of two related factors: the rise of the United States after World War II to a position of pre-eminent world power, and the challenge to that power by Soviet Communism...

‘By 1964 the intelligence network had grown into a massive hidden apparatus, secretly employing about 200,000 persons and spending billions of dollars a year. [The Invisible Government, David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, Random House, New York, 1964.]

What do you think? Do you think that it is legitimate to call the US a neocolonial power? Why or why not? Can you see how foreigners may dislike US military installations in their country? Or, can you not really see it? Do you think that arguments like this are bogus? Is it more the case that US military bases are more a benefit to the locals and their national security? Should the US be concerned with what locals think about its military installations? Are US national security interests too important to consider local peoples' concerns about the military bases?

The Global Politics of Slavery

Many people think that the end of the American Civil War was effectively the end of slavery. Many people, unfortunately, are wrong. Slavery continues to be a significant problem in world politics today.

Slavery today can be seen in the practice of human trafficking.

Human trafficking is the illegal trade in human beings for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation or forced labor: a modern-day form of slavery. It is the fastest growing criminal industry in the world, and tied with the illegal arms industry as the second largest, after the drug-trade.

The trafficking of humans usually falls into one of multiple categories:

Bonded labor, or debt bondage, is probably the least known form of labor trafficking today, and yet it is the most widely used method of enslaving people. Victims become bonded laborers when their labor is demanded as a means of repayment for a loan or service in which its terms and conditions have not been defined or in which the value of the victims’ services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt. The value of their work is greater than the original sum of money "borrowed."[13]

Forced labor is a situation in which victims are forced to work against their own will, under the threat of violence or some other form of punishment, their freedom is restricted and a degree of ownership is exerted. Men are at risk of being trafficked for unskilled work, which globally generates $31bn according to the International Labor Organization.[14] Forms of forced labor can include domestic servitude; agricultural labor; sweatshop factory labor; janitorial, food service and other service industry labor; and begging.[13]

Sex trafficking victims are generally found in dire circumstances and easily targeted by traffickers. Individuals, circumstances, and situations vulnerable to traffickers include homeless individuals, runaway teens, displaced homemakers, refugees, and drug addicts. While it may seem like trafficked people are the most vulnerable and powerless minorities in a region, victims are consistently exploited from any ethnic and social background.

Child labor is a form of work that is likely to be hazardous to the health and/or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development of children and can interfere with their education. The International Labor Organization estimates worldwide that there are 246 million exploited children aged between 5 and 17 involved in debt bondage, forced recruitment for armed conflict, prostitution, pornography, the illegal drug trade, the illegal arms trade and other illicit activities around the world.

Trafficking of children is the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of children for the purpose of exploitation.

Trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children can take many forms and include forcing a child into prostitution[17][18] or other forms of sexual activity or child pornography. Child exploitation can also include forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, the removal of organs, illicit international adoption, trafficking for early marriage, recruitment as child soldiers, for use in begging or as athletes (such as child camel jockeys or football players), or for recruitment for cults.[19]

Thailand and Brazil are considered to have the worst child sex trafficking records.[20]

Trafficking in children often involves exploitation of the parents' extreme poverty. Parents may sell children to traffickers in order to pay off debts or gain income, or they may be deceived concerning the prospects of training and a better life for their children. They may sell their children for labor, sex trafficking, or illegal adoptions.

The adoption process, legal and illegal, when abused can sometimes result in cases of trafficking of babies and pregnant women between the West and the developing world.[21] In David M. Smolin’s papers on child trafficking and adoption scandals between India and the United States,[22][23] he presents the systemic vulnerabilities in the inter-country adoption system that makes adoption scandals predictable.

Thousands of children from Asia, Africa, and South America are sold into the global sex trade every year. Often they are kidnapped or orphaned, and sometimes they are actually sold by their own families.[24] In the U.S. Department of Justice 07-08 study, more than 30 percent of the total number of trafficking cases for that year were children coerced into the sex industry.[16]

To be clear, the enslavement of humans is not just happening in places like Brazil and Vietnam, there are numerous stories of human trafficking in America. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there were 1,229 human trafficking incidents in the United States from January 2007- September 2008. Of these, 83 percent were sex trafficking cases.

Berkeley, California: Last January, the city's wealthiest landlord was arrested and charged with buying two teenage girls in India and bringing them to the United States for forced labor.

Anchorage, Alaska: Immigration authorities are currently investigating claims by Russian dancers that they were tricked into coming to the U.S. And forced to perform in a local strip club.

Las Vegas, Nevada: In September, authorities arrested the alleged leaders of an Asian organized crime ring, charging them with bringing Chinese women to work in brothels from New York to Los Angeles.

To federal law enforcement officials and human rights activists, these incidents prove that slavery is once again alive and thriving in America. Michael Gennaco heads the civil rights section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.

Human trafficking is a global problem--even in America.

What should be done with a problem such as human trafficking? Should anything be done at all? Can the US solve this problem alone--should the US focus on domestic policies against human trafficking? Or does the US need strong alliances with other countries to solve a problem like human trafficking? Does the US need to develop strong foreign policies against human trafficking? Does the US need to take the international lead on an issue like human trafficking? Or can the US let other countries take the lead?

Take a minute and answer a few of the questions.

The Limits of Neoconservative US Foreign Policy Commitments

Last blog post, we talked about neoconservative foreign policy commitments.

To help you recall, here are the five neoconservative commitments associated with US foreign policy that I mentioned in the last blogg:

1. Internationalism: The US should play an active role in world politics today by maintaining and extending the current global order that is in line with our national interests.

2. Primacy: American dominance in world politics is a stroke of good fortune for the world and for the US. US global dominance should therefore be maintained and no other power should be able to militarily and economically rival the US.

3. Unilateralism: American power is the source of global stability, not the UN Security Council, so US foreign policy should not be restrained to act unilaterally to maintain US national security interests and global stability.

4. Militarism: To unilaterally maintain US national security and democracy, global stability, and to extend democracy abroad, a strong US military is needed.

5. Democracy: Since US national identity, interest, and security are associated with democracy, and because the lack of democracy abroad is seen as a source of instability, democracy and the extension of democracy abroad is very important. Democracy at home and abroad is seen as in US interests.

In this blog, I want to talk about two possible problems: 1) the potential for excess in applying neoconservative foreign policies and 2) the potential reaction to neoconservative US foreign policies.

It seems to me that while neoconservative foreign policy commitments may have value, there is the possibility of excess. What do I mean by excess? Excessive application of neoconservative foreign policy commitments could lead to imbalances in other important policy arenas.

One example hinted at by several commenters on the last blog surround the balance between domestic and foreign problems. With such a focus on internationalism, what important domestic political issues might we overlook? Can you identify any? What are the limits of internationalism? When should domestic problems trump international problems?

Another example of excessive application centers on militerism. Currently, the US government spends over $1.03 trillion dollars on defense per year, which is used to maintain US military bases, personnel, and weapons systems in over 100 countries around the world, bases across the territorial US, and to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is there a limit to defense spending? Should there be a limit to defense spending? In the Probability Broach, Ms. Kropotkin says that military spending takes away from important issues like education. Instead of a trillion dollars in defense, should we be spending a trillion dollars in education or healthcare or domestic infrastructure (e.g. bridges, roads, train lines, communications, border defense, etc) or some other area of national interest?

Neoconservatives see nondemocracies as a source of national insecurity. In terms of the possible reactions of other countries to US foreign policies, the US effort to spread democracy abroad may cause bigger problems for the US. For instance, among Palestinians, Hamas defeated the PLO party and won a decisive majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament. Hamas has been on the US list of terrorist organizations. Democracy, in other words, does not always go in the US's favor. Could the US's effort to spread democracy abroad backfire? Should the US focus more on establishing solid alliances with other countries (regardless of what type of government those countries have) and focus less on spreading democracy abroad?

Unilateralism is seen as a benefit to US neoconservative foreign policymakers. But US unilateral interventions sometimes hurt US national intersts. For instance, few countries signed onto the US invasion of Iraq after 11 September because it was a unilateral foreign policy decision. The US did not get the approval of the United Nations and so the US's invasion of Iraq was widely seen as an illegitimate use of force. The most recent war in Iraq contrasts with the first war in Iraq in the early 1990s, when the US had UN support and a broad coalition of countries routed the Iraqi military in around 90 days of declared combat. Should the US seek to build strong alliances to help with fighting the war and supplying the money and resources before the US intervenes in countries? Is the cost of US unilateralism too much? Are there limits to US unilateralism?

There are surely other problems that I have not noted above. Are there other problems that you can identify with neoconservative foreign policy commitments?

Take some time, think about, and answer some of the questions that I've posed above.

Neoconservative US Foreign Policy and You

This week we are shifting gears. So far this semester, we have talked about anarchy, which is the condition out of which governmental order and political struggle emerges. With the emergence of government, we have talked about four different kinds of government that have historically taken shape and could possibly take shape in the future:

1. Governments organized around class struggle between socialists and capitalist oligarchs.

2. Totalitarian regimes controlled by one central Party that works to organize, unify, and more stringently control the population through symbols of national identity, the heroicization of a leader, surveillance, and violence. The individual is enveloped into the collective and finds value primarily through the Party.

3. Libertarian governments that recognize the inherent moral right of the individual to own and control their body and property and so these governments cannot legally infringe on those control rights.

4. Contemporary democratic governments are organized around two or more political parties. Eligible members of the population are allowed to more or less participate in the processes of government and more or less hold elected leaders accountable.

In the coming weeks, our gears will shift to important arenas of political struggle, like: foreign policy and war, immigration, colonialism, and global political economy.

This week's blog post focuses on foreign policy.

In public discussions of foreign policy, the word "neoconservative" is often used. While having older roots, this word and way of organizing foreign policy became very popular during the George W. Bush administration--and is associated with the launching of the US 'war on terror' and the subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not as significant in the Obama administration, neoconservatism arguably continues to be a significant foreign policy philosophy today.

Here are five neoconservative commitments associated with US foreign policy:

1. Internationalism: The US should play an active role in world politics today by maintaining and extending the current global order that is in line with our national interests.

2. Primacy: American dominance in world politics is a stroke of good fortune for the world and for the US. US global dominance should therefore be maintained and no other power should be able to militarily and economically rival the US.

3. Unilateralism: American power is the source of global stability, not the UN Security Council, so US foreign policy should not be restrained to act unilaterally to maintain US national security interests and global stability.

4. Militarism: To unilaterally maintain US national security and democracy, global stability, and to extend democracy abroad, a strong US military is needed.

5. Democracy: Since US national identity, interest, and security are associated with democracy, and because the lack of democracy abroad is seen as a source of instability, democracy and the extension of democracy abroad is very important. Democracy at home and abroad is seen as in US interests.

Do you agree with all five of these neoconservative foreign policy commitments? Do you only agree with some of them? Which commitment do you feel is the most important? Why is this the most important commitment? Which commitment is the least important? Why is it the least important?

Do you disagree with any of the five neoconservative commitments to US foreign policy? Why do you disagree? What are some of the problems you can imagine might arise with the neoconservative commitments?

Democratic Politics in America

On the last blog, most commentators suggested that a few people ruled the American population. A few commentators suggested that the American population is governed by the many. That the majority of commentators see the US government as ruled by the few and not the many: Is that a problem for democratic politics in America? Why or why not is it a problem?

Also, in class last week, we talked about some of the features associated with democratic politics. One important feature was accountability: the rulers had to be accountable to the ruled. Most members of the class, as far as I could see by asking you all to speak up, felt that American leaders were not accountable to the ruled. Is this a problem for democratic politics in America? Why or why not is it a problem?

If you are commenting on this post and neither of the above issues are seen as a problem for democratic politics in America: Can you identify any problems with democratic politics in America?

The Government of America

It is useful to think about the relationship between the rulers and the ruled along three lines:

1. Rule of the individual -- a king, tyrant, or charismatic individual who commands a political community.

2. Rule of the few -- an oligarchy, or when a comparatively small group of people rule over a larger political community. The Iron Heel offered an example of a capitalistic oligarchy and so did the novel, 1984.

3. Rule of the many or rule of the people -- a democracy, or when a comparatively larger number of people rule over a political community. The Probability Broach presented a radical democratic republic where at least 90% of the representatives had to cast a vote before a policy could be made into law. The government was small and very democratic.

Look over the sets of questions below and spend some time thinking about and answering a few.

What do you think? Is America ruled by the many? Or is America ruled by the few? Should there be more democracy in America (like the government in the the Probability Broach) or less? If you said that there should be more democracy in America, what about in terms of waterboarding and military matters?

Do you participate (or know people who participate) in governing America? How do you/they participate? Do you/they vote? Do you/they participate in town/county/state councils? Do you/they pay attention to local, state, and/or national political debates? Do you/they work for the government? Do you/they have a sense of civic duty? Do you/they believe that Americans should participate in the government and should have a sense of civic duty?

Is the American government too big or too small or is it just about right in size? Would you like to see a government as small as the government in the Probability Broach or is something larger required? What particular aspects of the government (social security, military, welfare, etc) should be larger or smaller? Why should those aspects of government be larger or smaller?

Or maybe we should not be talking about the size of the government. Maybe we should be talking about the effectiveness of the government. Is the US government effective? If so, give me an example of what you think is effective government? Or is the US government ineffective? If so, give me an example of what you think is ineffective government? What could be changed to make some aspect of government more effective?

The Politics of Libertarianism: Or How Libertarian Are You?

This week we make a radical shift away from totalitarian governments to libertarian governments. These two ways of governing populations sit at opposite ends of the spectrum: totalitarian systems work to dissolve individuals into the larger collective of the state and libertarian systems emphasize individuals and their inherent rights that limit the state's intereference in their lives.

Generally, people in America identify more with libertarian ideals than they do totalitarian ideals.

Here are some of the Libertarian Party's positions on various social and political issues of our time. Read through them and respond to the questions I've asked at the end of the blog post.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.


2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health
insurance across state lines.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

Which one (or more than one) of these positions do you find unacceptable? Why do you find it unacceptable? Or, do you agree with all of them? What about these libertarian positions do you find agreeable? Why do you like them?

If you find all of these libertarian positions acceptable, how did you respond to the torture question on the last blog post? Can you justify waterboarding and be a libertarian? If so, how do you justify your acceptance of waterboarding and call your self a libertarian? Is there a tension between agreeing that the government can torture certain people and calling yourself a libertarian? Can you be a consistent libertarian and support the government waterboarding people?

Totalitarianism in America?

When totalitarian leaders like Adolf Hitler (leader of Germany), Benito Mussolini (leader of Italy), and Joseph Stalin (leader of Soviet Union) became important figures in global politics, it was commonplace for Americans to ask: Is totalitarianism coming to America? Indeed, the publication of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four made the same point. Check out the back cover of the assigned text, which is a copy of the original 1949 publication. It reads:

It [1984] points the path towards which society may now be heading, and leaves the reader with the shocked feeling that there is no single horrible feature in the world of 1984...which is not present, in embryo, today.

What features are associated with totalitarian governments?

Here are a few:

1. The population is excluded from outside information. The information that the population does get is propaganda, which celebrates the state, its leadership, and the military.

2. State authorized violence (by the police and military) targets those internal (homosexuals, gypsies, Jews, non-Caucasians) and external (foreigners) actors that are labelled enemies of the state. These enemies could be military threats or they could be cultural threats to the political order.



3. The political leadership and particularly the top leader are widely seen as infallible.

4. Surveillance is extensively and intensively used to control members of society. Police and military forces watch for enemies of the state. Neighbors watch neighbors and kids watch parents for any signs of disloyalty. Individuals also police their own actions.



5. Totalitarian governments are also supported by large sections of the masses and by key elite members of society.

6. Because internal and external enemies are always seen as pressing concerns, everyday life becomes increasingly militerized. Individuals and families are encouraged to join in the war effort--to ration their food, to join the military, or to support the soldiers and the war effort with patriotic fervor. Security from foreign and domestic threats becomes a number one concern for many people.



What do you think? Is totalitarian government possible in America today? Or is it just impossible? Are any of these six features associated with totalitarian governments present in America today? Are none of them present? Are only some of the features present? Are they present in America, but perhaps weak or limited? If they are present in America but weak, could they get stronger? What events might strengthen these features associated with totalitarian government? Are there any other features that I don't mention here, but that are visible in 1984 and America?

What about the poor?

In the last blog, there seemed to be a general agreement among the participants that there are economic classes in America. There seemed to be a bit of disagreement regarding how significant the class system is in America: some of you said classes could be overcome and the American dream achieved, and others of you suggested that class would probably not be overcome and for many people the American dream would never be achieved.

Given this agreement that class exists in America, what should be the middle and upper classes' response to the lowest class? In other words: what should middle and upper classes do about the poor in America? Should the middle and upper classes do anything at all for the poor? Does the poor need anything done for them?

In thinking about your response, consider Norway. There, class differences are actively lessened by the state. There is much greater economic equality among its population than compared to people living in the USA.

The folketrygden (people's security) law grants everyone disability, old-age and survivors' benefits, rehabilitation assistance and unemployment payments. Other measures provide free hospitalization, surgery and medicines. Youngsters through the ninth grade receive dental care at their schools at no cost. Every worker is guaranteed at least four weeks of paid vacation

The Norwegian state pays for this through "steeply progressive" taxation.

In 1978, for instance, business earnings were

heavily taxed: 30% by the national government and 20% by municipalities. Explains Erlandsen: "The highest cost my firm has is its tax cost. To reduce our tax burden, we share profits with our employees or reinvest them somehow." One of the most common means of sharing is to give employees valuable but tax-exempt "perks," such as trips to mountain resorts and the use of company-owned cars and houses.

Even the most marginal and stigmatized members of Norway's society are supported by the state. For example:

Just around the corner from Norway’s central bank, for instance, Paul Bruum takes a needle full of amphetamines and jabs it into his muscular arm. His scabs and sores betray many years as a heroin addict. He says that the $1,500 he gets from the government each month is enough to keep him well-fed and supplied with drugs.

Mr. Bruum, 32, says he has never had a job, and he admits he is no position to find one. “I don’t blame anyone,” he said. “The Norwegian government has provided for me the best they can.”

What is the proper response of the middle and upper classes to the poor and marginal members of American society? Should incomes be taxed more progressively so that money is more evenly distributed among members of the American population? Or maybe taxes should be deceased and social programs cut back for the poorer members of American society? Or is there something else?

What do you think?

Economic Classes in America?

Thus far, we've told stories about our interactions with the government and considered the condition of anarchy. There seemed to be a general sense of agreement among the participants: the government certainly has its low points, but compared to a condition of anarchy, the presence of some governing agencies is acceptable. Over the course of this semester, we will look at a variety of different ways that government can take shape.

In this post, let's talk about economic classes.

The notion of economic classes (e.g. worker class, middle class, capitalist class) emerged during the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe. It quickly migrated to the USA, but the notion of class politics only briefly became an important topic of public debate--during the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a lot of labor unrest with major strikes and protests surrounding issues of minimum wage, a 40 hour work week, safer working conditions, minimum working age, etc.

Basically, economic classes generally break down like this: workers own little to nothing but their ability to do manual labor, which they sale for a wage. Workers then take that wage and spend it on consumer goods that they just made at the factory, which in turn benefits the capitalist class. The capitalist class do not labor for a living. Rather, they own the machines and factories ("the means of production") in which workers labor each day for a modest wage. Middle class folks sit somewhere in between the workers and the capitalists. They may own a small business, but they probably work there each day alongside their employees, or they may be middle managers who earn a good salary but are not wealthy.



In the USA, usually we don't talk much about class politics.Does that mean class does not exist in the USA? Or are there economic classes?

If there are classes, do you think that they live together harmoniously? Do you think that there is no conflict of interest?

Or, is there class struggle between the workers and the capitalists? Is there a conflict of interest rooted in the selfish nature of people? Can you think of any (historical or contemporary) examples where class conflict between workers and capitalists was apparent?

If economic classes exist in the USA, do capitalists or workers exert more control over politicians and government policies? How do they exert this control?

Because we usually don't talk about class in the USA, are we more likely to be blind to our own class and blind to the class struggle? Do you think that we should talk about class politics more and emphasize our distinct class affiliations?



Or, maybe there are no classes in the USA. Maybe we all have a more or less equal starting place in life. We can all achieve "the American dream" of owning our own land and home with a white picket fence. Maybe this class thing is a bunch of bunk. We don't really talk about class because class isn't an important issue in American life. We really just need to work hard and pull ourselves up by the boot straps.

What do you think?

Security, Anarchy, and Freedom

In the last blog post, we told some stories about the government and how it impacts our everyday lives. Let's talk about anarchy in this post.

Anarchy, which as we mentioned in class is the absence of hierarchy, is an ideal concept. We can never find pure anarchy in 'real' life.



Conditions in contemporary Somalia, however, offer an approximation to 'real' anarchy.

Somalia has been consistently ranked as the worst failed state on the Failed States Index published annually by Foreign Policy magazine and Freedom House recently said that in Somalia there is little protection of individual rights.

Yet, Benjamin Powell says:

It is hard to call any country mired in poverty an economic success. Yet by most measures Somalia’s poverty is diminishing and Somalia has improved living standards faster than the average sub-Saharan African country since the early 1990s. In that sense Somalia is at least a relative success story. The most interesting part of Somalia’s success is that it has all been achieved while the country has lacked any effective central government.

For many, the “A” word—anarchy—conjures up notions of chaos. For others it simply means the absence of a single government ruling a geographic area. In this second sense, Somalia has been in a state of anarchy since the fall of Siad Barre’s dictatorship in 1991. The result has been, in general, economic development rather than chaos—although there certainly have been chaotic periods. The interesting questions are how has development been promoted and what has caused the chaos.

In the film Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, many people are heavily armed. No government means no police. In Somalia and post-Apocalyptic Australia alike, people must provide for their own security. Life, you might optimistically say, would be filled with surprise, action, and a level of risk beyond what most of us have ever experienced. Less optimistically, like Thomas Hobbes, we might say that life would be "solitary, nasty, brutish and short."

At the same time, the anarchy of Somalia and the anarchy of The Road Warrior is not chaotic. In post-Apocalyptic Australia, for instance, Lord Humongous as a following. He's clearly in charge and his band of marauders provide a level of collective security not available to most people living there. In Somalia, people are struggling in a more open and less structured fashion, but there is still a level of everyday order. Money is being made by some people and there is enough stability for some people to spend their money on goods (e.g. food, fuel, clothing) and services (e.g. pirating is a service that some people in Somalia provide).

What do you think? Does a place like the anarchical Somalia or post-Apocalyptic Australia have something to offer that a governed society lacks? Does less government and less publicly provided security mean more freedom? Would you rather be secured by police officers that sometimes take liberties with their jobs, or would you rather be secured by Somalian technicals like those shown in the pictures above? Is the freedom that Mad Max has to roam the landscape worth the risk of anarchy? Is it 'really' freedom at all?

Stories about the Government

To start off the blogging part of our class participation, lets talk about government. I'm sure that we all have a story. Lets hear it.

Do you have any positive or negative experiences interacting with government officials?

And by government official I mean in the broadest terms: it could be a US Senator, a park ranger, a DMV clerk, a judge, a tax clerk, etc. Maybe someone was aided by a public official--their house was saved by firemen. Or perhaps someone was ticketed by county sheriff or a state trooper. The point is that, whether you like it or not, you are regularly interacting with governmental agencies.

If you check your mailbox and find a bill or a check waiting on you, then you know that the government has been there. If the pothole on your morning commute is filled, then you know the government has been there. If your tap water is parasite free, then you know some governing agency is at work. At the same time, sometimes the water is contaminated, the meat is infected with e coli, and the pothole on your commute goes unfilled for months on end--the government is not perfect and is only partially successful and making its presence felt on a daily basis.

It could be worse, however. You could live in Somalia. There, the federal government is practically nonexistent. Warlords serve as governing agents. The roads, where there are roads, are never fixed. You eat at your own risk and the water, where it is in fact drinkable, is hard to access.

Here in the USA and most countries around the world, the government is a more or less important part of peoples' everyday life. How has the government touched your life? Lets hear your stories.

Hello Classes

This semester this blog is an experimental way to get you participating and thinking about politics and government. Three Politics and Government classes (100.03, 100.04, 100.05) will all be using this blog and commenting on posts. With over 100 students participating, there should be ample opportunity for everyone to have something worthwhile to say in response to my original post or another students' post.

Please be THOUGHTFUL and RESPECTFUL with those posts that you disagree with. There should be no personal attacks or name calling. This is the space to make reasoned arguments about political struggle and governmental order.