What if higher taxes meant that you and the rest of the country were happier?

This next week we are going to talk about Norway and Sweden -- two examples of socialist democracies in world politics. We will compare these two countries with the United States.

An important way that socialist democracies provide benefits to their citizens is through higher taxation. Look at this article, it compares taxation rates in the US with those in Norway between three examples. The Norwegian citizen pays 43.9% of their income in taxes, the two Americans paid considerably less: one paying 33% and the other paying 28%.

What do you get for all those taxes?

This short CNN video briefly compares the US and Norwegian healthcare systems.  Here is what a transfer student who goes to Norway to study at a Norwegian university would receive -- full national medical care, which is the same for all citizens.

Similarly, as the final Sakai Discussion Forum's assignment indicates, work life in Sweden is of higher quality compared to the vast majority of countries around the world, including the US. Workers have several weeks of paid vacation yearly, a shorter work week, extended maternity leave, a better work-home life balance, and less stress because people have more time to enjoy their lives and less worry about their economic future.

In general, citizens of Norway seem to be happier (and here is a video too) than citizens in other countries -- and citizens in Europe and especially northern Europe with the more socialistic democracies are the happiest places on earth right now.

What do you think?

Would you agree to pay higher taxes if you had the guaranteed benefits that citizens of Norway and Sweden receive? Why do you support such a system or why do you oppose such a social welfare system? Do you think such a healthcare and system is even possible or desirable in America?

Poverty, Wealth and Politics in America

Most of you agreed that there are economic classes in America. Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) has a total of 535 members who are directly elected by you to represent your interests in Washington, DC. While most of Congress are millionaires, only 1% of the American population are millionaires. The average Senator is worth $2.5 million and the median House of Representatives member is worth $1 million.

Watch this video and note how the people on the street imagine America to be more equal than it actually is. It turns out that America has an extraordinarily high level of economic inequality -- much greater than any other advanced industrialized country in the world and far more unequal compared to countries like Sweden or Norway.

Here is my point: Wealthy and upper middle class elites are disproportionately represented in Congress. And, a very small number of very wealthy people own the vast majority of income and property in America. Wealthy American citizens exercise greater influence over Congress and own most of the stuff around the country -- poor and working class Americans exercise way less influence over Congress and own way less stuff in America.

What do you think?

Can a millionaire properly represent your economic interests? Does a millionaire know what it is like to be poor or middle class? Why do you suppose that poor and middle class people continue to elect millionaires to Congress? Could electing millionaires actually hurt poor and middle class Americans? Would America be more economically equal if more poor and working class citizens were elected to political office?

Class Politics in America

While Americans are less likely to actively talk about class politics compared to, say, someone in Britain, class politics are still arguably important in America. Here is a link to a NY Times special series called "Class Matters," which delves into class in America in a more nuanced way with graphics and personal stories. Check it out. The article shows how class matters for your life:

Americans of all sorts are awash in luxuries that would have dazzled their grandparents. Social diversity has erased many of the old markers. It has become harder to read people's status in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the votes they cast, the god they worship, the color of their skin. The contours of class have blurred; some say they have disappeared.

But class is still a powerful force in American life. Over the past three decades, it has come to play a greater, not lesser, role in important ways. At a time when education matters more than ever, success in school remains linked tightly to class. At a time when the country is increasingly integrated racially, the rich are isolating themselves more and more. At a time of extraordinary advances in medicine, class differences in health and lifespan are wide and appear to be widening.

And new research on mobility, the movement of families up and down the economic ladder, shows there is far less of it than economists once thought and less than most people believe. [Click here for more information on income mobility.] In fact, mobility, which once buoyed the working lives of Americans as it rose in the decades after World War II, has lately flattened out or possibly even declined, many researchers say.    

Her are some personal stories of encountering class. Read a couple. It will only take a few minutes and will possibly relate to something you've experienced in your life. Think about where you are in terms of class politics in America and what this means for your life.

What do you think?

Are class politics important in America? Has your life been impacted by class politics? Have you ever noticed examples of class politics happening to others? If you think class politics are important, how should that influence your voting behavior? If you think that class politics isn't a significant factor in American politics, why? What do you think prevents class politics from impacting American life?

Why vote for the US President?

Why should you vote for the President of the United States of America?

Most of you will never set foot into a city or county council meeting. In these forums, you generally have face to face access to policymakers that you directly elect. These men and women have a significant impact on essential aspects of your everyday life, particularly in areas like school funding, access to fire and rescue service, water and sewage policies, zoning, annexation, local tax rates, and so on. Yet, we hardly ever never rock the county or town council vote – indeed, in most cases, I bet county council debates hardly make it onto the radar compared to the hoopla surrounding the quadrennial presidential elections in the US.

The important point about these local elections cannot be stressed enough: i). You can go meet these policymakers and talk with them about issues of concern to you and your community and possibly persuade them on some matter; ii). They are directly elected by your vote and are therefore accountable to you and the coalition of voters of which you are a part.

In terms of the US president, however, the story is very different. The chances that you will ever meet the next US president (or any US president ever, for that matter) are slim to none – especially now with the intensified security practices surrounding the President following the events on 11 September 2001. Even when the fear of communist sabotage and the threat of Soviet nuclear weapons (which still exist, by the way) stalked Americans’ imagination during the Cold War, citizens were able to arrive early in the morning, wait in line outside the White House gate, and get an escorted tour of the public areas on most any day of the week. That type of open and symbolically more accessible attitude has evaporated over the past decade in regards to the President and the White House. In its place is an increasingly complicated, surveillance-intensive, and selective bureaucratic process that distances the office and the office holder from those that vote.

Even less likely are we, as average citizens living in Shepherdstown, WV, or any particular town across America, able to meet and meaningfully discuss, much less influence, the president on any issue of concern to you or your community.

On top of that, your vote, which millions of American citizens will cast in November, does not elect the president of the United States. To the surprise of many, no doubt, the US Constitution establishes an Electoral College [read here and here] with this authority. Who is the Electoral College? Robert Dahl, the distinguished professor of comparative democracy at Yale University, says that members of the Electoral College usually consist of a relatively unknown and partisan group of party loyalists.

The Electoral College, a fundamentally non-democratic and elitist feature of the US Constitution that insulates the president from the popular will, has created a dilemma for American politics that has played out on four different occasions in our history. Most recently, we saw the consequences of this Constitutional dilemma in the 2000 US election. In that instance, George W. Bush was elected to the highest office in the land because he won a majority of Electoral College votes; Al Gore won the majority of votes from American citizens, but lost the election. All in all, Dahl says that one out of every three US presidents has won with only a minority of voters’ support.

I want to bring the dilemma of our democracy home to you by asking you to reflect on your behavior.

Why should you vote for the American president? Or, if you think that you shouldn't vote for the US President, why shouldn't you vote? And, perhaps more importantly, why don’t you vote for the city and county council members? Do you know your council members?

American Politics and Totalitarian Politics

We've been talking about totalitarian politics. Recall that we discussed some of the ways that totalitarian politics become embedded in everyday life for people -- changing flags, changing forms of greeting, changing calendars, removing dialects, publicly placing Mussolini's mottos and statues, etc.

Totalitarian politics have been a topic of public discussion and debate in America in the past. In the 1930s and 1940s, news papers and prominent officials and popular media all thought about the possibility of totalitarian politics in America. Elements of totalitarian politics were creeping into the everyday life of Americans -- and those politics were supported by certain elements of the population. I used to assign It Can't Happen Here, which was originally published in 1935. It represents the fears of totalitarian politics that some people had. Famously, one character in the book says something like: "When fascism comes to America, it will be holding a cross and wrapped in the flag." That same book was re-released in 2005 and, similar to the late 1930s, people have once again started to discuss the possibility that American politics are becoming totalitarian [see this, this, this, this, this]. Some people are concerned that totalitarian politics unique to the American situation is creeping into everyday life.

Look over some of the weblinks above. Reflect a moment. Write a bit.

What do you think about this possibility? Is it possible that American politics are becoming totalitarian? If you think there is a possibility, what do you think totalitarian politics would look like? What are some examples you might look out for? Or, if you think that this is just crazy talk and that totalitarian politics are definitely not creeping into American politics, why not? What do you think prevents totalitarian politics from creeping in? Why do you think these other folks are miss-reading the situation in America right now? 

Individualist Versus Collectivist Politics

This week we are shifting gears and talking about totalitarian politics.

We've been talking about Libertarianism. Libertarianism is about the celebration of the individual and their rights against the control of the government. The government is an expression of the collective. One of the issues we discussed in class has to do with the tension between the individual and the collective. Libertarian leaning Republicans, for instance, argued against disaster relief for New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy.

Totalitarianism is basically the opposite of libertarianism. Totalitarianism is about celebrating the collective (and the government that is an expression of the collective), not the individual. For totalitarianism, the emphasis is on one strong and unified nation lead by a strong leader. The emphasis is on conformity, or finding freedom by submitting one's self to the collective. Nazi Germany under Hitler is one prominent example of a totalitarian politics. The National Fascist Party lead by Mussolini is another example.

What do you think?

Is the individual more important than the collective? Or, is the collective more important than the individual? What is the proper balance between the individual and the collective? Where do the rights of the individual end and the responsibility of the collective begin? In other words, where do your individual rights end and the rights of the American people begin?

Libertarian Politics and What that Means for Law

While there are currently some libertarian leaning politicians (Ron Paul, Rand Paul and a few others) in the Republican Party, Libertarians are neither Democrats nor Republicans. True libertarians have their own political party.

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.

Take a moment, reflect on, and respond to the questions below:

Which one (or more than one) of these Libertarian 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?

How would a libertarian respond to the assassination of an American citizen by the US President?

Libertarian Visions of the Minimal Government

Anarchists advocate for no hierarchy, no government. Libertarians want a government, but they want a very weak and limited government. Libertarians want a government that most always yields to the individual and their rights. Libertarians celebrate the individual and their freedom from government intrusion in their lives.

A nice rule of thumb way of remembering what libertarianism advocates is this: maximum individual freedom and minimum government intervention.

Some libertarians say that the government only has two basic roles to play in our lives.

1. The first role of government is to enforce contractual agreements between people. If we sign a contract and one of us breaks the contract, then the government should step in and determine who is at fault and what compensation needs to be paid and by whom.

2. The second role of government is to provide national defense -- the stress is on defensive capabilities, not offensive war-making capabilities. A country needs to be able to defend itself from other countries and dangerous actors in world politics, but a country doesn't need the capability to attack other countries and it doesn't need bases in other countries.

Outside of these two basic roles, people should be able to live their lives however they choose to live them and the government should stay out of their business. Individuals should have the freedom to do with their bodies and property whatever they want, as long as they don't go around harming other people or destroying other peoples' property.

What do you think? Should the government have more of a role in our lives than just enforcing contracts and providing for national defense? Or is the libertarian notion better -- that the government should only have two basic roles?

If the government was limited to enforcing contracts and providing for national defense, how would that change peoples' daily lives? What about public roads, public schools, public parks? Would those changes be for the better or worse?

Do you see any potential problems with giving people this much freedom?

Take a few minutes, look over the questions, and spend a few minutes responding to some of the queries.

Are Anarchist Politics Dangerous?

Emma Goldman was a well-known anarchist. This week we'll watch a film about how she was an exceedingly dangerous woman. After we watch the film, I want you to consider these questions:

Why was she considered dangerous then? Would she be considered dangerous today? What was she advocating? Do you agree or disagree with what she advocated? Why or why not? Finally, one last question: is anarchism dangerous? If so, to whom?

Everyday Anarchist Politics

Anarchism as a political philosophy values voluntary action. A person should be able to organize their life without being coerced or forced by anybody, especially the government. I've pointed to a number of examples where in our everyday lives we organize ourselves without being forced. One example we talked about in class is the Pan Tram bus -- people generally gather at the bus stops and orderly board the bus without being coerced. There are many other possible examples.

Think about your own life. Describe an example of anarchism in everyday life. When do you organize yourself without being coerced or forced?

Politics and Government, Fall 2014

Hello Classes

This semester this blog is a way to get you participating and thinking about politics and government. Two Politics and Government classes will all be using this blog and commenting on posts. With nearly 60 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.

Enjoy the semester!

Poor Citizens, Wealthy Congresspersons, and the US Government

Most of you agreed that there are economic classes in America. Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) has a total of 535 members who are directly elected by you to represent your interests in Washington, DC. While 47% of Congress are millionaires, only 1% of the American population are millionaires. The average Senator is worth $2.5 million and the average house member is worth $746 thousand. And while the economic recession has hurt many Americans over the past few years, the wealthiest members of Congress have continued to get wealthier.

Watch this video and note how the people on the street imagine America to be more equal than it actually is. It turns out that America has an extraordinarily high level of economic inequality -- much greater than any other advanced industrialized country in the world and far more unequal compared to countries like Sweden or Norway.

Here is my point: Wealthy and upper middle class elites are disproportionately represented in Congress. And, a very small number of very wealthy people own the vast majority of income and property in America. Wealthy American citizens exercise greater influence over Congress and own most of the stuff around the country -- poor and working class Americans exercise way less influence over Congress and own way less stuff in America.  

What do you think?

Can a millionaire properly represent your economic interests? Does a millionaire know what it is like to be poor or middle class? Why do you suppose that poor and middle class people continue to elect millionaires to Congress? Could electing millionaires actually hurt poor and middle class Americans? Would America be more economically equal if more poor and working class citizens were elected to political office?

Class politics in America

While Americans are less likely to actively talk about class politics compared to, say, someone in Britain, class politics are still arguably important in America. Here is a link to a NY Times special series called "Class Matters," which delves into class in America in a more nuanced way with graphics and personal stories. Check it out. The article shows how class matters for your life:

Americans of all sorts are awash in luxuries that would have dazzled their grandparents. Social diversity has erased many of the old markers. It has become harder to read people's status in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the votes they cast, the god they worship, the color of their skin. The contours of class have blurred; some say they have disappeared.

But class is still a powerful force in American life. Over the past three decades, it has come to play a greater, not lesser, role in important ways. At a time when education matters more than ever, success in school remains linked tightly to class. At a time when the country is increasingly integrated racially, the rich are isolating themselves more and more. At a time of extraordinary advances in medicine, class differences in health and lifespan are wide and appear to be widening.

And new research on mobility, the movement of families up and down the economic ladder, shows there is far less of it than economists once thought and less than most people believe. [Click here for more information on income mobility.] In fact, mobility, which once buoyed the working lives of Americans as it rose in the decades after World War II, has lately flattened out or possibly even declined, many researchers say.    

Her are some personal stories of encountering class. Read a couple. It will only take a few minutes and will possibly relate to something you've experienced in your life. Think about where you are in terms of class politics in America and what this means for your life.

What do you think?

Are class politics important in America? Has your life been impacted by class politics? Have you ever noticed examples of class politics happening to others? If you think class politics are important, how should that influence your voting behavior? If you think that class politics isn't a significant factor in American politics, why? What do you think prevents class politics from impacting American life?

Why Vote for the US President?

Why should you vote for the President of the United States of America?

Most of you will never set foot into a city or county council meeting. In these forums, you generally have face to face access to policymakers that you directly elect. These men and women have a significant impact on essential aspects of your everyday life, particularly in areas like school funding, access to fire and rescue service, water and sewage policies, zoning, annexation, local tax rates, and so on. Yet, we hardly ever never rock the county or town council vote – indeed, in most cases, I bet county council debates hardly make it onto the radar compared to the hoopla surrounding the quadrennial presidential elections in the US.

The important point about these local elections cannot be stressed enough: i). You can go meet these policymakers and talk with them about issues of concern to you and your community and possibly persuade them on some matter; ii). They are directly elected by your vote and are therefore accountable to you and the coalition of voters of which you are a part.

In terms of the US president, however, the story is very different. The chances that you will ever meet the next US president (or any US president ever, for that matter) are slim to none – especially now with the intensified security practices surrounding the President following the events on 11 September 2001. Even when the fear of communist sabotage and the threat of Soviet nuclear weapons (which still exist, by the way) stalked Americans’ imagination during the Cold War, citizens were able to arrive early in the morning, wait in line outside the White House gate, and get an escorted tour of the public areas on most any day of the week. That type of open and symbolically more accessible attitude has evaporated over the past decade in regards to the President and the White House. In its place is an increasingly complicated, surveillance-intensive, and selective bureaucratic process that distances the office and the office holder from those that vote.

Even less likely are we, as average citizens living in Shepherdstown, WV, or any particular town across America, able to meet and meaningfully discuss, much less influence, the president on any issue of concern to you or your community.

On top of that, your vote, which millions of American citizens will cast in November, does not elect the president of the United States. To the surprise of many, no doubt, the US Constitution establishes an Electoral College [read here and here] with this authority. Who is the Electoral College? Robert Dahl, the distinguished professor of comparative democracy at Yale University, says that members of the Electoral College usually consist of a relatively unknown and partisan group of party loyalists.

The Electoral College, a fundamentally non-democratic and elitist feature of the US Constitution that insulates the president from the popular will, has created a dilemma for American politics that has played out on four different occasions in our history. Most recently, we saw the consequences of this Constitutional dilemma in the 2000 US election. In that instance, George W. Bush was elected to the highest office in the land because he won a majority of Electoral College votes; Al Gore won the majority of votes from American citizens, but lost the election. All in all, Dahl says that one out of every three US presidents has won with only a minority of voters’ support.

I want to bring the dilemma of our democracy home to you by asking you to reflect on your behavior.

Why should you vote for the American president? Or, if you think that you shouldn't vote for the US President, why shouldn't you vote? And, perhaps more importantly, why don’t you vote for the city and county council members? Do you know your council members?

Totalitarian Politics and America

We've been talking about totalitarian politics. Recall that we discussed some of the ways that totalitarian politics become embedded in everyday life for people -- changing flags, changing forms of greeting, changing calendars, removing dialects, publicly placing Mussolini's mottos and statues, etc.

Totalitarian politics have been a topic of public discussion and debate in America in the past. In the 1930s and 1940s, news papers and prominent officials and popular media all thought about the possibility of totalitarian politics in America. Elements of totalitarian politics were creeping into the everyday life of Americans -- and those politics were supported by certain elements of the population. I used to assign It Can't Happen Here, which was originally published in 1935. It represents the fears of totalitarian politics that some people had. Famously, one character in the book says something like: "When fascism comes to America, it will be holding a cross and wrapped in the flag." That same book was re-released in 2005 and, similar to the late 1930s, people have once again started to discuss the possibility that American politics are becoming totalitarian [see this, this, this, this, this]. Some people are concerned that totalitarian politics unique to the American situation is creeping into everyday life.

Look over some of the weblinks above. Reflect a moment. Write a bit.

What do you think about this possibility? Is it possible that American politics are becoming totalitarian? If you think there is a possibility, what do you think totalitarian politics would look like? What are some examples you might look out for? Or, if you think that this is just crazy talk and that totalitarian politics are definitely not creeping into American politics, why not? What do you think prevents totalitarian politics from creeping in? Why do you think these other folks are miss-reading the situation in America right now? 

The Libertarian Party in American Politics -- Neither Democratic nor Republican

While there are currently some libertarian leaning politicians (Ron Paul, Rand Paul and a few others) in the Republican Party, Libertarians are neither Democrats nor Republicans. True libertarians have their own political party.

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.

Take a moment, reflect on, and respond to the questions below:

Which one (or more than one) of these Libertarian 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?

How would a libertarian respond to the assassination of an American citizen by the US President?

Libertarians Want A Small and Weak Government

Anarchists advocate for no hierarchy, no government. Libertarians want a government, but they want a very weak and limited government. Libertarians want a government that most always yields to the individual and their rights. Libertarians celebrate the individual and their freedom from government intrusion in their lives.

A nice rule of thumb way of remembering what libertarianism advocates is this: maximum individual freedom and minimum government intervention.

Some libertarians say that the government only has two basic roles to play in our lives.

1. The first role of government is to enforce contractual agreements between people. If we sign a contract and one of us breaks the contract, then the government should step in and determine who is at fault and what compensation needs to be paid and by whom.

2. The second role of government is to provide national defense -- the stress is on defensive capabilities, not offensive war-making capabilities. A country needs to be able to defend itself from other countries and dangerous actors in world politics, but a country doesn't need the capability to attack other countries and it doesn't need bases in other countries.

Outside of these two basic roles, people should be able to live their lives however they choose to live them and the government should stay out of their business. Individuals should have the freedom to do with their bodies and property whatever they want, as long as they don't go around harming other people or destroying other peoples' property.

What do you think? Should the government have more of a role in our lives than just enforcing contracts and providing for national defense? Or is the libertarian notion better -- that the government should only have two basic roles?

If the government was limited to enforcing contracts and providing for national defense, how would that change peoples' daily lives? What about public roads, public schools, public parks? Would those changes be for the better or worse?

Do you see any potential problems with giving people this much freedom?

Take a few minutes, look over the questions, and spend a few minutes responding to some of the queries.

Mutual Aid and Anarchism

Mutual aid is an important concept for anarchists. Basically, mutual aid is when one person voluntarily helps another person by providing them with needed goods or services -- and then the person who was aided returns the favor. Here is a link to an anarchist collective called Rock Dove Collective [LINK]. Read about them and what they're about.

Here are two questions to consider. Have you ever voluntarily helped another person by providing them with goods or services they needed? Have you ever accepted the voluntary help of someone?

Tell us about your experiences.

Everyday Anarchy

Anarchism as a political philosophy values voluntary action. A person should be able to organize their life without being coerced or forced by anybody, especially the government. I've pointed to a number of examples where in our everyday lives we organize ourselves without being forced. One example we talked about in class is the Pan Tram bus -- people generally gather at the bus stops and orderly board the bus without being coerced. There are many other possible examples.

Think about your own life. Describe an example of anarchism in everyday life. When do you organize yourself without being coerced or forced?

Politics & Government, Spring 2014

Hello Classes

This semester this blog is a way to get you participating and thinking about politics and government. Two Politics and Government classes will all be using this blog and commenting on posts. With nearly 60 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.

Enjoy the semester!