Beta
Skip to main content

Author: Jose Nino

Former Congressman Ron Paul Wants More Cryptocurrency Competition

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics, News. 1 Comment on Former Congressman Ron Paul Wants More Cryptocurrency Competition

Despite retiring from Congress, Dr. Ron Paul is still on top of political and economic affairs. Above all, Paul has kept up with the latest developments in the cryptocurrency space. In an interview with CNBC, Paul talked about some of the Federal Reserve’s policies, which he soundly criticized as he has done repeatedly in his multiple decades in Congress. When asked about cryptocurrencies, Paul had this to say about them:
“I like crypto coins and Blockchain because I like the different currencies competing. I want to make as little regulation as possible. I don’t know exactly what happens to the cryptocurrency. But I think the underlying idea is very good.”
For those who have followed Dr. Paul over the years, his statements shouldn’t come as a shock. After all, Paul has been the staunchest defender of sound money during his time in Congress. The former congressman understands how the Federal Reserve system has created the boom and bust cycles we currently see every decade. This is the result of the interest rate manipulations that the Fed conducts, which causes businesses to misallocate resources. This creates an illusory economy that eventually comes back to reality once the Fed-induced bubble pops. In the same token, one of the more insidious aspects of the Fed is its ability to perpetuate the warfare and welfare state. Easy money allows politicians to print money out of thin air to finance their profligate spending ventures both domestically and abroad. Direct taxation is often unpopular and can be immediately felt by taxpayers. For that reason, central banking is an alternative that power-hungry politicians turn to. Since the closing of the gold standard in the 1970s, America politicians have doubled down in their efforts to ratchet up spending. However, the introduction of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin in 2009 has changed the way people think about money. Although the space is still very young and the technology still has many questions to answer, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin do raise questions about central banking and allow people to get hands-on experience with coins that naturally emerge on the market. That’s the beauty of crypto. People, not politicians nor bureaucrats, ultimately decide which currencies succeed and which fail. Time will tell if cryptocurrencies will emerge as a viable alternative to the current monetary system. Nonetheless, these projects are welcome ventures in times when central banks have not curtailed their easy money policies and when welfare states around the world are on the verge of imploding. Now more than ever, the world needs sound money. Government-enforced monetary standards are simply too risky and the temptation is too strong for politicians to use them as a means of advancing all sorts of government intrusions. No matter how much demagogues try to spin their justifications for central banking, a free society is ultimately built on sound money.

Bernie Sanders is Right for Once

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Uncategorized. No Comments on Bernie Sanders is Right for Once

Say what you want about Bernie Sanders’ economic policies, he at least gets it when it comes to certain aspects of criminal justice reform. Sanders unveiled a plan to overhaul the U.S. criminal justice system as part of his presidential platform. In this plan, Sanders advocated for the federal legalization of marijuana and limits on civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture and drug reform are two of the biggest issues where liberty advocates have seen some progress at the state level. Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where law enforcement agencies take assets—anything from cash to real estate— based on allegations that a person used those assets while committing a crime. Often times due process is ignored or a conviction is not needed for these types of property seizures to take place. When direct taxation is not a politically viable means of revenue generation, asset forfeiture will do the trick. For example, law enforcement agencies seized $4.5 billion in assets in 2014, a hefty sum and an indicator of how lucrative this practice is for government entities. Sanders’ plan would prohibit “the practice of any law enforcement agency benefiting from civil asset forfeiture.” To enforce this prohibition, a Sanders administration would restrict or completely eliminate federal criminal justice funding for any state or locality that is not in compliance. Another major plank of Sanders’ criminal justice reforms is the federal legalization of marijuana. Despite the Democratic Party’s obsession with identity politics, nearly all the 2020 presidential candidates endorse some form of decriminalization or legalization of the drug. On his website announcement, Sanders stated: “The disastrous policies that make up the War on Drugs have not reduced drug use and violent crime.” Instead, he suggested that “We must use effective therapeutic, not punitive, solutions to address drug addiction.” Sanders specifically called for the expungement of past marijuana convictions. Sanders has it right on this issue. The War on Drugs has been a disaster for American citizens. Mass incarceration, civil liberties abuses, and a massive price tag of $1 trillion are just some of the many negative features of this government program. Thankfully, people are starting to wake up to the Drug War’s horrendous nature. However, for both the federal government and law enforcement agencies nationwide, the Drug War has been a great success as political power has been greatly centralized. That means more government privileges, fatter budgets, and more leeway in making private individual’s lives miserable. For that reason, the political establishment would like this program to continue. The Vermont Senator is on the mark here. If there is one part to criticize, it’s the section where he says that revenue from legal marijuana should be reinvested in communities hit hardest by the War on Drugs. While this is well-intentioned, these communities would benefit from more economic liberalization and measures that the get the state out of their lives. We obviously can’t have it all, but recognizing that the state is the main culprit behind the misery of the Drug War is a good way to guide future policy decisions. Nonetheless, Sander’s plan is a good first step in acknowledging that the Drug War is bad public policy. We should be taking a more human approach to the issue of drugs in America.

Minnesota is Making a Killing Off of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Criminal Justice, Economic Liberty, News, Personal Liberty. 3 Comments on Minnesota is Making a Killing Off of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Civil asset forfeiture is getting out of control in the Gopher State. A new report from the West Central Tribune indicates that the Minnesota state government seized 3 percent more property involved in crimes in 2018 than the year prior. Even though the increase in the amount of property seized was not that large, the money the state took in cash and sale of forfeitures rose by 18 percent according to a report from the State Auditor’s Office. 317 law enforcement agencies in Minnesota conducted 8,091 forfeitures in 2018, while 7,852  of these were conducted in 2017. The net receipts from the sales of 4,895 forfeitures approximated $8.3 million in 2018. The rest of the 3,196 forfeitures were returned, destroyed or not factored in the latest statistics. As of 2014, asset forfeitures have been on the rise in Minnesota. The number of completed forfeitures increased by 18 percent and the largest category of items seized fell in the range of $100 to $499 during this time-frame. Forfeitures dealing with controlled substances and DUI offenses made up 90 percent of forfeitures last year. Drug seizures have risen by 13 percent since 2014. Putting it bluntly, civil asset forfeiture is a racket.  Law enforcement agencies seized $4.5 billion in assets in 2014 alone. From 2001 to 2014, they seized $29 billion in assets. On top of that, this practice has dubious constitutionality. In most states, civil asset forfeiture is conducted without the accused in question receiving a conviction—a clear violation of due process.
Minnesota is one state that needs to boost its protections against unjust asset forfeiture practices. According to the Institute for Justice’s Policing for Profit index, Minnesota has a D+ rating as far as its civil asset forfeiture laws are concerned. Instead, Minnesota should take after states like Nebraska and New Mexico by strengthening due process standards during these procedures. It can also go a step further by refusing to prosecute non-violent drug cases, thus removing asset forfeiture out of the equation. Civil asset forfeiture reform is a winnable battle, and Minnesota is another place that liberty activists should target for civil asset forfeiture reform.

Hong Kong Residents Want American Freedoms

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Capital Punishment, News, Personal Liberty. 1 Comment on Hong Kong Residents Want American Freedoms

Things are heating up in Hong Kong as protesters hold their ground and demonstrate against both their local and the mainland Chinese government.

The protests were sparked after City Executive Carrie Lam put forward an extradition bill, the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, that would have facilitated the transfer of fugitives to Mainland China and have them prosecuted under Chinese law.

Hong Kong citizens responded by taking to the streets to protest against this bill.

The pressure proved to be too much for Lam, and she withdrew the bill indefinitely.

The protests in Hong Kong’s streets continue with no apparent end in sight. However, news of Chinese armed forces mobilizing in the nearby mainland city of Shenzhen has raised speculation about a potential military crackdown against these protestors. Such action would be a tragedy for a Hong Kong, an enclave that has served as a beacon of freedom in an otherwise authoritarian nation-state. During some of the protests, certain demonstrators held up signs calling for a Second Amendment and other provisions in the America Bill of Rights. Some demonstrators even waved American flags. This may come as a shock to many free marketers. After all, Hong Kong is one of the freest economies in the world. It’s currently ranked as the world’s freest economy according to the  Heritage Foundation’s 2019 Index of Economic freedom. However, this could all be in jeopardy due to Chinese expansion. Since the United Kingdom handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, it’s no secret that the mainland Chinese government has wanted to fully incorporate Hong Kong into its political sphere. Hong Kong has maintained some degree of autonomy as a special administrative region, but Beijing still has a long-term goal to directly control Hong Kong. The extradition bill is just one of the first steps in politically consolidating Beijing’s hold over this jurisdiction. Hong Kong’s success was no coincidence. It was part of the legacy that its British rule left behind which emphasized individual rights and free markets. John James Cowperthwaite, the Financial Secretary of Hong Kong from 1961 to 1971, initiated a series of market reforms that helped put Hong Kong on the map as one of the freest and economically dynamic political jurisdictions on the planet. China, on the other hand, has thousands of years of governance ranging from imperial rule to its modern-day communist structure. In sum, it’s never had any form of classical liberal governance. This legacy persists into the present. Although China did reform along market lines under Deng Xiaoping, the country’s political institutions have not witnessed similar forms of liberalization. Currently, Xi Jinping’s leadership is trying to bring back authoritarianism reminiscent of China’s Maoist past through its notorious tech censorship measures. As Americans, we should remember how privileged we are by just looking at our political freedoms. While the U.S. state has grown extensively, America still features many civil liberties such as the right to bear arms, free speech, and due process that makes the country the political envy of the world. That does not mean we should remain complacent, but we should still gain some perspective. Some people’s relationship with government is a matter of life and death in many parts of the world. For Hong Kong’s residents, the next few months will be pivotal as the threat of a military crackdown looms.

Jorge Ramos Gets Gun Control Wrong

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Gun Rights, Second Amendment. 1 Comment on Jorge Ramos Gets Gun Control Wrong

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos is enthralled by New Jersey Senator Corey Booker’s presidential campaign. In an episode of Real America with Jorge Ramos, the journalist played a number of clips covering Booker’s bid for the American presidency. There was a particular focus on Booker’s desire to tackle America’s gun violence “epidemic.” Booker declared, “It is time for us as a nation not to normalize the violence and the carnage of gun violence. It is time that we come together and stand together and take the fight to the NRA and the corporate gun lobby like we have never seen before!” For Ramos, Booker’s presidential bid represents a golden opportunity to make gun control a fixture of American political discourse.  He highlighted how “Booker wants to be the Gun Control President. He’s even introduced a sweeping gun violence prevention package that would close loopholes for gun sales, a crackdown on gun manufacturers, and invest in communities impacted by gun violence.” What Ramos is discussing is Booker’s latest gun control program which has become the unique value proposition of his presidential run. He is arguably 2020’s “gun control” candidate. Booker’s avid push for gun control should come as no shock considering that he hails from New Jersey, one of the states with the most stringent gun control laws in the country. Thanks to its anti-gun policies, Guns & Ammo magazine ranks New Jersey in 50th place for best states for gun owners. Jorge Ramos advocating for gun control is quite bizarre. After all, he was born in Mexico, a country that has become notorious for its widespread violence. On top of that, most people don’t realize that Mexico has very draconian gun control laws. Any Mexican citizen who wants to own a firearm must put in references, demonstrate legal sources of income, and then provide photographs and fingerprints. Because of this bureaucratic red tape, Mexico has only one gun store in the country, which the military runs in the outskirts of Mexico City. Given the shocking amount of drug cartel crime, one would be inclined to believe that gun control would be the logical response to Mexico’s crime problem.  However, gun control has not been able to tame Mexico’s crime dilemma. The Sun reports that 94 homicides occur in Mexico on a daily basis. Indeed, America still needs to relax its gun control laws at the federal level. Nevertheless, when we look abroad, Americans have it good as far as gun rights are concerned. In other countries, legal gun ownership is a privilege that only law enforcement and military enjoy. No matter how busybody politicians slice it, gun control laws are a criminal’s dream come true. They prefer unarmed victims who aren’t capable of putting up a fight against them—the perfect sitting ducks. For Latin America’s sake, Jorge Ramos should reconsider his gun control enthusiasm. Having some modicum of legal gun access would help many of Ramos’ Mexican compatriots when confronting drug cartels. Leaving them disarmed will only make the cartels even more predatory as they know that their targets have no effective means of fighting back.

Look in the Mirror: Mexico Shouldn’t Lecture America About Gun Policy

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Personal Liberty, Second Amendment. 2 Comments on Look in the Mirror: Mexico Shouldn’t Lecture America About Gun Policy

The El Paso massacre has gone international. Following this tragic incident, where a gunman murdered 22 people in cold blood, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) offered his two cents. AMLO suggested that the U.S. review its gun control laws according to a Bloomberg News report. During a news conference, AMLO said: “We are very respectful of what other governments decide, but we think that these unfortunate events in the U.S. should prompt reflection, analysis and the decision to control the indiscriminate sale of guns.” The Mexican president asserts that Republicans and Democrats alike have not focused much on this problem. A foreign president opening on American gun policy seems rather strange, but it makes sense in this context. After all, El Paso’s status as a border town with a population of predominantly Mexican American and Mexican nationals living in the area does make it an issue for Mexico. In the shooting, six Mexican nations were wounded. It also didn’t help that the El Paso murderer’s manifesto contained anti-immigrant screeds. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of immigration, using violence as a means of changing policy is unacceptable. Nevertheless, trying to score political points, like the way the Mexican president is doing, in this case, is not only petty but does not yield any form of productive political discussion. Plus, Mexico is already filled with gun violence and has some of the most stringent gun control legislation in the region. If there is any country that needs to look at its gun and security policies, it’s Mexico. We can complain about America’s federal gun control laws, which have lots of anti-freedom provisions, but Mexico’s gun control regime makes America look incredibly lax in comparison. For Mexicans who want to obtain firearms, they must provide references, have documentation of legal sources of income,  submit a photo, and then be fingerprinted. Not exactly a recipe for large-scale legal ownership of firearms. However, Mexican criminals are still finding ways to acquire firearms and wreak plenty of havoc, as evidenced by the power of drug cartels in the country. According to a report from The Sun, 94 homicides take place in Mexico every day. Although there may be stronger institutional factors, such as the lack of rule of law at play when discussing crime in Mexico, disarming law-abiding Mexicans does not help matters. The Mexican government has every right to defend the interests of its citizens abroad, but it should not use a tragedy to peddle misleading information on U.S. gun policy. Especially when considering that crime rates have continued dropping in America even with the expansion of gun rights. Instead, a moment like this could be used to promote hemispheric cooperation on issues of public security, where civilian armament schemes could be put forward as one of many solutions to Latin America’s violence problems. Productive discussion, not political bickering, can bring us closer to solutions that benefit countries within our hemisphere.

Democrat Politician to Chicago Constituents: Get Armed!

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Gun Rights, Personal Liberty, Second Amendment. 1 Comment on Democrat Politician to Chicago Constituents: Get Armed!

The conversation about gun control in Chicago is changing. In a surprising move, Democratic State Representative La Shawn Ford recently encouraged people in his Chicago neighborhood to strap up. Specifically, he wants more of them to obtain concealed carry licenses. During 2019, Ford was a mayoral candidate in Chicago. Although Ford holds mainline Democratic positions on economic issues, he is starting to change his views on the issue of gun control. When he appeared on WLS-AM 890, Ford revealed to the Mancow Show that he is telling his constituents to get armed in order to confront Chicago’s persistent crime problem. Ford declared:
I think about it all the time. That’s why I’m working with a concealed carry instructor and we’re going to go through the neighborhood and we’re going to encourage people to get their concealed carry license because it makes no sense for people not to have the protections that they need.
Once thought to be impenetrable, urban centers may start to see gun rights slowly creep their away into political discourse. The decades of work that gun researcher John Lott is finally beginning to pay off. But he isn’t alone. Groups like Black Guns Matter have hit the streets educating people on the proper exercise of gun rights and are reaching out to demographics that traditional gun lobbies have routinely ignored. Africans Americans would benefit tremendously from increased gun rights given the history of gun control they’ve faced. The Black Codes and Jim Crow laws in the South featured some of the most racially-targeted gun control schemes in America history and left many law-abiding African Americans susceptible to white supremacist violence. Even to this day, gun control laws, which tend to be strongest in urban centers where minorities reside in, disproportionately affect these groups. Many of these areas are characterized by sub-optimal education and economic policies that keep people down and encourage anti-social behavior such as crime. These areas are where having the right to carry helps most. Thankfully, new numbers show that blacks are obtaining concealed carry permits in record numbers due to liberalized carry policies in states across the nation. Ford’s call for Chicago residents to arm themselves is a gradual step in shifting the way gun policy is discussed in urban America. The status quo of gun control in those areas has clearly failed and it’s time for a new direction. There needs to be more elected officials like La Shawn Ford that are at least willing to entertain some form of gun rights liberalization. Their urban constituents desperately need this.

Dan Crenshaw: Firebrand Conservative or More of the Same?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Middle East, Military, National Defense. 3 Comments on Dan Crenshaw: Firebrand Conservative or More of the Same?

Upstart freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar – now known as “The Squad” – have dialed up identity politics to unprecedented levels. Their politics is moving the Democratic Party in a much more progressive direction. In response, the Republican Party has its own rising star in freshman Congressman Dan Crenshaw. A Navy Seal veteran who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Crenshaw has quickly established himself as the future of the Republican Party. In times when identity politics is strong, debt is out of control, and the wars that Trump campaigned to end continue, there is a desire for something different in today’s political arena. Unfortunately, Dan Crenshaw does not fit the bill. In the Trump era, many disgruntled libertarians have every reason to be disenchanted by the Left’s radical shift toward identity politics. But that does not mean that the Republican Party should be seen as the default answer that libertarians turn to just because of the Left’s looney behavior. To the contrary, things have still largely remained the same as both parties and its golden boys seek to expand government in some shape or form. In recent weeks, Crenshaw demonstrated his desire to maintain many of D.C.’s worst policies such as gun control and never-ending wars. After the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Crenshaw suggested that the federal government entertain red flag gun confiscation legislation and The Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety (TAPS) Act. Both of these proposals are clear affronts to basic civil liberties such as the right to bear arms and due process Red flag laws, which are present in over a dozen states, would allow law enforcement to confiscate firearms if a person is merely suspected of being a threat to themselves or others. A statement of concern is all that’s needed, and the defendant has no way of receiving a timely hearing. You can kiss due process bye-bye in this scenario. In the same vein, the TAPS Act would effectively bring Minority Report to the real world. This bill was introduced earlier this year by Texas Congressman Brian Babin. It would greatly expand the surveillance state and establish a system of pre-crime enforcement. On the bill’s release date, Babin declared in a statement that the TAPS act “Standardizes and provides a behavioral threat assessment and management process across the Federal government. Provides states the training, resources, and support needed to stand up community-based, multi-disciplinary behavioral threat assessment and management units. Recognizes that behavioral threat assessment and management processes must become part of the culture and fabric of contemporary law enforcement.” This bill had a companion in the Senate which was introduced by Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Civil liberty-minded conservatives like David Leach of The Strident Conservative sounded the alarms on the Senate version of the TAPS Act, S.265, which would “encourage law enforcement to give EVERYONE a personal threat assessment (adults and children) and single out those they deem as future threats.” From there, this information could later be used to “stop dangerous individuals before they can commit an act of violence.” Despite all of this, Crenshaw still believes such legislation is appropriate in addressing mass shootings. Pre-crime schemes belong on the silver screen or in novels, but not in the real world. On the issue of foreign policy, Crenshaw revealed his neoconservative colors. Donald Trump’s election in 2016 was a breath of fresh air for many advocates of non-interventionism due to Trump’s solid rhetoric on previous nation-building schemes. There was a sliver of hope that Trump would put an end to these wars. Despite Trump’s otherwise solid views on interventionist failures, his administration has done little to actually withdraw from these quagmires. With Dan Crenshaw in the mix, it’s only going to get harder. In a tweet, Crenshaw criticized those who raised awareness on the issue of “endless wars.” He stated “Before we reactively cry “no more endless wars” we must consider what that means in practice. It means we give them space and time to plan another 9/11. My former teammates have no problem ensuring this doesn’t happen. We should let them do their job.” Unfortunately, what we’re getting out of Crenshaw is more of the same. In all honesty, this movie is played out. Conservative politician talks a big game about getting government off our backs. Passes some middling reforms—marginal tax cuts and partial regulations— and then continues to perpetuate the war machine and keep the overall administrative state intact. Rinse, lather, and repeat. That’s the D.C way. Crenshaw might be a fresh face, but he offers a stale ideology that’s become standard operating procedure in the D.C. swamp. For that reason, it makes sense for libertarians to start focusing more on local politics instead. That’s where real change is actually made.

Hispanics Are Arming Themselves After the El Paso Shooting

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Personal Liberty, Second Amendment. 3 Comments on Hispanics Are Arming Themselves After the El Paso Shooting

Hispanics are arming themselves after the El Paso shooting. And they’re doing it in droves. A report from the Daily Mail highlights how Hispanics are rushing to buy guns and attend concealed carry courses. While politicians look to enact top-down solutions to tackle the issue of gun violence, citizens are responding differently. They know that the government will not always be there to protect them, so they are strapping up. Thanks to Texas’s relatively lax concealed carry laws, many Hispanic residents of humbler means can carry handguns for self-defense without much hassle. Many Texan Hispanics are of Mexican origin, or recently migrated from Mexico, a country that is notorious for its strict gun control laws. The laws there make it virtually impossible for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves against the very real threat of drug cartels. For many Mexicans living in America, it is a blessing to have a right to self-defense, a concept which is an incredibly regulated privilege back in their homeland. This would be a great opportunity for Second Amendment advocates making inroads with Hispanics who are concerned about their safety. The Second Amendment is a color-blind concept. From African Americans defending themselves against white supremacist groups during the Jim Crow era to Korean store owners protecting their businesses from rioters during the Rodney King riots, the right to bear arms has served minorities well. By enacting gun control legislation such as universal background checks, politicians only increase barriers to entry for minorities who desire to protect themselves and their families from criminals. If anything, events like El Paso show that minorities should be increasing their firearms ownership. Politicians who claim to fight for minority interests, but advocate for further gun control are doing their constituents a disservice. Not everyone can arm themselves, but giving people more options for self-defense never hurts. Instead of growing government, we should be looking at growing firearms ownership.

More States Should Follow Former Gov. Scott Walker’s Example in Wisconsin

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Elections and Politics. 2 Comments on More States Should Follow Former Gov. Scott Walker’s Example in Wisconsin

The Washington Examiner recently covered former Governor Scott Walker’s economic reforms in Wisconsin. Arguably, one of the most effective governors in the last decade, Walker dramatically changed the state’s economic and political landscape with many of his political reforms. Before Walker took office in 2011, Wisconsin had an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent in December 2010. Wisconsin’s previously bloated government was a major hindrance to business creation which in turn provided gainful employment to working-class families. Wisconsin was innovative in implementing what would set the basis for the federal REINS Act, which allows legislatures to review and repeal potentially burdensome regulations. Under this reform, red tape was slashed, thus giving business more breathing room to expand employment opportunities. With Walker’s signature in 2017, Wisconsin became the first state to implement the REINS Act. In 2019, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul introduced a federal version of this successful reform. Regulations not only stifle entrepreneurial activity, but they are also passed on to consumers through more expensive goods and/or lower quality services. Regulations have many second-order effects that end up negatively affecting people’s overall well-being. To his credit, Walker recognized this and proceeded accordingly by lifting many of the regulatory shackles in Wisconsin. Walker was not alone. The Wisconsin legislature teamed up with him to reduce government largesse through the lean government initiative. RealClearPolitics reported that it “eliminated 400 unneeded bureaucratic steps in state regulatory agencies, saved nearly 80,000 staff hours, reduced regulatory backlogs by an average of 54% and saved $1.6 million.” By the end of Walker’s time office in December 2018, unemployment fell to 3%, according to data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. This is no coincidence given the bold de-regulatory reforms that Wisconsin implemented. It’s not just marginal tax cuts that get the economy going, it’s the rollback of bloated bureaucracy. Wisconsin offers hope for other states. Once considered a blue, union stronghold, Wisconsin’s bold reforms in the area of public-sector unionization and its passage of a right-work law have allowed it to flourish. On a side note, Wisconsin also made numerous public security reforms by finally legalizing concealed carry in 2011. By allowing for concealed carry, the state adapted to the reality of concealed carry that has swept across the nation during the last few decades. This goes to show that firm political leadership is needed for change to happen. Scott Walker may have his flaws, but his time as Wisconsin Governor demonstrated that political change can become a reality if the right leadership is in place. It’s one thing to talk about small government, but it’s a whole another ballgame actually implementing it. For that, Walker and his colleagues should be commended. More states should follow and expand upon Walker’s example.

No Cory Booker, Gun Control Will Not Make Us Free

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Gun Rights. No Comments on No Cory Booker, Gun Control Will Not Make Us Free

Channeling his inner Orwell, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker claims that gun control will make people “free.” On Rachel Maddow’s show, Booker told the MSNBC host that the gun violence taking place in Newark, New Jersey (the city he is formerly mayor of) is inspiring a “culture of fear.” For him, freedom can be restored in these areas by simply passing gun control. Booker has become the “gun control candidate” of the 2020 election cycle by unveiling a comprehensive gun control package. His bold gun control plan includes popular gun control schemes such as universal background checks, gun licensing, and opening up gun manufacturers to lawsuits. Booker has every right to be concerned about the violence taking place in cities like Newark. America’s urban centers still have many problems with issues of public security. However, government response to these problems is not necessarily the correct answer. Above all, one that involves curtailing the freedoms of countless law-abiding people should be a non-starter. Being denied the right to defend yourself and your loved ones are as anti-freedom as it gets. It leaves the law-abiding at the mercy of unscrupulous governments and criminals. Even when the government makes an effort to stay within its proper role, it cannot always be relied upon to adequately defend others. Often times the police are minutes away in situations which require split-second decision-making. In fact, under the Supreme Court decision Warren v. District of Columbia, police are not obligated to protect individuals. So, the solution cannot solely focus on the government. Truth be told, adding more laws should not be entertained in these scenarios. True freedom involves making autonomous decisions. Some people will arm themselves, some won’t. When we have actual freedom in matters of public security, certain forms of defense options will emerge such as personal defense, private security, or even community watches. Instead of turning towards more government, Booker should look at revitalizing civil society or building proactive non-state alternatives to addressing the issue of public security. For most problems, there’s usually a non-state solution. Gun violence is not exempt from this.

Big Labor Investigation of Barstool Sports Founder Shows Why New York Needs Labor Freedom

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics. No Comments on Big Labor Investigation of Barstool Sports Founder Shows Why New York Needs Labor Freedom

Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy finds himself in an awkward situation. The president of the sports website caused a massive meltdown on Twitter when he criticized the staff of competing website, The Ringer, and their decision to vote on unionization. For some, Portnoy’s post went a bit too far. Soon a mob of left-wing journalists started to reach out to Barstool employees and inform them of their unionization rights. This provoked a firm response from Portnoy who threatened to fire Barstool employees if they tried to unionize. Knowing Twitter, Portnoy’s anti-union stance was met with even greater backlash. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made sure to take advantage of the situation by claiming Portnoy’s threats to fire employees were illegal. Killing two birds with one stone, she was also able to fundraise off of this incident.  Now, the National Labor Relations Board is investigating Portnoy for illegally threatening to fire his staff if they decided to unionize. Talk about a total whirlwind of events. Media noise notwithstanding, Portnoy is in the right, even if he did violate an arbitrary labor law. Freedom of association is a cornerstone of America’s classical liberal foundation. That means employers are free to hire and fire people as they see fit. They’re also within their rights to reject unionization schemes. Unfortunately, this concept has been turned upside down since FDR’s New Deal was enacted. In this package of government interventions was the creation of the National Labor Relations Board which oversees all matter concerning labor laws. Apart from its traditional oversight role, the NLRB has granted labor unions tremendous power. Labor unions served a purpose in the 19th century by raising awareness of the squalid working conditions present in many workplaces. However, thanks to market innovation and increased productivity, many of these conditions have been eliminated as the economy has modernized and workers didn’t have to break their backs in the workplace as they did before. Now, unions have become political appendages that extort dues from workers, engage in political violence and intimidations, and line up the coffers for pro-union politicians. Bureaucracies like the NLRB only magnify this trend by micromanaging the private decisions of businesses and giving unions a bureaucratic fallback option to impose their will on employers. Given that New York, the state where Barstool’s operations are based out of, is not a right-to-work state, Portnoy will have his hands full as union pressure will mount against him. One good aspect of the Trump administration is that Trump’s judicial and NLRB nominees have been solid on the issue of unionization. Portnoy may be able to catch a break after all. Nonetheless, this case shows that union intimidation is alive and well in many solidly Blue states in America. Employers and employees alike will continue to face considerable harassment if these political forces are left unchecked.