Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content
Start My Journey
Enable Dark Mode

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Author: Jose Nino

Statewide Rent Control Comes to Oregon

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics. 1 Comment on Statewide Rent Control Comes to Oregon

Last week, Oregon became the first state to implement statewide rent control when Democratic Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 608 into law. Rent control has traditionally been conducted at the local level, but now Oregon is changing the conversation. Under SB 608, increases in rent will be capped at 7 percent a year plus inflation. No-cause evictions have been eliminated and landlords are now required to document the reasons for evicting someone. In certain eviction cases, the landowners must provide tenants 90-days notice before evicting them and then pay tenants one month’s worth of rent. Although this will be hailed as a victory for tenants, the economic implications are bleak. For a start, rent control violates basics tenets of economics such as supply and demand. From constructing rental housing to building condos, prices communicate to landowners how to use their land and buildings. However, when interventions like rent control come into the mix, these prices are distorted and result in shortages as artificial demand for housing units outstrips supply. The laws of economics are basic and universal. The most extreme example of price control failure is modern-day Venezuela and its myriad of price control regulations that have caused widespread shortages throughout its economy. Housing units are no exception to this trend.   Rent control takes a large portion of the value of residential properties from landlords. The value landlords lose is then effectively redistributed to current tenants, who take advantage of this by staying in their current housing units. It is not uncommon to see tenants in cities with rent control stay in the same place for prolonged periods of time. Not only do price ceilings like rent controls cause shortages in terms of housing units, but they also come with an adverse set of social consequences. Because of the government imposed rent controls, apartment owners have no incentive to invest in their property, i.e renovate it or upgrade the infrastructure such as cooling systems. As a result, these housing units will deteriorate. Within a decade or so, otherwise good housing complexes could turn into ghettos. Similar to other government regulations, strict rent control causes those affected by it to circumvent the regulations through under-the-table payments to secure housing or even conduct routine maintenance operations. Discrimination among rental applicants also becomes the norm. These are the unintended consequences of governments trying to play god. Additionally, rent control causes new housing construction to come to a grinding halt. In some cases, rent-controlled housing is converted to condos or repurposed for non-housing related ends in order to escape burdensome rent control regulations. In sum, these schemes reduce overall housing availability, which only exacerbates the previous housing problems. Oregon currently restricts housing through urban growth boundaries, which designate developable land near cities for natural or agricultural uses, or through zoning restrictions, which limit the number of units that can be built on residential land within cities. In essence, the best way to tackle the question of housing affordability is through less government, meaning that zoning restrictions and other land use regulations should be reduced as much as possible. This will allow for increases in the overall housing supply. The city of Houston is arguably the best example of a large metro area that has tackled the housing affordability problem through its relatively hands-off approach to zoning.  By allowing urban land to move alongside changing market demands and not having top-down plans for urban development or destructive policies like rent control on the books, Houston has avoided the many housing pitfalls that major urban centers face these days in the U.S. More cities should follow in Houston’s footsteps. All in all, rent control and other interventionist schemes in the housing market make it more difficult for would-be tenants to acquire quality housing at reasonable prices. However, sound economic policy is not always politically popular, and politicians will do what it takes to get it elected regardless of the unintended consequences of their policies. Housing markets nationwide are in dire need of some market-based urbanism.

Are Ammo Taxes Coming to Connecticut?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Personal Liberty, Property Rights. 3 Comments on Are Ammo Taxes Coming to Connecticut?

Does Connecticut’s state government want to tax ammunition? HB 5700, a bill recently introduced by Connecticut State Representative Jillian Gilchrest, proposes a 50 percent tax increase on ammo. Exemptions apply only to law enforcement and military. However, everyday gun owners are up a creek without a paddle. Gun owners were rightfully outraged over this blatant infringement on their Second Amendment rights. In contrast, Gilchrest expressed her confusion at the negative response she received. In a tweet response, she even questioned how much ammo any individual would need: “I’m hearing push back about the need to protect one’s home… but how much ammunition does someone really need to do that?” It’s none of Rep. Gilchrest’s business how much ammo people decide to have in their homes. Gilchrest’s comments demonstrate how detached pro-gun control politicians are with the realities their constituents face. In crime-infested neighborhoods, the more ammo you can have access to, the better. In these cases, having a functional firearm could be a matter of life and death. Law enforcement and military exemptions interesting. This shows yet again that gun control isn’t necessarily about banning all the guns. When push comes to shove, the government and its agent will continue to keep their guns. However, the “unruly” civilians must comply with their political class’s legislative whims. Given its track record as an anti-gun state, Connecticut’s flirtation with ammo taxes is a standard operating procedure. Connecticut was the first state to enact red flag gun confiscation orders in 1999 in the wake of a shooting at the State Lottery headquarters. The Newton shooting that took place on December 14, 2012, has only cemented Connecticut’s anti-gun status. Following the shooting, Connecticut adopted universal background checks and banned magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammo. At the end of the day, ammo taxes function like any other sin tax. Purportedly designed to discourage certain kinds of behaviors, ammo taxes carry their share of unintended consequences. Consumers, above all the poor, must beat the brunt of these taxes. If the tax is high enough, they will be priced out of the gun market. Criminals, on the other hand, will resort to black market means to obtain firearms. It’s the law-abiding gun owner that gets the short end of the stick when government infringes on people’s right to self-defense. Besides the obvious violation of the Second Amendment, an ammo tax will only keep the big government beast well-fed. For busybody politicians who love to tax and control us, an ammo tax is their way of killing two birds with one stone.

Message to Ben Shapiro: Let President Trump Do the Talking

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy, National Defense, News, Uncategorized. No Comments on Message to Ben Shapiro: Let President Trump Do the Talking

Without fail, Ben Shapiro demonstrated that he is a seasoned establishment gatekeeper. Shapiro took to Twitter on February 28 to lambast President Trump’s most recent summit with North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un. Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un ended abruptly after Trump left the meeting without any concrete agreement in the books. ***Insert Tweet Storm*** Not wasting time to attack Trump, Shapiro said: “Trump should be grateful for Cohen distracting everyone from the massive moral and diplomatic debacle that just unfolded in Vietnam.” This was in reference to the media’s non-stop coverage of Michael Cohen testimony taking place in Congress at the same time. Shapiro continued piling on Trump, describing Trump’s diplomatic endeavors as “amateur hour.” Shapiro shouldn’t be so quick to downplay Trump’s efforts, however. The fact that Trump has brought Kim to the negotiating table says a lot about an approach different from the status quo. Yes, countries like North Korea and present-day Venezuela are examples of socialist disasters. Of course, these governments should be exposed and condemned in general media and culture. But to reflexively intervene or advance top-down regime change are sub-optimal strategies that come with a myriad of unintended consequences. Ron Paul was correct in saying that, “setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.” Neocon foreign policy is centered on spreading democracy across the globe, often through military force or coercive means such as sanctions, which often hurt civilians more than the governments of the countries being targeted. This approach has been the norm in Washington DC and has, frankly, yielded little to no results. In fact, it has only fiscally burdened the U.S. and turned into an overstretched empire. Sadly, the DC political class doesn’t get it. The John Bolton’s of the world are constantly derailing negotiations like the current North Korean summit or encouraging US-sponsored regime change in Venezuela, and old habits die hard. Unlike the political hacks who have been running U.S. foreign policy for decades, President Trump has decades of hands-on-experience negotiating with people. Negotiation is no walk in the park. It’s a taxing process that requires time and patience. In his book, The Art of the Deal, Trump was correct in his view that any negotiator worth his salt should be willing to walk away from the negotiating table at any given moment. So, commentators are jumping the gun when they say that Trump’s negotiations are “now doomed.” Sitting at the negotiation table is just part one of a larger strategy The U.S. needs to open up a dialogue with all nations, regardless of their status as free or oppressed countries. Say what you want about President Trump, but his negotiating skills are rare among politicians. It’s best that the U.S. puts them to good use. By doing so, the U.S. can break free from the neocon foreign policy cycle and pursue a more peaceful and rational foreign policy that spreads freedom while maintaining military restraint.

Eastern Washington Wants a Divorce

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Personal Liberty. 3 Comments on Eastern Washington Wants a Divorce

Second Amendment supporters in Washington state want to file for divorce. Tired of the recent wave of anti-gun ballot initiatives, a band of Second Amendment activists wants to create a 51st state made up of the 20 Washington countries that lay east of the Cascade mountains. The proposed state would be called, “Liberty.” This group is specifically rallying against the recently-approved Initiative 1639, which imposed universal background checks, raised the minimum age to buy semi-automatic rifles, established a mandatory waiting period for rifle purchases, and mandated the safe storage of all firearms. Washington state has seen its share of gun control passed over the past few years, with bump stock bans and red flag gun confiscation orders coming into law. As crazy as some people think a breakup of Washington state would be, this is not exactly a far-fetched idea. Similar concepts have already been floated in states like California and Colorado. As the country becomes more culturally divided along rural and urban lines, separatism might be the way to go for states that want to maintain socio-economic stability. Jurisdictional competition is what made Western societies great. Europe and the U.S.’s federalist systems were a stark contrast to the eastern empires of old like China and the Ottoman Empire which spanned large regions. To maintain control of these territories, massive bureaucracies and iron-fisted rule were needed. That’s why Europe gradually prospered while Eastern empires languished into the start of the 20th century. For gun owners in anti-gun states like Washington, which is ranked 38th according to Guns & Ammo Magazine, nullification of statewide gun control laws and state separatism are the most violable means of beating back bad gun policy. Nullification of bad state laws has already started in the Pacific Northwest, with counties in Oregon and Washington rejecting gun control measures. This is a good first step. Then, separatism should follow. Either way, gun rights activists in Washington are on the right track. With a country of over 330 million people covering such a wide array of territory and cultural backgrounds, the idea of using traditional political means to restore gun rights seems very unrealistic. Cultural differences and institutional inertia make this a seemingly futile endeavor in the U.S. Once people develop more of a decentralization mindset that promotes the idea of increased jurisdictional competition, we can see unprecedented policy innovation through the emergence of “freedom enclaves.” The 20th century was the century of universalism and statism, but we can make the 21st century the era of decentralization. Proposals like the state of Liberty would be a good start.

Property Tax Reform Can’t Come Soon Enough to Texas

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics, Education, Personal Liberty, Property Rights. No Comments on Property Tax Reform Can’t Come Soon Enough to Texas

Texans are on the verge of getting some decent property tax reforms. Senator Paul Bettencourt’s Senate Bill 2, the 2019 Property Tax Reform and Relief Act, was passed out of the Senate Committee on Property Tax on February 11, 2019. Now it sits before the full Senate for consideration. This bill is the culmination of years of pent up frustration from Texan homeowners. During the past few years, Bettencourt felt the pressure from his constituents in the Houston area. Hundreds of Houstonians complained about their tax burden in front of the Senate Select Committee at the University of Houston on May 10, 2016. These taxpayers have every reason to complain. According to the Click 2 Houston’s report, “Harris County has seen a 43 percent tax levy increase –  26 percent in Fort Bend, and 15 percent in Galveston County” from 2013 to 2016.” Fast forward to 2019, it appears that Texas’s political class is waking up. Many proponents of the status quo argue that Texas need high property taxes because it has no income tax, which is a good thing when considering how convoluted our current federal income tax system is. However, Ross Kecseg of Texas Scorecard soundly refutes high tax justifications. On average, “no-income tax” states impose roughly identical tax bills on homeowners when compared to the average among states with a personal income tax. And these figures are adjusted for median home values. One thing to note is that income taxes tend to fund state government services, whereas property taxes fund local government services. But here’s the million-dollar question: How does Texas compare to the other states without income taxes? Kecseg reveals some shocking numbers. Texas ties New Hampshire for having the highest property taxes on homeowners, and by a huge margin. In fact, households in both Texas and New Hampshire pay, on average, sixty percent higher tax bills than those in the seven other “no-income tax” states. That means for every $1 of property taxes paid to local governments elsewhere, households in Texas and New Hampshire pay $1.60, or more. Texas property tax numbers look even worse when juxtaposed to other “no-income tax” rivals: When you compare property tax burdens between Texas and the “no-income tax” states lowest on the list, the gap widens dramatically. Texas households pay 83 percent higher taxes than those in Washington, 102 percent higher than Nevada, 213 percent higher than Wyoming, and more than 230 percent higher than taxpayers in Tennessee. New Hampshire and Texas homeowners pay the third and sixth highest property tax rates in the nation and also pay higher taxes than any of their no income tax counterparts. However, New Hampshire does not levy a sales tax at the state or local level. Texas, on the other hand, features local and state level sales tax along with “gross margins” taxes on businesses. Apart from property taxes, New Hampshire only taxes investment income on capital gains, interest, and dividends. For that reason, New Hampshire gets the “low-tax” label, despite having the third highest property taxes in the nation. Policy experts in Texas recognize this troubling trend. James Quintero of the Texas Public Policy Foundation reveals that in the past decade statewide property taxes have increased by 60 percent, while the population only grew by 19 percent. Quintero’s solution is similar to Paul Bettencourt’s bill in the Senate; require voters to approve a property tax increase. The 2019 Property Tax Reform and Relief Act is a good first step, however, it still does not strike at the root of the problem – government spending. First, these taxes must be reduced. To do so, Texas must address its education spending problem. Education spending has increased by 7.6 percent in real terms from 2004 to 2016. Plus, increased spending has created over-bureaucratization of Texas education as Vance Ginn and Trey Berthelot have highlighted: From FY 1993 to FY 2015, student enrollment at public schools in Texas increased by 48 percent while non-teaching staff increased by 66 percent and teachers increased by only 56 percent. Public education spending should be dedicated to benefitting students, not excessively expanding administrative staff at schools. Property taxes in Texas generally go towards public schools. With an entrenched bureaucracy in the Texas education system, spending will only go up. In turn, property taxes will continue to rise. To tame Texas’ growing tax dilemma, Texas must look at overhauling its education system and cutting out bureaucracy. A good place to start would be implementing school choice statewide.

The U.S Government Should Stay Far Away From Venezuela

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy, Issues, Military, National Defense, News. 3 Comments on The U.S Government Should Stay Far Away From Venezuela

On February 25, Marco Rubio posted a cryptic before and after photo of Muammar Gaddafi that caused quite a stir on social media. Lost in this photo was the political context. Gaddafi was historically a thorn in the side of U.S. interests since the late 1970s.  When the Arab Spring transpired in 2011, Libya broke into civil war. This compelled the U.S. and its NATO coalition to take action and support anti-Gaddafi rebels to remove him from power. Gaddafi was ultimately deposed as the NATO-backed Libyan rebels captured and killed him in broad daylight. A still image from the video of that infamous incident was the after image in Rubio’s post. This was no casual tweet. Given the past month of U.S. saber-rattling towards Venezuela, Rubio’s tweet was a veiled threat to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. On January 10, 2019, the opposition-controlled National Assembly of Venezuela declared that Maduro’s 2018 reelection bid was illegitimate and named the National Assembly President Juan Guaidó as the acting president of Venezuela. On January 23, the U.S. later recognized Guaidó as the legitimate head of Venezuela. As a result, Venezuela has descended into a presidential crisis that has garnered considerable international attention. The U.S. has led the charge against the Venezuelan government by imposing sanctions on state owned-oil company PDVSA for supposedly plundering resources and certain government officials who have obstructed the entrance of humanitarian aid into Venezuela. Pressure on Venezuela increased when foreign policy advisor John Bolton, a seasoned interventionist, had discretely scribbled on his notepad a few lines about deploying 5,000 troops to Colombia, which the public could see during a White House briefing. Naturally, speculation about potential military intervention in Venezuela has emerged. Although he has not openly called for military action to depose Maduro, Marco Rubio has flirted with the idea in the past and has generally agreed with Trump’s stance to have “all options” on the table when dealing with Venezuela. Rubio’s controversial tweet came in response to a violent weekend on February 23, when pro-government militia forces clashed with the opposition, leaving four people dead. This incident was sparked by a shipment of humanitarian aid coming from Colombia, which the government and its allies tried to break up. Whether or not Guaidó is the legitimate leader of Venezuela is neither here nor there. What is certain is that the U.S. should stay out of Venezuela altogether. The U.S. simply cannot afford to be involved in another military excursion. There’s no telling the unintended consequences — lives lost, the number of people displaced, and fiscal damage — that such an endeavor will bring. The U.S. has spent more than  $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively. Additionally, the U.S. has sustained significant casualties, losing 2,350 troops in Afghanistan and 4,488 troops in Iraq. However, civilian collateral damage completely dwarfs U.S. military losses in these areas with conservative estimates pointing to nearly 250,000 being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. A similar scenario would likely play out if the U.S. were to get involved in the region. However, this is the Venezuelan people’s fight. If Americans want to get involved, they should do so in a private capacity through humanitarian aid or private security services. But, we should not reflexively turn to military action to fix Venezuela or any nation, for that matter. With the national debt at $22 trillion, the U.S. is teetering on the edge of fiscal collapse. Another foreign adventure would put the country on the downward spiral of economic turmoil. Venezuela is the current poster child of socialist failure. At the core of national sovereignty is the right for nations to fail. These failed models give us important information on what policies generate economic prosperity and what policies lead to economic collapse. In the Venezuelan case, it’s clear that socialism has left it in shambles, just like it has done to countless other countries. However, that does not obligate the U.S. to intervene in Venezuela. In fact, many countries like the Baltic Tigers of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were able to defeat socialism and transition to capitalism without foreign intervention. Not all hope is lost in Venezuela. Alternatives like secession, are viable ways to break-up the oppressive Venezuelan state and offer Venezuelans an escape option. However, we must remember that the same government that mismanages our economy, capable of making countries like Venezuela even worse should it decide to intervene.

Has Hip-Hop Fallen Victim to Progressive Culture?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Criminal Justice, Economic Liberty, Issues, News. 1 Comment on Has Hip-Hop Fallen Victim to Progressive Culture?

Hip-hop’s influence on American culture is undeniable. From clothing lines to dance styles, hip-hop has left a profound mark on many aspects of American life. Originating in the South Bronx during the 1970s, hip-hop gradually became a creative outlet for disgruntled African American youth in urban centers. This budding music genre gave many impoverished African Americans new opportunities to build wealth and provide value to their troubled communities.   With time, hip-hop established itself as one of the most dominant musical genres in American culture. What seemed like a blooming vehicle for escaping poverty and bucking conformism, hip-hop culture became mired with the same problems that undermined the Civil rights movement. The Ideological Decay of Hip-Hop Identity politics, socialist advocacy, and disdain for free markets have become the norm throughout hip-hop circles across the nation. From underground rappers like Immortal Technique to commercial giants like Jay-Z, rappers throughout the industry have become apologists for or have at least flirted with socialist causes at certain points of their career. With the meteoric rise of outrage culture and identity politics, many rappers such as T.I. have latched on to national trends like Black Lives Matter and have become cultural mouthpieces for progressive causes. Lost in this lurch towards progressivism is how capitalism made rap relevant in the first place. Those recording studios and fancy instruments didn’t just finance themselves. All the necessary inputs to make a rap song and promote a record label require substantial capital to pull off. Unfortunately, this inconvenient fact is lost on many misguided hip-hop artists and commentators in the space. Instead of using their positions of power in the market to improve the lives of others, many rappers have perpetuated the “statist quo” by turning to victim hustling and supporting the very same political agents whose policies have kept countless blacks down. When someone dares to question the political correctness narratives many rappers espouse, they instantly get vapid labels such as “racist” or “white supremacist” slapped on them. One of the most notable cases of this was when Talib Kweli recently smeared Tom Woods for supposedly being a “Nazi” and “racist” due to his libertarian beliefs. The irony is that the policies Tom Woods advocates for—free markets and the abolition of the police state—would actually help the African American community. This is in stark contrast to the policies of the politicians like Bill Clinton—who spearheaded mass incarceration in the 1990s—who Talib Kweli holds in high esteem. Several Glitches in the Matrix That being said, hip-hop has had its fair share of disruptive moments. Although ideological consistency has never been his strong suit, Kanye West did raise interesting points during his tweet storms on the state of minority politics in America. For a brief moment, Kanye West became a glitch in the Matrix as he raised interesting points about blacks’ monolithic support for the Democrat party. In typical fashion, the media was in an uproar over West’s comments. While West’s questions were valid, we must remember, these issues go beyond the two-party system. Civil rights leaders like Malcolm X, especially during his final years, understood that the two-party system had nothing to offer for the black community. While most of the Civil rights movement was focused on top-down solutions like forced integration, racial quotas, and anti-discrimination laws, Malcolm X turned his focus on black self-empowerment through entrepreneurship and private initiative. Sadly, Malcolm X’s ideas died with him and the government activist sect of the Civil rights movement ended up winning out. The rise of hip-hop did bring a glimmer of hope for minorities in its early days, but it appears to be falling down the same path of state-linguistic complex and political correctness culture that has infected other parts of society. There are still some slivers of promise in the hip-hop community now that rapper Killer Mike signaled his support for gun rights. Given the suspect nature of government-provided policing in urban centers, expanded gun rights are a sensible alternative for many minorities. Certain organizations like Black Guns Matter have acknowledged this trend and identified a niche market to tap into as far as firearms education is concerned. Culture Still Matters The challenges dissenting voices in the hip-hop community face are steep. Accusations of being “right-wing extremists”, “race traitors”, or “sell-outs” have been the norm whenever any individual dares to not follow the social justice script. This, however, does not mean hip-hop is a lost cause or should be ignored. If anything, minorities that want to see genuine political change should work to save hip-hop instead of turning to traditional political activism. Powerful influencers in the hip-hop space tend to have more credibility than the empty suits in politics. Political figures like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton receive considerable social proof when rappers endorse them. So it makes more sense for political reformers in the hip-hop space to focus more on building clout in their communities rather than getting involved in every-day politics. Popular culture’s impact on politics cannot be overstated. Hip-hop has left a lot to be desired politically, but there are still avenues for opening up new discussions. This is apparent with the rise of groups such as Black Guns Matter. It would behoove hip-hop culture to avoid the toxic nature of partisan politics and use the same market mechanisms that made hip-hop relevant in the first place as a way to move forward. State intervention is no cure for the many real problems inner-city dwellers face. Hip-hop activists would be wise to recognize this.

Remembering Malcolm X: An Unlikely Advocate for Capitalism

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Criminal Justice, Economic Liberty, News. No Comments on Remembering Malcolm X: An Unlikely Advocate for Capitalism

Today is the 54th anniversary of Civil rights leader Malcolm X’s assassination at the hands of three members of the Nation of Islam. Of the mainstream Civil rights leaders, he was the most controversial — and for a good reason. Born Malcolm Little, Malcolm X went through a rough childhood. His father Earl Little died at a young age and his mother, Louise Norton Little, had to take care of him and his 6 other siblings. Louise Little simply could not make ends meet and eventually had a nervous breakdown and was committed to the Kalamazoo State  Mental Hospital. As a result, Malcolm X and his siblings were placed in separate foster homes. From there, Malcolm X turned to the streets for guidance and became a criminal, adopting the nickname of “Detroit Red”. Eventually, his criminal ways caught up to him and he was sentenced to ten years in prison. While in prison, he became part of the Nation of Islam and took on the name of Malcolm X. With a new identity, Malcolm X pivoted toward political activism and advocated for black nationalism. During his early years in the political arena, Malcolm X declared himself a Communist and became a fierce opponent of whites. By the 1960s, Malcolm X was one of the leading Civil rights leaders alongside Martin Luther King Jr. Why the Establishment Prefers MLK Over Malcolm X MLK ended up becoming the more respected of the two Civil rights leaders. And it should come to no surprise. Malcolm X’s more aggressive nature and anti-white views were a stark contrast to MLK’s calm and hopeful demeanor. Additionally, MLK’s integrationist vision, which formed the basis of top-down legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, received considerable praise in progressive circles. In the church of progressivism, where the state is God, advocacy for statist causes is enough for you to receive sainthood. Even conservative go overboard in their praise of MLK, especially when MLK’s socialist views are considered. Tom Woods did an excellent job exposing MLK’s disdain for capitalism in 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask. MLK was candid in his anti-capitalist views asserting that capitalism could not “meet the needs of poor people” and even advocated for a “democratic form of socialism.” For these reasons, MLK is a darling political figure for legacy institutions. Race Hustlers Selectively Interpret Malcolm X In contrast to MLK, Malcolm X embraced the teachings of the black leader Marcus Garvey, who believed in entrepreneurship and economic self-sufficiency as a means of gaining both economic and political freedom for African Americans. This is overlooked in many political circles where Malcolm X commands considerable respect. In fact, Malcolm X is often praised for the wrong reasons. Cliché talking points about “black power” and hatred of white people have dominated conventional Malcolm X fandom. Unfortunately, many often forget that Malcolm X not only disavowed many of his previous views on whites, but he also held on to the strategies that focused on the private initiative as opposed to government intervention. Malcolm X was no doctrinaire free-marketer but he understood the corrosive nature of the welfare state. After he was released from prison in 1952, he met his mother for the last time at the Kalamazoo State Mental Hospital. Due to her fragile mental state, Louise Little was not able to recognize her son, leaving Malcolm X devastated. This heart-breaking moment made him pause and reflect on how the Michigan welfare state destroyed his family. In his autobiography, Malcolm X recognized the state’s destructive impact on his family:
“I truly believe that if ever a state social agency destroyed a family, it destroyed ours. We wanted and tried to stay together. Our home didn’t have to be destroyed. But the Welfare, the courts, and their doctor, gave us the one-two-three punch.”
These unfortunate series of events were ominous signs of what would be in store for millions of African Americans under the Great Society welfare programs of the 1960s. And they very likely made X skeptical of government as a solution to people’s problems. Libertarian rapper Eric July made an excellent video covering Malcolm X’s views on integration. Malcolm X’s vision was economic centric — emphasizing black entrepreneurship rather than political action. He specifically denounced sit-ins and other actions that led to the adoption of forced integration measures like public accommodation mandates. He expressed his disagreement with this strategy in an interview with Eleanor Fischer:
“Instead of the Negro leaders having the black man begging for a chance to dine in white restaurants, the Negro leader should be showing the black man how to do something to strengthen his own economy, to give himself an independent economy or to provide job opportunities for himself, not begging for a cup of coffee in a white man’s restaurant.”
During a speech in Detroit, Michigan in 1964, Malcolm X re-asserted the necessity for blacks to set-up their own businesses and avoid integrationist activism:
“So our people not only have to be re-educated to the importance of supporting black business, but the black man himself has to be made aware of the importance of going into business. And once you and I go into business, we own and operate at least the businesses in our community. What we will be doing is developing a situation wherein we will actually be able to create employment for the people in the community. And once you can create some employment in the community where you live it will eliminate the necessity of you and me having to act ignorantly and disgracefully, boycotting and picketing some place else trying to beg him for a job.”
Ironically, any suggestions of black self-improvement through entrepreneurship and de-emphasizing political activism are met with accusations of being a “race traitor” or “Uncle Tom” these days. Resurrecting and Preserving Malcolm X’s Ideas On February 21, 1965 — the fateful day in which Malcolm X was murdered —  his ideas died with him. These ideas still have relevance to this day. In a time where the black community is socially disintegrating — as evidenced with the pervasiveness of black on black on violence and the collapse of the black family unit — a message emphasizing entrepreneurship and less reliance on government initiatives is critical. It would behoove minorities to carefully review the unheralded facets of his economic views. In there, they can find the keys to breaking free from the cesspool of government dependency. This part of the Malcolm X story should not wither away into the historical ether. It should be resurrected and preserved for future generations. Rest in peace.

New York is Getting a Lesson in Fiscal Discipline

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics. No Comments on New York is Getting a Lesson in Fiscal Discipline

Facing a $2.3 billion budget deficit, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is blaming the Trump tax reforms for causing this fiscal upheaval. Cuomo asserts that Trump’s tax reforms have raised taxes on wealthy New Yorkers, therefore forcing them to leave the state for friendlier tax climates. There is some truth to Cuomo’s assertion. Trump’s tax reforms in 2017 caps the state and local tax deduction (SALT) that taxpayers can take advantage of. This hits residents of high-tax blue states.  Before the tax reforms were passed, SALT deductions usually averaged $22,000. After the 2017 reforms, however, the deductions have been lowered to $10,000.  Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, taxpayers are limited to deducting a maximum of $10,000 in state income and property taxes combined. That being said, economists like Dan Mitchell argue that the SALT exemptions are actually write-offs for the rich in high-tax states like New York. Mitchell adds that these deductions encourage reckless fiscal behavior:
“Simply stated, greedy politicians in a state like California can boost tax rates and soothe anxious state taxpayers by telling them that they can use their higher payments to Sacramento as a deduction to reduce their payments to Washington.”
New York is getting its very own taste of the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve shows that the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue is not linear. In other words, doubling taxes does not double revenue. For the most part, lower taxes to increase the amount of taxable income in the economy. Lowering the tax rate incentivizes entrepreneurs to produce more, thus growing the economy. However, there are limits to these policies as spending will have to be decreased for deficits to truly be tamed. New York is in desperate need of fiscal reform. According to a report from Michael B. Sauter, New York had the third highest per capita state and local government spending per capita in the nation at $14,647. William P. Ruger and Jason Sorens’s Freedom in the 50 States rankings paint an unflattering picture of New York’s economic climate. With regards to local taxes, New York has work to do:
“New York’s local tax burden is twice that of the average state: 8.5 percent of income in FY 2015. This is a dramatic rise from the early 2000s when it was 7 percent.”
Its overall state tax burden also makes up “a projected 6.8 percent of income in FY 2017”. Last but certainly not least, New York’s debt is the highest in the country at 31.2 percent of income. So, it’s no surprise that New York ranks dead last in fiscal freedom in the Freedom in the 50 States rankings. New York even occupies the last place for overall regulatory policy rankings. New York citizens are taking notice of the state’s unstable economic climate as Freedom in the 50 States highlights how in “the calendar year 2015–16 alone, 166,000 more people moved from New York to another state than moved in.” No matter Andrew Cuomo spins it, he must get New York’s fiscal house in order and make the state more economically competitive by reducing the government’s presence in the economy. If not, fiscal deficits like the one currently making headlines will become the norm and New Yorkers will end up going to lower tax and more business-friendly jurisdictions.

Constitutional Carry Continues To Leave its Mark

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Criminal Justice, Gun Rights, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Constitutional Carry Continues To Leave its Mark

On January 31, 2019, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed Constitutional Carry into law. With Noem’s signature, South Dakota recently became the 14th state to embrace the practice.  Constitutional Carry is the simple concept that an individual who is legally able to possess a gun, should be able to carry it without having to pay expensive fees or go through a bunch of red tape. South Dakota’s recent passage is a good first step in reversing the near century-long push to regulate firearms. Firearm carry liberalization is part of a larger trend that started in the 1980s when states allowed licensed individuals to carry firearms. Fast forward to the present, all 50 states now allow for some degree of licensed carry. According to gun researcher John Lott, there are now 17.25 million concealed weapons permits issued in the United States. With the exception of Vermont, which has had this since the United States’ foundation, it is a relatively new political development. While the rest of the country started to embrace gun control in some shape or form throughout the late 19th century into the 20th century, Vermont’s courts have upheld its lax gun laws in notable State Supreme Court cases like the 1903 State v. Rosenthal decision. For nearly a century, Vermont style carry did not make its way to other states. However, Alaska got the ball rolling in 2003 when it became the first state to waive its requirement for a concealed carry permit. However, there was some lag as Arizona became the next Constitutional Carry state in 2010. In the ensuing decade, 11 states have followed suit in enacting Constitutional Carry. With Republican Senator Nathan Dahm filing Constitutional Carry bill SB 12 late last year, Oklahoma appears to be the next state to adopt it. It also helps that Oklahoma’s new Governor Kevin Stitt has gone on record in support of this legislation. Last year, Constitutional Carry met an untimely demise when Republican Governor Mary Fallin vetoed it. By the end of this year, there may be 15 Constitutional Carry states in America. Although there aren’t many comprehensive studies on the impact it has had on crime rates, there is a reason to believe it won’t spur a sudden wave of crime. Even with gun ownership rates increasing and liberalized firearms carry laws becoming the norm in the past 30 years, crimes rates continue to go down. From 1993 to 2013, for example, per capita, gun ownership increased by 56 percent while gun violence dropped by 49 percent. So there is a reason to believe that additional gun policy liberalization like Constitutional Carry will not have a negative effect on crime. Regardless, Constitutional Carry is not only solid legislation but an effective way for liberty activists to get involved in a politically relevant issue. All politics starts locally, and Constitutional Carry campaigns are a great way to build strong liberty coalitions and promote liberty candidates. Low-hanging fruits should always be exploited. Here’s to more states embracing Constitutional Carry with open arms.