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

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Author: Remso Martinez

The Brexit Party Shows Why America’s Two-Party System is Illiberal

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage is back in the United Kingdom to ensure that Brexit becomes a reality. Three years ago, the British voted to leave the European Union and return much of their lost sovereignty and self-determination back to their country. Since then, the major parties – ranging from the Labour Party, Conservative Party, and UKIP – have wrestled with leadership changes as they attempt to either push Brexit forward according to schedule or try to slyly forgo Brexit entirely. Now, with British Prime Minister Theresa May widely unpopular and British voters even more upset with the slow process, it only makes sense that Farage would return to ensure that the effort he and his movement spent over 27  years can finally come to fruition. In the UK, competing parties that participate and get elected based on a mix of plurality and rank choice voting known in the UK as first past the post voting. Without going into too much detail as to how elections in the UK work, what is important is the fact their democratic institutions allows for competing third-parties that allow for voters to have a real impact in the way coalition governments are formed and to ensure their voices are understood by the political class. In the United States, rigged institutions such as the Commission on Presidential Debates prevent third-party candidates from getting on the debate stage because Democrats and Republicans want to ensure the two-party system stays amongst them. The relevant saying that “picking between two parties is like only picking between only two flavors of ice cream,” is still true to this day. From ballot access requirements to other legalities that prevent third parties from making a real impact, American voters are deprived of an authentic voice for their needs each election. When the American people have less political freedom than the nation we broke away from in 1776, we have to start asking whether the old two parties truly care about our liberty as voters, or if we are meant to stay in this permanent state of choosing which party can take away more of our freedoms in the next election.

Occupational Licenses From All Fifty States Now Accepted in Arizona

While states will tell consumers that the purpose of an occupational license is to ensure consumer safety and a basic level of knowledge before entering the workplace, anyone who has gone through the process knows that these licenses limit market competition. Arizona is paving the way for worker freedom by recognizing occupational licenses issued from other states. This is a win for Arizona’s economy since workers from around the country will see this as an expanded chance for economic opportunity. While this is something to be celebrated, this legislation granting license reciprocity only goes so far in terms of labor freedom. More often than not, occupational licenses are purposefully expensive and can take a long time to secure. This often prevents workers from earning them in order to protect existing businesses. This model still does not guarantee the quality, only competency and the ability to afford to pay the necessary fees associated with the license they are trying to obtain. In a free market, the consumer is the ultimate check over a producer and service provider’s reputation. What is the importance of a license if one worker is efficient at their job and the other is inadequate? Ultimately skill and reputation is the best determiner of quality amongst consumers. Lastly, far too many career paths which you would never assume require occupational licenses. From hair braiding to bartenders and real estate agents, licenses limit the potential for people willing to work to enter the workplace, and the license ultimately says nothing about their quality as an employee. While free market supporters should cheer for this step in the right direction, there is still work to be done to empower workers and allow people of all socioeconomic classes the opportunity to pursue whatever career paths they choose.

Philadelphia Democrats Learn Hard Lesson About Soda Tax

“The road to hell was paved with good intentions,” a wise man once said. The City of Philadelphia learned that the hard way after a scandal brought forth jailtime for some elected officials, damaged reputations for many others, and killed jobs in the process. Of course, I’m talking about one of the most destructive, citywide tax proposals ever enacted in Western Civilization – the Philadelphia Soda Tax. It was discovered that a local union boss and a city councilman teamed up to enact a tax on soda in order to settle a grudge with a strong Teamsters union. The plot was simple: by raising the taxes on soda, fewer people could afford to buy it, which meant fewer deliveries for Teamsters. The bill was packaged more altruistically by saying its intentions were to curb public obesity rates by coercing buyer habits, and that proceeds from the soda tax specifically would go towards local schools. Things didn’t go as planned, however, once the tax became law. Local businesses like CVS even eliminated some jobs because of profit loss and the community was in an uproar.  With public trust on the chopping block, Philadephia Democrats are promoting the sitting councilmembers to ax the tax while they have the opportunity. Ultimately the damage is done and the community that keeps Philadephia moving will have to pick up the pieces caused by bought-politicians and corrupt union leaders. Additionally, this shows a powerful lesson that taxes can be used as a mechanism to ultimately harm an otherwise healthy economy. Philadephia’s poverty rate is already a visible conundrum, but attempting to curb dietary habits and find more cash for schools means nothing if families are left poorer in the process.

Democrat Presidential Candidates Target the Death Penalty

Within the past month, many of the dozens of Democrats running for the party’s nomination for president in 2020 came out against the death penalty after former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper announced that, if elected president, he would suspend the death penalty. While this has not been a hot button issue in an election cycle – which has already been marked with plans for the abolishment of the Electoral College, gun confiscation, and socialized medicine – this might be the most humane decision made by any of the current contenders in the race by restricting a form of state action. Since the death penalty is a state-sanctioned decision, it does not often receive attention during presidential discussions. However, when has a candidate in either party not wanted to use federal power in the last 160 years to issue proclamations against state’s rights? The constitutional argument aside, the death penalty has strong opposition across the board ranging from progressives to conservatives. Libertarians have historically been opposed to the death penalty since it is the belief that life should only be taken in an immediate act of self-defense. In situations of potentially lethal assault against a non-violent individual or in acts of war between opposing military forces, violence and the imminent threat of death is understood. However, just as it was wrong for Cain to murder his brother Abel for no reason other than greed, libertarians believe that it is just as wrong to put a person in a cage, walk them leashed to execution, and take the life of a person who has no ability to fight back. Whether secular or religious, libertarians stand for the right to maintain and protect life. While Hickenlooper’s opposition to the death penalty should be admired, his executive action to restrict the rights of states to make their own legal decisions is both undemocratic and unconstitutional. Therefore, it is the moral responsibility of all individuals who believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to oppose unjust actions by those in authority and to organize into effect changes in their community, state, and nation. Only then will righteous people have the legal and moral high ground in the courts of law and of public opinion.

What King and Kennedy Remind Us About Politically Motivated Violence

The first week of April in 1968, America was shaken to its core when Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Bobby Kennedy were both assassinated. King was killed in Tennessee by a white supremacist and Kennedy, by a mentally ill individual who hated what he stood for. This happened after Kennedy had just been announced the winner of the Democratic primary in California. In the summer of 1968, both men had been criticized by both their movements and parties for the harsh stance they took against the war in Vietnam, as well as the institution of the draft. While Americans stood on either side of the fence in terms of these political decisions – unlike most nations throughout history where factionalism led to civil war, it was always the American tradition and mindset to settle these decisions through our lawmakers and in the courts so our country would not spiral into violence ever again. The assassination of King and Kennedy would lead to a summer of violence throughout the country, with most historians pointing to the Chicago riots at the Democratic National Convention which appeared to have caused mass disenfranchisement in our political and law enforcement institutions. Ultimately, the martyrdom of King and Bobby Kennedy still has an impact on American culture and our political fabric as a whole. We still speak of them and remember their messages of peace and civil dialogue with sincerity – yet often forget the names of the men who killed King and Kennedy would kill their ideas and the commitment of those who believed in those ideas. Libertarians believe and practice a non-aggression principle, and believe that no act of force, violence, or coercion should ever be used to obtain political power and influence. This non-aggression principle leads and intertwines itself into the rest of the libertarian ethic as a whole since the focus of liberty derives and is powered by the power of the individual, crafted by their creator with inalienable rights. History shows that all movements rooted in violence and goals obtained only through violent means ultimately end by their own hand. The legacies of King and Kennedy remind us years later that peace is a stronger unifier than fear, and love is a larger motivator than hatred. Only those that understand this can be depended on to maintain the free society we all cherish and hope to expand to other areas of life.

Your Uber/Lyft Gig Wasn’t Supposed to Replace Your Job

A series of strikes and protest amongst drivers who contracted with either Lyft or Uber popped up between Los Angeles and San Fransisco last week. The issue at hand is the status of the drivers – a status they feel doesn’t reflect the reality of their day to day lives. Now, labor groups and politicians are using this growing dissatisfaction with the two big ridesharing companies to try and push them into changing their entire business model. The premise behind both Uber and Lyft is quite simple. You have your day to day job, or maybe you’re in-between jobs, and you need an easy way to get some extra spending cash so, at the same time, you can adjust your own preferences such as when and where you drive to based off what suits you best. These ride-sharing services were supposed to be just that, an easy way for people to make quick money giving someone else a ride. However, the growing number of Uber drivers ranging from cab drivers to folks who prefer to drive for these companies full-time has skyrocketed since their inception, and now these full-time drivers want to be treated as full-time employees instead of just contractors; as in contractors who don’t receive any type of employee benefits like contractors in other industries. Everyday freelancers and independent contractors in various industries find themselves in situations such as these full-time drivers. They don’t get vacations or paid sick days, they don’t get overtime pay, there are no healthcare benefits other than what they provide themselves. You don’t see contractors in other fields using app-based services such as Freelancer, Fiverr, or Upwork complaining about a lack of benefits. By changing the business model of Lyft and Uber in order to accommodate people that have misused and distorted its purpose, you would, in essence, cause massive issues for regular folks who activate their ridesharing app to drive customers irregularly, as these apps were intended to be used as, for irregular drivers. While there are some areas of concern, the primary issue brought on by the protesting drivers is collective bargaining. It makes no sense to seek collective bargaining rights for an organization who was not supposed to be your full-time employer when you consented to drive for them. By attempting to push this collective bargaining pill down the throats of Uber and Lyft, you are therefore about to systematically eradicate the enterprise which was earning you money in the process. Therefore, these protests will harm Uber, Lyft, and other app-based services thus harming consumers and contractors in the end.

The Impact of Identity Politics in the Rwandan Genocide

On April 7, I joined several hundred Rwandan refugees, diplomats, and friends of the nation as we marched in Washington D.C. to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the beginning of the April 7- July 3, 1994, massacre that left one million people murdered and more than half the country’s female population raped. Experts claim every minute of the genocide, six Rwandans were murdered. The UN Peacekeepers who were meant to maintain order in Rwanda retreated, leaving the Hutu majority to murder every Tutsi man, woman, and child they could find. Sadly, the history of the twentieth century shows that mankind has learned very little from our actions and inactions. Specifically, the weaponization of identity politics to turn human beings into objects, literally anything less than a living, breathing person. State-owned radio stations put out 24/7 propaganda stating that the Tutsis, the ethnic minority in Rwanda were “cockroaches” and “vermin.” One of the survivors who spoke about her testimony told the crowd of diplomats and spectators when she was nine-years-old, her Hutu teacher told the students to divide the room based on the student’s ethnic identity. The nine-year-old at the time had no clue who she was, so she went home to ask her parents whether she was Hutu or Tutsi. They replied, “You are a child of God, it doesn’t matter what else you are.” Sadly, friends and neighbors turned on her when the Hutu-controlled government issued a proclamation to purge Rwanda of all Tutsis. She is thankful to have survived, but of the nine members of her family, only she and two younger sisters lived. Rwanda today is a beacon of economic growth and social liberalization, with more than half of the elected political seats in their government held by women – more so than any other country in the world. Leaders such as Tutsi and current president Paul Kagame and his liberation army were able to end the genocide – but instead of falling into a vengeful bloodlust –  they chose to focus on unification and non-violence instead of destroying what little they had left of their nation. As we remember the Rwandan genocide, the Armenian genocide, and the Holocaust, free people must never forget that the largest minority on earth is the individual and that the collectivist scourge of identity politics is meant to divide and enslave through means of coercion, force, and violence. The best way to remember those who died and those who still live is to reflect on history, and carry those lessons into our day to day lives.

Rod Serling’s Fight Against Censorship

As the new Twilight Zone series captures the attention of both old and new audiences, viewers can thank the tenacity and creative integrity of show creator and host Rod Serling for the thriller-horror series that inspired so much of modern, American pop culture. Because of Serling’s commitment to telling stories that touched on sensitive and controversial social issues –  censorship almost ended the Twilight Zone completely. Written and pitched to various networks before landing at CBS, the socially conscious nature of the Twilight Zone made many producers fear that middle-class Americans during the Era of Good Feelings would tune out of the series because of the hinted themes of race relations, xenophobia, McCarthyism, and nuclear holocaust. Through the mechanism of storytelling, Serling was able to convey messages to the audience during the show’s original five-year run starting in 1959 that no other show on television had ever done. However the fact that the Twilight Zone, which was far from a rating machine, has been able to remain alive with a loyal fanbase shows the series’ lasting messages still resonate with generations of new viewers, who might not be aware of the social and political context of the episodes unless they watch them with the intent of doing so. While Serling was not a libertarian, his ethos of peace, tolerance, and individual liberty made some episodes stand out from others. Critically acclaimed storylines such as “The Obsolete Man” deal explicitly with a statist government which dictates the opportunities and outcomes of its people, going as far as to intentionally execute individuals deemed “obsolete” if the state no longer sees that as having a purpose. During Serling’s time as well as the Twilight Zone writers, most of which had lived and fought through WWII, Nazism was still a fresh memory as well as the looming crisis of fascism and communism. Episodes like this remind viewers that a brief look at the manmade atrocities committed by governments against civilian populations in the Twentieth century alone show that the concepts discussed and fleshed out in the Twilight Zone series such as “The Obsolete Man” truly stand on the line of fiction mirroring reality. As a new Twilight Zone series begins, viewers can only hope it follows in the socially conscious footsteps of its predecessor while emphasizing peace, tolerance, and individual liberty.

What Yang and Trump Get Right (and Wrong) About the Working Class

Recently on an episode of the Ben Shapiro Sunday Special, Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang sat down with Shapiro to discuss his campaign’s messages ranging from automation to his most controversial policy stance of Universal Basic Income. Yang has made inroads with many former Trump supporters and working-class Democrats who fear that automation, corporate special interests, and outsourcing will remove them from the workforce and make them irrelevant. In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump spoke directly to this segment of the American populace who felt they were cannon fodder for the future political landscape, and through tax deals and tariffs, Trump ensured them they would get to keep their job in his economy whereas Hillary and many beltway academics snidely told miners in West Virginia to “learn to code.” Understanding the pain of the American worker was key to Trump’s victory in working-class blue states, but this is also why outsider candidate and businessman Andrew Yang has been able to go from obscure, fringe candidate to one of the most interesting candidates of this cycle. Yang’s respect for the capitalist system combined with his dystopian outlook of the automated future is what is creating a similar coalition to what we saw mobilize the effort to strike against establishment politics in both parties and take him to the White House. While Trump, Yang, and dare I say even Bernie Sanders may identify the issue Americans fear of the future, they often ignore the sensible solutions right before them. Instead of tariffs, protectionist policies, or new and/or bigger government programs, the answer is more freedom in every sense of the word. Eliminating many of the burdensome and confiscatory income taxes placed on the middle and working class would return a sense of pride and economic freedom to millions of Americans. Secondly, eliminating barriers to earn an income are key to individual free enterprise since most occupational licensures and certifications are less about occupational safety and more of a way to keep competition out of the market. America didn’t become the richest and most industrious country in the world simply because of good opportunities and resources, it did because of the unfettered and unrestricted nature of its number one resource and export; the ingenuity of its people who see what others deem as nothing and turn it into profit and a way to change all our lives for the better. As cliche as it sounds, the answer is simply more freedom, less government.

Combating the Myths of Heartless Libertarianism

For the course of two years, I challenged myself to answer a very complicated set of questions. Namely, why are libertarians’ stereotypes so negative, and why have they been allowed to fester and spread through popular culture, the media, and academia like a plague? It seems that despite the massive growth in exposure and understanding of libertarian ideas throughout the country, these concepts and principles are almost always on the defensive in every environment, an indication that despite all successes, libertarianism will always be on the losing side of an argument. In my book “Stay Away From the Libertarians!”, I discussed the sources of animosity towards libertarian and classical liberal schools of thoughts. The primary issue at hand is that through forcible censorship in the media and ostracism in academia, statists on the right and left sides of the political spectrum bring up our political views and discuss it instead of us, and almost never favorably. In my time as a public speaker often making the case for free markets and constitutional conservatism, the primary opposition to libertarian principles almost always was that our ideals are heartless, callous, and would lead to the outright destruction of civilization. After all, in the minds of those indoctrinated by statist ideologies, who other than the government would construct pothole-ridden roads and arrest your family members for owning a plant? Libertarianism is not a religion, first and foremost; it is a guiding set of secular principles that speak to the better side of human nature defending the inalienable rights of self-ownership, property rights, and liberty. Unlike statism, which is found within modern progressivism and neoconservative circles, libertarianism doesn’t seek to answer all of life’s questions. Statism seeks to explain that without a monopoly of force and violence, the comfort of civilization could not exist, despite historical evidence that the state monopoly of force has been the leading cause of unnatural death in human history, with the philosophy of communism being the number one murderer of individuals in the twentieth century alone. Libertarianism doesn’t seek to give you the answers to life, but it does state humbly that the best person to control your life is you. Individual cooperation isn’t favorable to force or coercion, and free markets based on voluntary principles are more effective and productive compared to any central control the state can issue from the top down. As bestselling author and economist Matt Kibbe so eloquently said, libertarianism can be distilled down to “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.” So next time someone attempts to say libertarians are careless monsters, remind them who advocates for their natural rights, and who usually attempts to take more of them away.

Arkansas Declares War on Cauliflower Rice

Have no fear Arkansas’ rice industry, the lawmakers are here to protect you from the threat of cauliflower frauds. A recent article from Vice News has dived into a rather strange law passed in Arkansas regarding food labeling that hopes to manipulate the minds of consumers and cause a lot of confusion in the process. According to reporter Bettina Markalintal:
“The Arkansas bill outlines how food words can be used. ‘Rice,’ it states, can only mean ‘the whole, broken, or ground kernels’ from the species Oryza sativa L. or Oryza glaberrima, or from one of the four grass species in the Zizania or Porteresia genus (i.e., wild rice). Violating those labels could mean fines…By that definition, most alt-rices would need to find a new name, since squishing a head of cauliflower through a ricer definitely doesn’t meet that criteria and neither does chickpea ‘rice.'”
Why is food labeling such a big deal in the first place? No manufacturer of cauliflower rice was calling it anything else, much less calling it plain-old “rice.” The root of the issue is really about one of Arkansas’ main exports: rice. Following the old practice of economic protectionism, lobbyists from big rice signed a formal public letter complaining about the rise in popularity that these carbs substitutes have been earning among the health-conscious. If you’re a politician that wants to stay in the good graces of big rice, you’d be best to heed their call. The statement released by USA Rice declared war on “rice pretenders” way back in 2017 when they requested more regulation regarding food labeling. According to president and CEO of USA Rice, “[v]egetables that have gone through a ricer are still vegetables, just in a different form” and went on to draw a legal line in the sand stating that “only rice is rice.” This is the same person who a year later began to intimidate the cauliflower rice-loving community calling the food “a bit malicious and maybe nefarious.” Is there anything in the Arkansas Constitution, or in the the US Constitution, that mentions anything regarding how food should be labeled? At the end of the day, consumers that want cauliflower rice will still go out and find cauliflower rice whether it’s called “extremely minced cauliflower” or “cauliflower bits.” No amount of laws or regulations other than outright banning the product will prevent consumers from being deterred by big rice’s plot to effect cauliflower rice marketing. Like many times before in other industries, this is the iron triangle of lobbyists, regulators, and lawmakers attempting to rig the market against consumers and innovators once again.

Friendly Cryptocurrency Environment Coming to Colorado

Typically when you hear the words “cryptocurrency” and “regulation” in the same sentence, it includes a sad tale about some dinosaur politicians enacting laws that will restrict consumer access to Bitcoin and other altcoins. Instead – for the first time in the United States –  we might have something that will go ahead and stop those dinosaurs from touching cryptocurrencies in the first place. A recent bill signed in the state of Colorado called the Digital Token Act will essentially restrict regulators from enacting many of the draconian laws the federal government and many other foreign nations have to restrict the access and trading of cryptocurrencies. According to CCN, “The new legislation also exempts crypto broker-dealers and salespeople from state licensing requirements under limited circumstances.” This is a brave move for the government of Colorado to place limits on their reach compared to states like New York which has been on a campaign for years trying to kill their booming crypto-industry. The article continues saying that “The pro-bitcoin law is part of a move to elevate Colorado into a tech hub for decentralized ‘Web 3.0’ platforms by making it easier for entrepreneurs to launch blockchain and crypto-centric businesses. Lawmakers hope this will bolder Colorado’s economy by creating new jobs and luring venture capitalists, developers, and investors to the state.” The bill is far from perfect, limiting actions to “consumption” and placing limitations on “speculative or investment” purposes, but in an environment where regulators place limitations on consumers, this bill largely regulates the regulators themselves. Bitcoin and other cryptos are illegal to trade with and mine for in many countries, since the blockchain based technology undermines the rule of authoritarian regimes and enables private transactions to be made between people. For the last several years especially, regulators in the United States have been trying with little success to stamp out the wild west of crypto and bring it under their control. Libertarians believe that sound money is a natural right to all free men and women and that the market is the ultimate determiner of what consumers decide to trade as value for value. Whether its physical gold coins or a Bitcoin wallet on your phone, consumers have the right to opt out of government-backed fiat currency powered by private, central bankers if they so choose.