A logical look at liberty by Stephanie E. Watson.

With the Occupy Wall Street and related “occupation” events around the U.S., there seems to be a lot of clinging to this separation between the top 1% of income earners and the other 99% who some OWS activists say they represent. Of course, they’re often quick to say that some people in the 1% are still cool (you know, activists celebrities, the late Steve Jobs, etc.). Anyway, I had being lumped into a percentage, even if I do think the OWS movement is a good thing. So here’s my take one it:

I am not a percentage.

and I want to determine for
MYSELF
who gets to have
MY
money.

I started doing some research on two protests that have been compared a lot lately: The TEA Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street events. I’m hoping to put together a comprehensive list of items comparing these protests side-by-side, but I thought I post a teaser here after this morning’s work on the piece:

ITEM #1: Origins

TEA Party
This movement was first sparked in 2007 as loosely-organized events popping up across the nation. The events originally worked to carry on the message of Ron Paul support rallies throughout the libertarian congressman’s presidential campaign. The message was to stop government spending on just about everything, end the Federal Reserve, and, thus, reduce taxpayers’ obligations to the federal government.
Reference

Occupy Wall Street
This event was first envisioned by media group Adbusters in July 2011 as a Wall Street, New York City, occupation starting September 17, 2011, and lasting “for a few months.” There were no specific demands for action, only the expressions of hatred toward corporatism in the U.S. Soon after the original Adbusters call, a separate group organized a schedule of events and protester-supporting donations through its website, occupywallst.org.
Reference
Reference.

Thanks to Jon Stewart for calling the media out on this.

Plus, in Gov. Perdue’s latest email list post, there was no mention of the word “Republican.” Wow. That’s new.

Ever since I got a rather nasty self-righteous response from Civitas via Twitter when I inquired about the purpose of a perpetuating a tabloid scandal, I’ve put the John W. Pope Civitas Institute on notice. Today, I checked out what they call statistics regarding voter registration changes in North Carolina:

Check it out here to see what I’m talking about.

I was happy to see the innovation behind this neat little tool, but disappointed that after being a valid registered party in North Carolina for over two years, Civitas refuses to acknowledge that a growing portion of voters are actually Libertarian. I assume this is because they are two lazy to add other parties to their tool should those parties ever overcome the steep barriers to entry for onto the N.C. ballot.

It’s not just in the tool, either. This was the blurb in the Civitas email I got back on July 13, 2011, linking to this tool:
“North Carolina’s voter registration trend that began back in 2009 did not change in the month of June. In all, North Carolina added 7,110 voters; Democrats lost 109 voters, Republicans picked up 1,690 and the Unaffiliated ranks grew by 5,310. Wake County saw the biggest gain adding 319 Democrats, 310 Republicans and 807 Unaffiliated voters to their county voter roster. See which parties gained or lost voters in your county.”

I’ve asked representatives at Civitas in the past why they refuse to acknowledge Libertarians, even though the party is on the ballot, running candidates, and growing in numbers. The response was that the Libertarian Party is not statistically significant enough, being such a small percent of voters. They refused to indicate what threshold a political party had to reach before Civitas would deem it statistically significant.

I find Civitas’ excuse amusing given that in the blurb I quoted above, the organization thought it significant to point out the gains and losses of the Democrats and Republicans in June 2011, each less than 0.001% of their respective total voters. Nowhere did Civitas acknowledge that during that same month, the Libertarian Party added about 260 voters, a growth of 2.34%, during that same time.

I think they also figure since we’ve lost ballot access before, we’ll lose it again, leaving Libertarians back in the precious Unaffiliated slot. In fact, I imagine Civitas is banking on it.

Meanwhile, I’d like to point out the following statistics that Civitas has refused to acknowledge:

• Since 2008, the Libertarian Party in N.C. has steadily increased its number of registered voters from zero to over 11,000. During that time, the only other block showing any significant change has been the Unaffiliated block, which has grown significantly.
• The LPNC posts statistics on weekly changes per county at LPNC.org: Click here to see what Civitas isn’t telling you.
• The LP and LPNC are continually growing and will run yet another slate of candidates in 2012, just as they did in 2008 and 2010.
• The Independent, which loathes groups like Civitas to its very core, has at least been sensible enough to acknowledge Libertarians in its reporting. For readers who don’t know, the Independent is as notorious for its bias against Republicans as Civitas is for its bias toward them.

I know that I will never be able to convince groups like Civitas, with its deep-seated prejudices and closed-minded assumptions, that people are starting to raise their voices in protest to “the lesser of two evils” in politics. They think that by ignoring us “statistically insignificant” people, we’ll disappear. I can only hope to hasten the day in which we prove them wrong.

I subscribe to emails from the office of North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue so I can keep an eye on what she’s trying to do to keep herself in power. Usually, the emails are fairly innocuous: the usual attempts to take credit for good things that are happening in N.C. and boast how she and the people in her political party are working to make sure more good things will happen.

This morning’s email, though, was different. Titled “Gov. Perdue fights for education,” it opened by criticizing the budget passed by the N.C. House because of the need to make cuts in education. In reality, the cuts would have been needed no matter who was in charge. Perdue is just spinning it for the sake of partisan politics since her party no longer holds the majority in the House. Let’s review:

In 2009 Perdue took responsibility for the cuts made on teachers, including a mandatory 10-day furlough. “What it does is asks teachers and state workers to step up and help us as we move forward,” Perdue said. This was in lieu of eliminating the overpaid, extraneous administrative positions and departments which are sucking the education system dry. Those proposed cuts amounted to a modest $65 million allocated for all state employees combined. Read more here.

The economic situation hasn’t changed. We still have to make cuts. But…

This year Perdue is taking advantage of the new Republican majority in the House to blame them for making budget cuts affecting public school teachers. “North Carolina’s classrooms, colleges, teachers and children will become the victims of some staggering cuts,” Perdue said. These proposed cuts to education amount to a bold $360 million allocated for public school employees and included adjusting rules around tenure and evaluating of teachers based on performance rather than years of service.

But here’s the kicker: the email exploited a letter her office received from a six-year-old child from Chapel Hill purely for the sake of those same partisan politics. Anyone who has worked with children know how they absorb the words and emotions of the adults around them. This letter is a clear indication of such: a child who has heard that Republicans are bad and will ruin her school and make things hard on teachers, and who has heard that Gov. Perdue has the power to defeat these “bad guys.” Some of the words that popped into my head when I saw Perdue’s office exploiting this letter were “gall,” “nerve,” “malevolence,” and “child exploitation.”

I won’t say anymore. I want the letter to speak for itself. Here’s the letter posted in partial context posted by Chrissy Pearson, Communications Director at Perdue’s office:
http://www.governor.state.nc.us/eTownhall/Blog/post/2011/05/06/We-agree-Amelia.aspx

In case that disappears, I’ve captured a copy here:

In May 2011, Gov. Perdue's office posted a child's letter in an effort to exploit its reference to partisan politics.

When someone says, “Let’s go out for sushi,” I don’t think about whether I can afford a sushi dinner that night or how to fit it into my diet plan. I just get so excited about the possibility of having sushi that I figure I’ll just put it on the credit card and sacrifice next week’s budget to cover it.

This is how many people with political influence have been treating the potential rail projects in North Carolina. Our own Governor Perdue is so excited about it, she’s accepting a $461 million federal grant for rail improvements here in N.C. In the most recent email announcement from her office, she was touting that the rail grant would create 4000 jobs in the state.

The fact is, though, those jobs are costing U.S. taxpayers over $115,000 each. That’s just scratching the surface for what this could cost our state as we know such projects typically go magnitudes over their budget. In addition, most of those new jobs are likely temporary positions for the duration of the improvements.

Who will these rail projects benefit? Well, it will help cover much-needed improvements to the rails, including updates to bridges and crossings. However, these existing rails are owned by private companies. So, you might call it a rail bailout of sorts.

Why the federal investment? Amtrak, the only company providing passenger rail services in North Carolina, is owned and operated by the federal government. They operate on privately-owned rail with the agreement that the owners’ trains (all freight) have higher priority. By investing in the improvements to the rail, the federal government is hoping Amtrak will be able to run at higher speeds and, thus, can run more trains. The commercial rail companies then benefit by not having to pay their rail improvements.

What bothers me most about this is Perdue’s tunnel vision when it comes to rail in North Carolina. These projects will supposedly make it easier for passengers to get back and forth from Raleigh to Charlotte. That’s great if you only want to be in Raleigh or Charlotte. It’s not clear, though, how this will impact the rest of the state. Perdue sees the jobs and the rail that she wants, but she doesn’t care about the costs to the millions of people who will not use the rail: their private property seized, more of their income taxed.

I’m currently reading Atlas Shrugged all the way through for the first time. I put it off after reading the novels Ayn Rand had written before that, intimidated by the size of this, her most famous publication. But, the first movie is coming out soon, and I’d like to get through the book first.

So, when I read about the rail hype going on today, I can’t help but think that people like Perdue are so blinded to the costs that they need a Galt-scale reality check. Hopefully, we will have something like that in the near future thanks to innovators like Patri Friedman and his colleagues at the Seasteading Institute.

In summary, the governor seems content to accept this federal grant as the first step of yet another project draining resources from the rest of our state to benefit the people of Raleigh and Charlotte. The next time I take an Amtrak to Charlotte, I’ll be sure to put a big thank-you sign in the window.

What’s wrong with the following statements?

• They’re building a new restaurant down the street.
• I don’t know what they were thinking when they put a no-parking zone here.
• Do you think they’ll build a commuter rail system here?

The problem is a single pronoun: they

When used in statements like this, I like to call it the royal “they.” This is a nod to the royal “we,” known as the majestic plural, used by monarchs and dignitaries when referring to themselves in first person. I haven’t done any research into the history of the majestic plural, but the “we” seems to imply that the person is not an individual but speaking on behalf of an assumed group. Similarly, what I’m calling the royal “they” implies an assumed group that is separate from us as individuals.

Why is the royal “they” such a problem? Here are my two reasons:

1. Unlike the royal “we,” where we have some idea as to the people that “we” refers to, the royal “they” is left to the listener to determine. This changes the meaning of a given statement based on who’s reading it.
2. The use of an anonymous third person implies that the speaker is disconnected from the group referred to as “they,” and, consequently, that the individual has no responsibilities within that group.

As a researcher and writer, the royal “they” is one of my pet peeves because of reason one above. Reason two bothers me for a completely different reason: its impact on public perception. To explain what I mean, I will use one of the statements above:

I don’t know what they were thinking when they put a no-parking zone here.

The first thing I want to ask when I hear something like this is, “Who are ‘they’?” If it’s private property, you might assume it’s the property owner. If it’s public property, you might assume it’s the government entity that owns it. If it’s a city street managed by a large municipal government, you might assume it’s bureaucrats running a department within that government. Without identifying the specific group, the speaker makes the following assumptions about that group:

• The listener knows the group.
• The listener isn’t part of the group.

If the “they” in the example statement is a government entity, the impact of the statement on public perception becomes more evident. To see this, read the example side-by-side with an improved version:

• I don’t know what they were thinking when they put a no-parking zone here.
• I don’t know what city planners were thinking when they put a no-parking zone here.

The first statement forces the listener to ignore the significance of the group referred to by “they.” Instead, they form an opinion of the actions “they” have taken without acknowledging the individuals who took those actions. In short, the statement, and thus the speaker, comes out sounding pretentious and dismissive.

The second statement invites the listener to evaluate the statement against any existing thoughts he or she has of the group. Not only is the statement more relevant for the listener, but the speaker sounds more intellectually engaged in the topic. Rather than pretension toward some anonymous “they,” the speaker conveys a true concern for the impact of the group on his or her life.

It’s another of my examples above, though, that reveals my deepest concern for how the royal “they” impacts public perception:

What group is “they” in this question? Is it the people who actually build the rail or just those who plan and pay for it? Is the speaker assuming that a government entity is responsible, or will a group of private investors suffice? If it’s the government, which government: city? county? state? federal? The fact is, we don’t know. Instead, we’re left to assume only that “they” is not “me” or “we.” It’s the subtle pretension that we’ve grown accustomed to when we see ourselves as consumers rather than contributors.

So, can we avoid the royal “they”? I know I’ll probably slip once in a while, but I am challenging myself and my readers to change that trend and observe how it impacts your feelings and conversations. You should be able to replace the pronoun, even in a generalized sense such as “people who live in my town” or “city officials” or “school teachers.” Here’s the tip: if your listeners have to ask “Who are they?” then don’t use “they” at all.

My friend Tom Hohman sent this to me a few weeks ago, and I finally took time to read it. I am not sure who wrote it originally, but I thought I’d share it here.
===
Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota. All three go with a White House official to examine the fence.

The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. “Well,” he says, “I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me.”

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, “I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me.”

The Chicago contractor doesn’t measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, “$2,700.”

The official, incredulous, says, “You didn’t even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?”

The Chicago contractor whispers back, “$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence.”

“Done!” replies the government official .

Even popular comedian Stephen Colbert has picked up on what has become a misrepresented story about the changes in school assignments in Wake County. My commentary on the matter is overdue, so I’m taking time for a short post today. I hope I have some time to do a more in-depth story later from a libertarian perspective.

NOTE: Because board positions are non-partisan, I will refrain from labeling school board members with political party affiliations or political activist movements. I think creating this unnecessary association serves only as an emotional trigger than changes how the reader reacts to the facts. I challenge any reputable media outlet to do the same.

Here’s a summary of the situation: The current school board majority, elected in 2009, supports assignments to schools based solely on location. This is a reverse of a decade-old assignment strategy that identified certain students who would be bussed to schools in other parts of the county in an attempt to ensure no school had more than 40% of its students who qualified for free or reduced lunches.

Considering Colbert’s brutal yet entertaining satire on the situation, I have to point out that he, like many others, have been focusing only on select facts in this case. The NAACP and other civil rights organizations misrepresent the situation as “going backwards” and “resegregation.” However, the Wake school board majority is, in no way, claiming a desire to reverse the free integration of schools. Instead, it’s trying to reverse a school assignment strategy that’s not only an expensive (and environmentally unfriendly) approach to assignment, but also for which there is absolutely no data indicating an improved quality of education for students.

Furthermore, isn’t the assignment strategy, itself, a form of systematic discrimination? I mean, it requires forcing individuals to do something they might not want to do solely on the basis of economic status. How is that not discrimination?

So let’s summarize… Wake is trying to trim its budget by putting aside an expensive and ineffective program, and it is no longer assigning people to schools based on race or socio-economic status. Because it has ended a form of systematic discrimination, it is now accused of racism and bigotry.

It certainly isn’t easy for a poorer family to move into a wealthier area. The words and actions of civil rights organizations, though, suggest that poorer students are entitled to attending school with wealthier students, all at the taxpayers’ expense. Has Wake County been in its bubble of prosperity and entitlement so long it has lost its sense of logic and reason? This program is a privilege, not an entitlement. If people want a “diversity” assignment policy to continue, shouldn’t they work to find a reasonable no-cost compromise instead of focusing so much energy on their hatred for those who want to end the policy?

Personally, part of me wants to laugh at how pretentious the civil rights organizations in Wake County are being. I grew up in the north part of neighboring Johnston County. There, my small 1-A high school was not only 10 miles from home, but also an additional 15 miles from the next available high school (a 4-A) in the same system. That was average at that time, though some students lived over 15 miles from their closest middle or high school. Johnston County couldn’t have afforded a socio-economic school assignment program like Wake County, nor could they have reasonably implemented it. So I have a difficult time finding sympathy for Wake County students when the lowest rated school in Wake County still had more resources than my high school had back in 1991, before Wake’s “diversity” assignment policy was implemented. (Despite all that, I think most of us turned out alright.

But I digress. I’ll just end this post by saying that the attacks on the current Wake school board are getting out of hand. People need to calm down, take a deep breath, get all the facts, and look at the big picture.

In Libertarian groups this time of year, this piece by Harry Browne is often recirculated to remind us of our goals as a political party. Personally, because of my passion for logic and reason, I have had a difficult time adhering to some of these resolutions. However, with a candidate experience behind me, plus the encouraging signs of an increased interest in liberty in the U.S., I am tacking this set of resolutions to the wall behind my desk, and I will make sure that each piece I write, and hopefully every conversation I engage in, will achieve these goals in 2011 and forward.

A Libertarian’s New Year’s Resolutions

1. I resolve to *sell* liberty by appealing to the self-interest of each prospect, rather than *preaching* to people and expecting them to suddenly adopt my ideas of right and wrong.

2. I resolve to keep from being drawn into arguments or debates. My purpose is to inspire people to want liberty — not to prove that they’re wrong.

3. I resolve to *listen* when people tell me of their wants and needs, so I can help them see how a free society will satisfy those needs.

4. I resolve to identify myself, when appropriate, with the social goals someone may seek — a cleaner environment, more help for the poor, a less divisive society — and try to show him that those goals can never be achieved by government, but will be well served in a free society.

5. I resolve to be compassionate and respectful of the beliefs and needs that lead people to seek government help. I don’t have to approve of their subsidies or policies — but if I don’t acknowledge their needs, I have no hope of helping them find a better way to solve their problems.

6. No matter what the issue, I resolve to keep returning to the central point: how much better off the individual will be in a free society.

7. I resolve to acknowledge my good fortune in having been born an American. Any plan for improvement must begin with a recognition of the good things we have. To speak only of America’s defects will make me a tiresome crank.

8. I resolve to focus on the ways America could be so much better with a very small government — not to dwell on all the wrongs that exist today.

9. I resolve to cleanse myself of hate, resentment, and bitterness. Such things steal time and attention from the work that must be done.

10. I resolve to speak, dress, and act in a respectable manner. I may be the first libertarian someone has encountered, and it’s important that he get a good first impression. No one will hear the message if the messenger is unattractive.

11. I resolve to remind myself that someone’s “stupid” opinion may be an opinion I once held. If *I* can grow, why can’t I help *him* grow?

12. I resolve not to raise my voice in any discussion. In a shouting match, no one wins, no one changes his mind, and no one will be inspired to join our quest for a free society.

13. I resolve not to adopt the tactics of Republicans and Democrats. They use character assassination, evasions, and intimidation because they have no real benefits to offer Americans. We, on the other hand, are offering to set people free — and so we can win simply by focusing on the better life our proposals will bring.

14. I resolve to be civil to my opponents and treat them with respect. However anyone chooses to treat me, it’s important that I be a better person than my enemies.

Originally published by Harry Browne in 1998.