From the Archives - Present at the creation: YAF co-founder Carol Dawson remembers the 1960 Sharon Conference

Present at the creation: YAF co-founder Carol Dawson remembers the 1960 Sharon Conference
September 8, 2010 11:52 PM MST

A noteworthy anniversary will be commemorated this Saturday, September 11.

Most people, of course, associate that date with the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. On that day 50 years ago, however, a group of young Americans came together to lay the foundation for a conservative revolution that transformed U.S. politics for the next two generations.

On September 11, 1960, the Sharon Statement was issued. The Sharon Statement concisely listed the values and goals of the then-nascent conservative movement. Historian John A. Andrew says in his book, The Other Side of the Sixties, that it was “a short but definitive exposition of conservative principles that became their ideological compass.”

The Sharon Statement says, for instance, that “liberty is indivisible,” that “political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom,” and that the “purpose of government is to protect those freedoms.”

An immediate result of the Sharon Conference (so named for its location at William F. Buckley’s home, Great Elm, in Sharon, Connecticut) was the founding of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF).

Present at the Creation
Earlier this year – on Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, by coincidence -- the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner had an opportunity to speak with Carol G. Dawson, one of the participants at the Sharon Conference and a founder of Young Americans for Freedom.

Dawson, who now lives in Lancaster County on Virginia’s Northern Neck, described the atmosphere at the meeting as electrifying.

“My feelings at the time,” she explained, “were of being overwhelmed because the intellectual caliber of all those people was just astounding. I learned a lot. Of course, some of the giants like Bill Buckley and Brent Bozell and others who were there became more real to me,” because of her subsequent interactions with them.

The meeting also abated feelings of isolation of that era’s young conservatives, she said.

“There’s a lot to be said for finding out you are not alone,” she said. “You’re not alone, there are other people who are like you, who feel the way you do, who are motivated” to take action to advance their shared values.

Early Days
In the early days of YAF, Dawson said, “a lot of time was spent in spirited debate about the by-laws of the organization, what kind of board of directors it would have, and how we would re-elect board of directors or replace them.”

There were challenges, too.

“The early days were a bit rough,” Dawson remembered. “There were a lot of people who were thrown off the board and that sort of thing.”

Despite bumps in the road, “it led to some really close friendships, as well. I would have to say that the people I knew through that organization today rank as my closest friends other than family,” she noted, smiling, “So we must have been doing something right.”

The Sharon Statement, Dawson said, remains relevant half a century later.

“I think it clarifies,” she explained. “It clarifies the issues that are still important and always will be important. To bring in the title of [M. Stanton Evans’] book, ‘The Theme Is Freedom;’ that’s still what it’s all about.”

The Legacy
Four years after Sharon, its momentum launched Barry Goldwater’s campaign for President.

In 1971, disaffected YAFers founded the Libertarian Party. Other YAFers set up and ran think tanks and advocacy groups.

By 1980, the movement begotten at Sharon triumphed in the election of Ronald Reagan.

Five decades on, echoes of the Sharon Statement can be heard in the chants of the Tea Party and seen on the placards carried at events like next Sunday’s 9/12 Taxpayers March on Washington.

As Dawson said, “the theme is freedom” and that’s what it’s all about.


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 8, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Guest Post: Helping Hurricane Victims - There’s an App for That

by Nick Freiling

Everyone talks about changing the world. Gret Glyer is actually doing it.

When Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, Glyer contacted the “Cajun Navy”—volunteers from Louisiana who went to Houston to rescue flood victims. He asked how he could best support their efforts to rescue stranded Texans.

Source: NOAA

After chatting, Glyer set up a new project on DonorSee, an app he himself created. Twenty-four hours later, he sent the Cajun Navy $5,000 to pay for gas. Three days later, $5,000 more.

Within three days of making contact, Glyer had put thousands of gallons of gas into their boats—the same boats many saw on CNN pulling people from flooded buildings.

How is that possible?

Glyer’s app, DonorSee, is a P2P app that connects donors with the needy in real-time, using video, photos, and direct money transfers. The concept is bafflingly simple: allow aid workers to post projects to the DonorSee feed as they would post a photo or video on Instagram. They explain the need, specify the funds needed, then provide real-time updates as donations pour in. Donors give with the press of a button, with all payments processed through Stripe.

When the project is funded, the post closes.

Glyer says, “DonorSee accomplishes two new things: Directly connects people with third-world and disaster-related needs, and ensures 100% transparency about where dollars are going.”

DonorSee now operates in 50 countries. The feed shows a huge variety of fundable needs, from life-saving medical supplies and procedures in Thailand to school tuition for promising students in Malawi. Often, projects are small enough that just a few donors can meet the entire need (often saving a life). Other times, hundreds of donors contribute to single projects, like building a well or water filtration system in poor villages.

Like GoFundMe, the app rewards high-quality posts. Donors can rate the quality of post authors and are told to expect real-time updates about how their funds are being used. If this doesn’t happen, donors can stop supporting those authors.

Glyer says his goal is to change the world—he says DonorSee is the answer to meeting acute, poverty- and disaster-related needs around the world.

After Harvey, it’s hard to disagree.

A 10-minute phone call. An 80-word post. A two-minute video. A few tweets and Facebook updates. This is all it took to collect $10,000 from more than 250 individual donors, from all around the world, to send directly and immediately to the Cajun Navy.

“This is 2017. If people want to give directly to the needy, they should be able to do that immediately, anytime, anywhere,” Glyer says. “That’s what DonorSee does.”

DonorSee is a realistically hopeful app. Glyer believes in the eagerness of people to help one another and uses the power of real-time video to make that happen. In that way, it relies on the same goodwill that underlies the sharing economy—trust in each other, and faith that continuous feedback loops will reward good, honest work.

But DonorSee is also a reaction to the grossly ineffective and corrupt “big charity” model that has the giving industry stuck in the twentieth century. While we can tip our Uber drivers directly and in real-time, we send aid to hurricane victims through massive, archaic organizations—thousands of employees, some paid millions annually, who all sit together in a neighborhood of limestone buildings just north of Capitol Hill.

“When Harvey was impending, the vultures started circling,” Glyer said. “NGOs, federal agencies and big box charities like Red Cross descended on Houston while asking for dollar after dollar from people who wanted to help—most of whom will never know what good their dollars accomplished.”

On UK television last month, Glyer highlighted the problems with big-box charity models—in particular, their inability to tell donors exactly where their dollars are going. Sure, they publish their financials, but they will, as always, fail to show how Harvey relief funds will be used in Houston. Frankly, much of those funds will probably end up back in DC, at Red Cross offices funding the more than 1,000 administrative support staff.

DonorSee is different. Users, not employees, post projects as they find people in need (typically in third-world countries). And money handling is automatic (handled by Stripe), requiring almost no overhead whatsoever. Glyer can monitor DonorSee donations—thousands of them—from his iPhone.

“Helping each other should be about just that—helping each other,” Glyer said. “Not sending checks to NGOs, nonprofits, ‘causes,’ etc. Those organizations might have their place, but when it comes to sudden disasters like Harvey, they’re honestly way out of their element. Helping in situations like Harvey is about how quickly and directly you can give to the actual person you want to help. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what P2P is about.”

Nick Freiling is Founder/Director of Haven Insights, a DC-based market research firm. He studied Austrian economics at Grove City College and George Mason University.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

From the Archives: What is the DREAM Act, and why is it important? A conversation with Claire Gastañaga

What is the DREAM Act, and why is it important? A conversation with Claire Gastañaga
September 5, 2010 9:05 PM MST

At Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s town hall meeting in Harrisonburg on August 26, one of the questions from the audience was posed by a young lady wearing an academic mortarboard.

According to the Harrisonburg Times, the questioner was Isabel Castillo, a magna cum laude graduate of Eastern Mennonite University. Castillo identified herself as an undocumented immigrant who was brought to the United States as a 6-year-old child. She asked McDonnell whether he supports the DREAM Act; he said he does not.

The DREAM Act (an acronym of the title of the Senate version of the bill, S. 729, the “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act”) would help regularize the immigration status of undocumented students.

The day after McDonnell’s town hall, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner spoke with Claire Gastañaga, a Richmond-based attorney and self-described “immigrant advocate,” who was attending the weekly Fridays After Five concert at the Charlottesville Pavilion.

‘Expedited path’
“What the DREAM Act does,” she explained, is to allow “an expedited path for children who were brought here by their parents, who made no decision on their own to come here, to regularize their status, to become legal by becoming full participants in our society and preparing themselves to make a meaningful contribution.”

The legislation, she said, “would allow somebody who had been to public schools in the United States, who had grown up here for a period of time, but who was technically not here with [legal] authority, to make commitments and make certain pledges and then be able to go to college and become fully functioning parts of our community and our society by becoming legal permanent residents and ultimately opening the door to citizenship.”

The proposed law would not create “reverse-chain migration” that would permit the affected students to serve as an anchor for other members of their families seeking to immigrate to the United States.

‘Live the American dream’

Most of those for whom the law would apply “have been paying taxes because they’ve been in the community,” explained Gastañaga. “They have strong connections. Many of them came here when they were 2 or 3 years old. They speak English. They have no affinity for their prior country. They consider themselves Americans. What it does is allow them to actually become Americans and to live the American dream.”

Passage of the DREAM Act has been held up because both sides in the immigration debate – those who want stricter laws and those who want more liberalized laws – have deferred action on it in favor of the types of comprehensive immigration reform that they prefer.

‘Being held hostage’
The bill has been “caught up in this kind of all or nothing environment,” Gastañaga lamented. “It’s being held hostage because some people think it’s so attractive for bipartisan support that it’s somehow a carrot to bring people into the conversation who wouldn’t otherwise participate.”

Gastañaga thinks “that’s a mistake,” mentioning that the DREAM Act is falling between the cracks just like the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act (HR 1136) and a proposal for agricultural jobs.

Both sides are responsible for this delay, she said.

“The Hispanic Caucus won’t let anything go forward if it’s not comprehensive, and the folks on the other side won’t let anything go forward unless it includes their secure borders” features of comprehensive reform. “So everybody’s holding these things hostage,” she said.

Bipartisan support
Neither of Virginia’s senators (Jim Webb and Mark Warner) have cosponsored the DREAM Act. The House version of the bill (known as the American Dream Act, HR 1751) has only one cosponsor from Virginia, Representative Jim Moran (D-VA8). Both bills have bipartisan support.

GOP cosponsors in the House include Joseph Cao (R-LA2) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL18). Senate Republican cosponsors include Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Nicole Allan, writing for Atlantic.com, called the DREAM Act “An Immigration Measure Republicans Could Get Behind.”



Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 3, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Guest Post: Price Gougers Actually Help Solve the Problem of Scarcity

by Tom Mullen

Whenever there is a natural disaster, we see two things: the best in human generosity, courage and resilience and the worst in economic ignorance.

The former includes individuals rescuing stranded neighbors, volunteers lining up to join charity relief efforts, and corporations marshaling their vast resources to pour needed items such as food, bottled water and clothing into devastated areas. The latter includes “economists” repeating the age old broken window fallacy and politicians denouncing and threatening so-called “price gougers.”

Emotions run high during disasters, which is a double-edged sword. The outpouring of sympathy for the victims leads to extraordinary efforts in assistance. But it also leads to irrational resentment of those whose actions are often vital to human survival, but whose motives are judged inferior. These are, of course, the aforementioned price gougers.

One of the weaknesses in rational responses to the accusation of price gouging is just that: they appeal to reason when the accusation is born of emotion. And that disconnect is an irrevocable one until the accuser can be persuaded to look at the situation reasonably. But once so persuaded, the accuser often voices the understandable objection that economic arguments rooted in supply and demand charts and theory are too removed from what the accuser considers “the real world.”

Real World Behavior
Here, then, is a “real world” scenario in which the actors respond to incentives just as anyone in similar situations have countless times in the past:

There is a hurricane and flooding. Drinkable water is in short supply. A man has $100. He needs a case of water to get his family of three through the week. He walks into the store, where water is $25/case. There are 4 cases left on the shelf. He needs one, but can afford 4 and he doesn’t know how long the emergency will last. So, he buys all 4 cases.

Immediately afterwards, a family of five walks into the store with $100. There is no water to buy at any price. This family is now in desperate straits and must look elsewhere to procure what they need to survive.

Can anyone dispute the actors in this little parable have acted rationally and precisely as they would in the real world? No. Neither have any acted in a malicious or overly selfish manner. All have made the best choices among the alternatives presented them.
Now, change the price of a case of water in the above scenario to $100/case. What would be different? Of course, the man with a family of three would now only be able to buy one case of water, giving him what his family needs, but not necessarily as much insurance against future uncertainty as he would like. He gives up a little, but the family of five whose survival was in grave danger in the $25/case scenario is now able to purchase at least one case of water.

In the latter scenario, both families have enough to survive and a strong incentive to conserve water, thereby reducing demand and lowering its price, all other things being equal.

The so-called “price gougers” may have acted in their own interests, but they have not only benefited society economically, they have saved the lives of the family of five. Thus, Adam Smith’s 241-year-old “invisible hand” is confirmed by the real world yet again.

Incentivizing Other Entrepreneurs
But there are still those who claim that, while the price gougers have acted rationally and within their rights and may even have inadvertently benefited others, they have still acted immorally. In the case of the recent hurricane in Texas, many say,
“No, you don’t understand. Many of these people aren’t even from Houston. They knew the hurricane was coming and bought up a bunch of water at regular prices, with the express intent of coming to Houston and selling it for huge profits, while others were giving water away for free. That’s immoral!”

First, anyone selling water at any price is obviously serving people who don’t have access to the free water. If the buyers had access to free water, they wouldn’t pay for it, at inflated prices or not. Second, this sanctimonious moralizing begs the question, “Why didn’t you buy up a bunch of water and go to Houston and sell it at regular prices?”

The answers to the latter question are many, but they can be summarized as follows: most people do not have the time, capital or expertise to do what the price gougers did.

Who can afford to take off from their own job or cease running their own business to start a whole new one on a few days notice, much less donate their time? Some can, but not most, which is why after all those who can be by charitable work are served, there is still a market for those seeking profits.

We Need Price Gougers
Lost in all the moralizing is the reality that the so-called price gougers face all the same challenges as anyone else, having to forego whatever income they otherwise would have earned if not for their disaster-relief project, and face the risk of losing future income because they took off from their jobs or put their own regular businesses on hold. These losses and risks must be compensated, which is another reason they sell products at a premium price, in addition to supply/demand realities.

Thus, in the real world, even with as many people as are able acting as charitably as possible, there is a need for those seeking profits from higher-than-normal margins, whose self-interested actions save lives and mitigate the devastating effects of disasters. Yet, the rest of the world condemn them and governments seek to punish them, threatening not only the price gougers, but those whose lives they may save or whose suffering they may lessen during the next disaster.

Reprinted from Tom Mullen.

Tom MullenTom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom's writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

From the Archives: After the census: GMU political scientist Michael McDonald forecasts Virginia's 2011 redistricting

After the census: GMU political scientist Michael McDonald forecasts Virginia's 2011 redistricting
September 4, 2010 12:47 PM MST

The 2010 census was just the first stage in a process that will lead to the redesign of legislative districts all across the United States over the next two years. Districts for the U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, city councils, county boards of supervisors, and school boards will all be affected.

Michael P. McDonald

In Virginia, the redistricting process is accelerated because it is one of only four states that hold their state legislative elections in odd-numbered years.

George Mason University political scientist Michael P. McDonald is an expert on reapportionment and redistricting. He has served as a consultant on redistricting issues, sometimes “helping jurisdictions produce redistricting plans that are in conformance with federal and state criteria,” sometimes serving as an expert witness in lawsuits on behalf of either the plaintiff or the defendant, “defending or challenging whether or not a redistricting plan is legal.”

After McDonald spoke to local election officials from across the Commonwealth at the State Board of Elections’ annual Election Uniformity Workshop, McDonald answered questions from the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about what Virginia voters can look forward to in the coming months.

Historical First
For the first time in Virginia history, redistricting in 2011 will be done by a General Assembly in which the House of Delegates is controlled by Republicans and the state Senate is controlled by Democrats. After the 1990 census, both houses were controlled by Democrats, and after the 2000 census, both houses had Republican majorities.

“How it’s played out in other states,” McDonald explained, “is that one chamber will draw its districts, the other chamber will draw its districts, and then the two will do a logroll,” in which each chamber approves the other’s proposal. In effect, McDonald said, “you will have two different partisan gerrymanders, one for each chamber.”

Virginia differs slightly from other states, however.

“The wrinkle that we have in Virginia,” McDonald pointed out, “is that the governor can amend legislation.” As a result, “there’s a little bit of concern on the Democratic side” that “even if the House passes their version of the Senate plan” the governor might not “keep his hands off of it.”

There is some discussion, McDonald said, that “the governor may form a commission or a committee of some sort to help assist him in evaluating the redistricting plans that come out of the legislature.” Such a commission, he explained, “may play a mediating role there.”

Time Constraints
Given how fast the state legislative elections are approaching (in November 2011), there is some concern about whether the General Assembly can pass a redistricting plan in time to meet the needs of the electoral calendar.

“Plenty of other states have done it,” McDonald said. “We’ve done it in the past in Virginia.”

Can the process be completed in time?

“Presumptively, yes, the answer should be yes, that we can do it in time,” McDonald noted, also pointing out that “if it is not done in time,” federal courts will intervene.

“That’s one thing that the voters of Virginia can know to be true,” he said, “that the federal courts will step in if the state government can’t produce a redistricting plan.”

The courts, he added, “will basically draw their own map or they will accept a map that was not considered during the legislative process.”


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 4, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: 'Beautiful chaos': FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe describes the Tea Party movement

'Beautiful chaos': FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe describes the Tea Party movement
September 3, 2010 2:30 PM MST

Glenn Beck showed some of the momentum of the Tea Party movement when he attracted tens of thousands of people to the Lincoln Memorial for a “non-political” rally with the theme “Restoring Honor” on August 28.

Another test of the Tea Party’s breadth and depth will occur on September 12 at the U.S. Capitol, when the second annual 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington is scheduled.

On of the groups organizing the 9/12 March is FreedomWorks, whose president, Matt Kibbe, recently wrote a book about the Tea Party Movement with coauthor Dick Armey, the former Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives. Titled Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto, it was published August 17 by William Morrow.

Earlier this summer, Matt Kibbe spoke with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about the Tea Party Movement and where it’s going.

Two Characteristics

There are two aspects that characterize Tea Party activists, Kibbe said.

First, “they are new to politics and they’d always thought that politics wasn’t for them. They’d been sort of rationally opted out of that, so when you talk to them, they say, ‘I’ve never done this before.’”

Second, the Tea Party activists “tell you that the government is spending too much money it doesn’t have, it’s getting too involved in our lives, and that it’s out of control,” Kibbe explained, and they say, “’I had to show up, I had to participate; if I don’t participate, I have nothing to complain about.’”

Reflecting on whether the Tea Party movement will be a lasting political phenomenon, Kibbe suggested that “the most important test of the tea party movement is not November 2 but November 3.”

He foresees “a huge political impact” in the 2010 congressional elections, with the result that “we’re going to see huge turnover in politics, but the question is, Will they be organized on November 3 to hold this new generation of politicians accountable?”

That, he said, is the test.

Shared Values
Moreover, Kibbe continued, “what’s going to be different about this grass roots uprising from anything we’ve seen in the past” is that “they’re not just a protest movement. They’re actually a community of people with certain shared values that bind them together.”

The Tea Party will breed a new generation of political leaders whose names are not known to us yet, but who are learning political skills through their participation in the movement.

“What I like to say,” Kibbe explained, is that “the Tea Party has created this huge political stage and has created an incentive for a new generation of leaders to climb up on that stage and embrace those ideas and effectively represent them in the political realm. They’re all amateurs now, and that’s not a bad thing, but to win office, you’ve got to learn those skills” in order to win.

‘Beautiful Chaos’
The Tea Party movement is diffuse and “it’s very decentralized,” said Kibbe. “I like to call it ‘beautiful chaos.’ I say that with an understanding of Hayek’s notion of spontaneous order, that markets organize things in a semi-rational way even if it’s not planned, even if there’s no central authority like a Republican or Democratic party saying this is how you should do it.”

What’s more, Kibbe added, there is also “competition for tactics and ideas that you’re seeing now. I believe that the Tea Party activists are going to gravitate toward the best ideas.”

Ideas and tactics are being tested “right now,” Kibbe said, and “different people are going to have different views about where the Tea Party should go, but I believe the center of gravity is going to follow the best ideas.”


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on September 3, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Delegate Steve Landes is 'keeping an open mind' on Governor McDonnell's ABC privatization plan

Delegate Steve Landes is 'keeping an open mind' on Governor McDonnell's ABC privatization plan
August 29, 2010 12:08 PM MST

Governor Bob McDonnell’s proposal to privatize Virginia’s state-owned liquor stores “has some possibilities,” said Delegate Steve Landes (R-25) after a town-hall meeting on government reform in Harrisonburg on August 26.

Landes, whose district includes parts of Albemarle, Augusta, and Rockingham counties, as well as the city of Waynesboro, added that “at this point” he is “keeping an open mind.” He wants to talk to his constituents to find out what they like and don’t like about the plan.

Delegate Landes spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner on the campus of James Madison University as the crowd dispersed from the governor's town hall. State Senator Mark Obenshain and Delegate Dickie Bell were also interviewed that night.

‘Public safety concerns’
The governor, he said, had “addressed a lot of the public safety concerns” but as a member of the House Appropriations Committee, one of his main concerns is “how is the revenue going to work, where would that go, how are we going to offset what could be a reduction” in the money the state takes in from liquor sales. Landes also expressed concern about what would happen to the portion of ABC profits that goes to local governments.

Asked if he has a sense of what his colleagues in the legislature are thinking about ABC privatization, Landes replied:

“Most of the people I’ve talked to are just like I am, trying to get information, trying to find out what the proposals are, [and] what the governor may be proposing.”

Once the government releases “his formal proposal,” Landes said, “we’ll all be looking at that.”

‘Devil’s in the details’
As a member of the General Assembly for the last 16 years, Landes explained, he has “found that the devil’s always in the details, so you need to see the bill, you need to see what it says, and where the dollars are going to go, how the franchise sales would be, who would be eligible, whether you’re talking about small business people or just larger corporations, chain stores, and the like. All those details would have to be looked at before I could say whether I’m in favor or against it.”

Regarding the question of whether privatization of the ABC system is a “matter of principle,” Landes pointed to his support of the private sector and free enterprise over the years, adding that “there is a good argument from the standpoint of, ‘we don’t control beer and wine [so] why is the state in the business of’” selling distilled spirits?

Noting the current economic climate, Landes went on, “If the economy was really good, it would be an easier decision for me, because we’re not looking at what the revenue picture is, where the dollars are coming from, where they’re going to go.”

The issue would be easier for him to decide, he said, because as a member of the Appropriations Committee, “I think you have to look at making sure that the dollars are going to match up and that projections would be there to offset what the state might lose from the standpoint of sales and what we might obtain from the standpoint of tax revenue.”

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 29, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Guest Post: Anti-Trump backlash gags free expression at universities

James Turk, Ryerson University

We are living in difficult and worrisome times.

There has been a resurgence of racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and nativist nationalisms in many parts of the world — including Canada.

This renaissance of hate has been intensified by the actions of Donald Trump before and after his election. Fortunately, many have responded against the hate. For some, regrettably, part of that response has been to call for suppression of free speech.

As the director of the Centre for Free Expression at Ryerson University, I was deeply troubled when Ryerson recently decided to cancel a panel discussion whose topic, ironically, was to be “The Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses.”

The panel discussion — scheduled to include University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson and former Rebel Media journalist Faith Goldy — was not a march riddled with Klan and neo-Nazis. It was a group of three conservative academics and one right-wing journalist whose ideas are odious to many people, including me. But then, my ideas are likely odious to them.

The security excuse

Free speech wall in Charlottesville, Virginia

The university said it cancelled the event after a security review concluded it was “not equipped to provide the necessary level of public safety for the event to go forward.” The violent confrontation and deaths in Charlottesville may have both spooked Ryerson officials and made their decision seem prudent to many.

Opponents of the planned panel contributed to the fears — with their Facebook page headlined “No Fascists in Our City” adorned initially with a photo of a crossed-out swastika and a call for mass turnout to stop the panel. “This shit stops now. Either you’re with us or you’re not….”

In cancelling the event, Ryerson gave in to intimidation, prevented a panel discussion of difficult ideas and disagreement over deeply held views, and denied free speech rights to those with opposing views.

Part of freedom of expression is the right to dissent, protest and criticize, but that right does not extend to intimidation, harassment or violence that denies others their free speech rights.

Differences of views are the lifeblood of any university and essential to the mission of advancing knowledge and educating students. Most universities even have statements of principle that guarantee and support free expression.

Depriving views

Yale University’s statement says “to curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views.”

The University of Toronto’s statement of purpose guarantees the “rights of freedom of speech, academic freedom, and freedom of research. And we affirm that these rights are meaningless unless they entail the right to raise deeply disturbing questions and provocative challenges to the cherished beliefs of society at large and of the university itself.”

Ryerson’s decision to cancel the event violates its own Freedom of Speech policy which states:

“Ryerson does not avoid controversies, difficult ideas, or disagreements over deeply held views. When such disagreements arise within the University or within a broader social context, the University’s primary responsibility is to protect free speech within a culture of mutual respect. The right to freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to exercise that right in an atmosphere free of intimidation and in an environment that supports the free speech rights of those with opposing views.”

This is not a new issue. During the anti-Communist hysteria of the McCarthy period in the 1940s and early ‘50s, many universities abandoned their commitments to academic freedom and freedom of expression. Loyalty oaths were imposed on faculty and many professors accused of being Communists were fired.

The then-president of Yale University, Charles Seymour, famously said in 1949: “There will be no witch hunts at Yale because there will be no witches. We do not intend to hire Communists.”

In her book No Ivory Tower, Ellen Schrecker summarized the role of the universities during this period: “In its collaboration with McCarthyism, the academic community behaved just like every other major institution in American life. Such a discovery is demoralizing … . Here, if anywhere, dissent should have found a sanctuary. Yet it did not.”

Cowardice and complicity

That harmful legacy of university cowardice and complicity took years to overcome. We need to remember this past if we do not want to relive it, albeit in the name of new passions and different ideologies and concerns.

Instead, it appears as if we are starting down a dark road that threatens the raison d’être of the university and the fundamental rights to freedom of expression guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If standing by its principles requires a university to make a greater investment in security personnel to protect freedom of expression, that must be seen as a proper cost of doing business.

If threats continue to blossom, then there needs to be discussions with governments to ensure universities have the additional financial resources to ensure free expression does not fall victim to intimidation.

Not only are censorship and suppression fatal to the purpose of the university, they undermine the foundation of democratic society.

When individual rights to freedom of expression are diminished or taken away for an allegedly good cause, they are necessarily invested in some higher authority that is given the right to determine what is acceptable.

The result is censorship from above — ultimately the state — with the likelihood that the champions of that censorship today are its vulnerable targets tomorrow.

James Turk, Director, Centre for Free Expression & Distinguished Visiting Professor, Ryerson University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

From the Archives: Delegate Dickie Bell is 'on the fence' with regard to ABC privatization

Delegate Dickie Bell is 'on the fence' with regard to ABC privatization
August 28, 2010 7:42 PM MST

When Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell hosted a town hall meeting on the topic of government reform in Harrisonburg last Thursday, several state legislators from the area were in the audience.

One was Delegate Dickie Bell (R-20), who represents a district that includes Highland County, parts of Augusta and Rockingham counties, and the city of Staunton. He spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about Governor McDonnell’s proposals to privatize ABC stores and the state government’s monopoly on liquor sales.

‘Not as committed’
“The governor is very committed to privatizing ABC stores,” Bell said. “At this point, I have to say, I’m not as committed.”

Bell explained, however, that he is “a big believer in private enterprise and in using our private enterprise structure when we can.

“In most cases,” he said, “it’s a better way to go than having government do some of the things that we can do commercially.”

With regard to ABC privatization, however, Bell said “there are some questions that I need to have answered before I can get on board and fully support it.” He noted that he had spoken to Governor McDonnell before the town hall meeting and “he understands my concerns, I think.”

Bell also pointed out that his “concerns are not unique. They’re the same concerns that a lot of people have at this point.”

‘Social impact’
He is primarily concerned “about the social impact” but also worries “that a lot of the smaller retailers in the [Shenandoah] Valley seem to think that this will squeeze them out and, instead of helping their business, will actually put a squeeze on them.

“If only the bigger, larger, the major retailers have this opportunity,” Bell suggested, “it’ll never trickle down to smaller guys.”

The motivation for this particular concern, he said, is because “I’m a strong advocate for small business. We have to level the playing field. If we’re going to privatize, we’ve got to make sure that every size business out there has the same opportunity.”

Bell said he is also concerned about the effects on Virginia’s “very clean system” of selling distilled spirits.

“There’s no way we can privatize and not increase sales and not increase alcohol consumptions,” he said.

‘Based on my feeling’
When asked, “Is that based on empirical data that you have?,” Bell paused briefly before replying:

“No, it’s based on my feeling” that competition and more stores and expanded distribution will result in “increased sales.”

Summarizing his thoughts on privatization, Bell said, “Mostly, I’m just concerned that we have a system now that’s not corrupt, it’s very clean, it’s very efficient, one of the most efficient things that the state of Virginia does. I’d hate for us to lose that.”

He concluded: “I would say that I’m on the fence right now,” and acknowledged that he needs to be convinced that privatization is the right thing to do.



Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 28, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: State Senator Mark Obenshain on Virginia liquor privatization: 'I was for it before it was cool'

State Senator Mark Obenshain on Virginia liquor privatization: 'I was for it before it was cool'
August 27, 2010 10:37 AM MST

A member of Governor Bob McDonnell’s Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring, state Senator Mark Obenshain of Harrisonburg says “I was for it before it was cool” when asked what he thinks about the governor’s proposals to privatize the Commonwealth’s monopoly on the sale of distilled spirits.

ABC privatization was a central topic of discussion when Governor McDonnell held a town hall meeting on the campus of James Madison University on August 26, and Senator Obenshain took a few minutes with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner to explain his support for the proposals.

“I’ve been pushing ABC privatization for several years,” said Obenshain, “and I was delighted last year when the Governor announced that he was going to include that as part of his transportation agenda. I’ve been working very closely with the administration, I’m fully on board as a member of the team, and I look forward to seeing it pushed through to fruition.”

‘Government’s essential mission’
Obenshain became involved in this issue, he said, because “I’ve always been a free-market guy. I believe in reform. I believe in prioritizing and figuring out what government’s essential mission is, and what it’s not.”

Speaking “frankly,” Obenshain added, “running a monopoly [and] running a statewide retail operation is something that state government really has no business being in. They’ve got to get out. We’re now 76 years post-Prohibition. Notwithstanding the fact that Virginia is a tradition-bound state -- which I love about Virginia -- it is about time for us to enter the post-Prohibition era.”

Asked what his colleagues in the state Senate are thinking about ABC privatization, Obenshain replied:

“I think a lot of them are keeping their powder dry,” because they have two major concerns.

“Number one, can it be done in an economically responsible way, and number two, can it be done in a socially responsible way?”

‘Crafting his proposal’
Obenshain explained that “the governor is crafting his proposal in a way that both of those questions can be answered in the affirmative. We can do it without losing the revenue stream that’s generated through our public ABC store operation and we can do it in a way that doesn’t endanger the public health [or] public safety.”

Addressing the worries of many who question the ABC privatization idea, Obenshain offered these assurances:

“It doesn’t put a liquor store on every corner. It preserves the right of localities and local governments and community organizations to express their support or opposition to proposed locations for licensees.”

He added that privatization “can be done in a way that satisfies the concerns of those who are on the fence.”

Obenshain conceded that there will be “people who are going to stake out a position in opposition to it,” including some “motivated by social reasons.”

‘Good idea for Virginia’
Identifying another set of opponents, the Harrisonburg senator suggested that some “are going to be opposed to it because it represents an infusion of capital into the transportation system. Their vision for solving the transportation problem is to raise taxes. As a consequence, anything that gets in the way of their effort to raise taxes is going to be something that they’re going to oppose.”

Obenshain summed up his views on ABC privatization by saying the governor’s proposals will “make good sense for Virginians.

“I would not support it if it was going to result in increased incidence of alcohol abuse,” he said, “or liquor stores on every corner or [become] a drain on the resources of the Commonwealth. I believe it can be done without any of that and I believe it’s a good idea for Virginia.”


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 27, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.