In the fall of 1786, a radical movement took place. Units of rebel farmers took to the streets and courthouses in Massachusetts with the intention to close them down and prevent judges from taking their farms because the country was in debt and heavily taxing its citizens. This event is referred to as Shay’s Rebellion.

Last week, the Senate blocked a measure endorsed by President Obama that would eliminate tax breaks for major oil companies. With major influence around the world and profits in the hundreds of billions of dollars, it is easy to demonize and oppose tax breaks for oil conglomerates.

The issue up for debate revolves around tax breaks for major corporations. Ranting on a flawed and treacherous philosophy, the president sees tax breaks as losing money and calls it a “tax payer giveaway.” This could not be more backwards. Tax breaks mean that less is collected for government purposes. The president’s fault lies in the assumption that the government owns a certain portion of  businesses’ profit.

President Obama’s erroneous view of the economy leads him to support what he says he is out to destroy: an uneven playing field. He seeks to raise taxes on productive and innovative businesses to prop up the opposite.

Green energy is the future of energy production in America. This, however, does not provide justification to forcefully take from certain businesses in order to make others profitable. The president is culpable for promoting a crony capitalist market, the very thing he vowed to weaken during his presidential campaign. His hypocritical stance is evidence to how politicians operate.

At the core of the riots and chaos of Shays Rebellion the country faced a problem that we still have not been willing to solve: inequality in taxation.

Tax policy in the United States has become a political tug of war between so-called conservatives and liberals. Hiding under the banner of equality and fairness, they advocate for special treatment for their respective cronies, seeking to further their wealth and power.

It is interesting when I meet college students who have a naïve notion of good government. The ignorant belief that with the right laws and the right people, our government can be a force of good and justice hasn’t held up throughout history. Instead, our money is spent on the promotion of “nanny” laws, like marriage bans and drug law enforcement.

Even though some say the free market is to blame, government and the cronies of politicians have always been at the forefront of inequality in the market.

Our economy is so heavily influenced and controlled by mega-conglomerates and huge corporations that a good product is not enough to succeed. One might assume a business hoping to grow must also have a team of lawyers and lobbyists in order to destroy its competition with laws and regulations. Subsidies and tax breaks are given to those that are politically connected. What is free about that?

If we want an even playing field where people prosper and where no one has an upper hand to force competition out, we must get rid of all subsidies . Government, not business, is the origin for inequality.

Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu

Tyranny comes in all shapes and sizes. We see this human lust for power manifest itself throughout history. In fact, we see and study it so much that identifying and stopping it should be an easy task. Unfortunately, the reality for those of us who are watchful and have an interest in maintaining our freedom is a fight against moral despots that hide under the guise of the general welfare.

Claims such as ”you shouldn’t smoke” have changed from wise lessons and practices in life into authoritarian laws that seek to control your lifestyle. Sadly, it looks as if the nanny state is here to stay and it is being used as a tool for control.

A recent example of this affects students here in the Valley. The Maricopa Community College District’s BreatheEasy campaign mandates smoke free and tobacco free campuses beginning July 1 of this year.

District Chancellor Rufus Glasper  said, “We recognize that making our properties smoke- free and tobacco-free will mean that some employees and students will have to change their habits, and we want to help them do so.”

Though the statement seems reasonable and non-offensive, it represents the expectations and assurances of power that the administration believes it has. It also illustrates that they are willing to use reprimands and fines in order to make their students and faculty conform to the lifestyle they see fit.

Yes, smoking is bad for your health and we all want clean air for the people who choose not to smoke. But the solution that the administration has come up with is unreasonable and childish.

Unlike private universities, the Maricopa Community College District gets partial funding through taxes. This means that as taxpayers — students or otherwise — we are forced to pay for its operation. Because of this, the institution has to be accommodate every student, within reason of course. Would this also classify the institution as a public space?

Among other responsibilities, the college needs to provide an environment in which different people can share the public space. By choosing to do away with smoking areas, the colleges are taking independence and responsibility away from their students and faculty. This road toward becoming a “nanny” contributes to the diminishment of the diverse environment that college is supposed to be about.

Different lifestyles are the basis for diversity. We would like to think that our political and philosophical perspectives have changed and progressed over time and that our society does not function like the brute or barbaric civilizations of the past. This ban is just a small representation of the unevolved and intolerant perspective of the administration.

It is the spirit of this ban that is carried through laws that subsequently put a damper on our social interactions and economic choices —such as when similar bans were placed on restaurants or bars. It also begs the question of what exactly constitutes a public space?

As the arguments for and against this ban rage on, it is hard to arrive at the true essence of the problem. Is anyone allowed to tell you how to live your life and is anyone allowed to force you to live a “better” one? This is the issue. Who is in charge of you?

Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu

As we view the world through an economic lens, we might notice that the seemingly civilized, modern and stable societies of the Western world are, in reality, much like a dead tree: hollow and fragile.

A sickness has overtaken government budgets, social norms and even the culture of the population, an overlooked commonality in the acceptable and expected products of the social hierarchy that we call the government.

The belief is that, in order to collectively prosper and effectively take care of the sick and the poor, it is necessary to maintain a system of coerced charity. Government welfare is the infection and is a major culprit for the dire economic and social strains that are leading to the downfall of Western civilization.

Greece is the most recent example of an economy structured on the unstable and detrimental ticking time bomb of public debt. Its massive public debt amounted to 165 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Are other countries bound to join them? Italy’s debt amounts to 120 percent of its GDP. France is at 83 percent, and the UK is at 79 percent. The United States has a public debt of 69.4 percent.

Why are all of these countries borrowing so much money?

And what is at the top of these countries’ expenditure lists?

The arguments for the creation and current funding for these programs rest on the premise that the “poor” and “vulnerable” in society are left out and exploited by the market economy. This is a mainstream economic myth. As a product of individual and economic liberty, the Industrial Revolution brought about the biggest increase in standards of living for the whole world.

Average salaries, purchasing power and income mobility serve as evidence that illustrate how the free market economy takes the poor and vulnerable and makes them wealthy and independent. The “poor” in America have a prodigiously higher standard of living than people in most of the world.

Selfishness is deemed as the abominable human characteristic that limits a society to help those in need. Most of the claims that favor government welfare programs point to this as the fundamental reason and need for coerced charity. If the government doesn’t do it, who will?

I believe we can find the answer in the World Giving Index, a study published by the Charities Aid Foundation. The study showed that in the past year, 65 percent of Americans gave money to nonprofit organizations, 43 percent volunteered their time to an organization and 73 percent helped a stranger or someone they didn’t know. The GivingUSA Foundation found that voluntary and charitable giving amounted to $290.89 billion in 2010.

We are all selfish. In fact, you will find that every action we take is in our self-interest. If people were not selfish, they would not want to live in a better world. As we have seen in the past and are seeing today, a coercive force that regulates our actions to become more generous will only grow in power and waste. Morally and practically “forced giving” does not work.

Only a free people, without a welfare state, can eminently prosper economically and live free from the despotic force of those who seek power.

Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu

Once again, social policy has made its way to center stage in the unproductive world of Washington D.C.

This time, a federal mandate that would force insurance companies to provide contraception for employees has distracted the country from the real issue and has dragged women’s rights groups, the Catholic Church, insurance companies and the federal government into a long game of emotional politics.

But, please do not be fooled. This is a fantastic opportunity to make easy emotional claims and win the support of anyone that will listen to the unproductive and irrelevant discourse taking place in D.C.

On one side, Republicans want to be seen as the champions of religious freedom, claiming that a mandate on health care is an “assault” on religion. The “small government” politicians deviate and choose to omit their efforts to further a government mandated definition of marriage, what you can put in your body, sodomy laws and yes, government health care.

It seems that Republicans are only fighting for the religious freedom of one group and only see the government’s assault on laws they do not like.

Democrats on the other side of the debate seek to twist this into a women’s rights issue, pointing the finger at Republicans and claiming they are careless about women’s health.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., argued that contraceptives are part of a woman’s basic rights. If contraceptives are essential to a woman’s health and a human right, why are heart transplants, food and  jobs not also on the list? Democrats know that calling this an attack on women is a political move to get more support in upcoming elections.

Once again, Washington has demonstrated its talent in the art of wasting time. Politicians are smart and know the best way to capitalize on issues is to appeal to emotions.

Government mandated coverage of contraceptives is not a religious or a women’s rights issue at all. It is a property issue. Does the government have the authority to mandate what product a person or business provides?

It is easy to fall into the argument that government must have this authority to protect the consumer or promote healthy living. But has this happened? Most of the legislation that is proposed seems to benefit the companies that politicians are assigned to oversee. The authority given has turned against the people and created the opposite of a free market: crony capitalism.

The reality is that people run the government. It is an illusory belief that political power will create responsibility. We have experienced the opposite. When given political power over a certain industry, bureaucrats and politicians create an unfair and corrupt environment. Regardless of the intentions, power corrupts. This problem is an inherent attribute of government and has been illustrated throughout the history of civilization.

If the citizens of this country want to get rid of a crony capitalist system, they must take the power back from companies and politicians. If people want the power back, they cannot give it away to the government with hopes that it will be responsible and keep them safe. The answer is that there cannot be government mandated anything in the market place. Only then will the power lie with the people, not the government.

Reach the columnist at Calfaro2@asu.edu

Most everyone has heard the saying, “live and let live.” It is simple, and most people would agree with the basic ideology. To believe and support an idea like this requires some understanding of human life. Major ideas that founded Western civilization, like equality under the law and the exclusive power to choose your way of life, are in line with basic human rights.

It is imperative to sustainable liberty to understand the philosophy behind political claims. Going through the basic claims of the Republican hopefuls sheds light on their core philosophies.

Both sides of the political aisle are different from one another, however, a simple look at their actions will show that both are responsible for the massive national debt and great losses in civil liberties.

In economics, the president as well as most of the Republican hopefuls come to an unknowing agreement. While their rhetoric is quite different, it is much more important to pay attention to their actions and beliefs. Jobs programs, corporate bailouts, increased funding for the drug war, unbalanced budgets and no end in sight for more than a decade of war. From this perspective, the only difference between President Obama and hopefuls Romney, Gingrich and Santorum is their form of speech.

Aside from protecting our nation with a military and our rights with the courts, the Constitution says very little about government involvement in the economy and our personal lives. Those that may not care for the Constitution should at least acknowledge that every individual must possess the freedom to run his or her own life.

Freedom cannot be split into pieces. Liberty comes as a package and underlines every aspect of human life —personal and economic.

Republicans today believe in “the conservation of family values,” in other words, they believe they know what types of values are best and hope to further those through government. I would argue that most college students would disagree with the premise that one ruling entity knows what is best for the personal lives of an entire citizenship.

Democrats, on the other hand, claim to know what is best for the economy and how to manipulate it for “the greater good.” This is just the other side of the same coin, an attempt to manipulate others. The results are the same regardless of what political party is in power.

The infection in our political arena is concentrated power. It makes a man believe he has the authority to rule over other people. From the numerous debates in the past year, as well as the one last night, it is clear that only one man stands out from the status quo.

Ron Paul not only argues that he stands for liberty, but his record as a politician is an impeccable illustration of his philosophy.

To put it simply, Ron Paul spoke about his campaign like this: “I’m running on the things I don’t want to do. I don’t want to run your life, I don’t know how to run your life, I don’t have the authority to run your life, and the Constitution doesn’t permit me to run your life.” I would invite anyone who does not know who they should vote for to consider a free society for a change.

Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu

The American people are still suffering from the recession. Unemployment remains high, the average credit rating of Americans is down and the interest accruing on our savings is dangerously low.

The federal government proposes wasteful programs and laws that aim to recover the economy. With a deficit of more than $14 trillion, the government has proven to be inept.

As frustration over our economic standing rises, we hear one of the most common economic fallacies being suggested as a solution: “Tax the rich!” However you phrase it, this turns the source of the problem into a revenue issue. Like many other economic fallacies, the understanding required to reason this statement is superficial.

In 2010, the federal government collected $2.16 trillion in taxes, yet the White House recently released a $3.8 trillion budget for 2013. This should come as no surprise considering how much the government does. From regulating how much water your toilet holds to what is broadcasted on television to maintaining hundreds of military bases across the globe, the government is involved in almost every aspect of American life.

Unlike a regular household, the government does not have an interest or incentive to cut spending.  In most cases, when a government program or law fails, instead of getting rid of it, they pump more money into it or make new laws.

By voting for more spending programs, the government creates a base of support with the upper crest, or the people who profit from taxing others. Because the government is not contingent on balancing a budget — at least in the sense that if the government “falls on hard times,” it won’t be out on the street — there is no market signal or incentive to make them cut down on wasteful spending.

Individuals who preach the benefits of jobs programs, government stimulus and government intervention choose to only see one set of consequences. While through taxation, government has money to create programs and give jobs to people that create new income. What is not seen are the jobs and benefits that the money could have provided if it had stayed in the pockets of taxpayers the whole time. In order to create an environment where the middle class expands, taxpayers need to keep as much of their money as possible.

Wealth is only created by production and innovation. If we choose to increase taxes on the rich, we add to the cost of creating new businesses and hiring people to run these businesses. Everyone benefits if everyone keeps as much of their income as possible. The problem originates in how much the government does. Because it is involved in almost every industry, the government needs excessive spending.

The key to economic growth is less taxation. Under a constitutional system, Americans would keep as much fruits of their labor as possible. While we need a national system to provide a justice system and military, it is completely wasteful and unnecessary for the federal government to tax for any other purpose.

Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu

Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the gay marriage ban in Californiaas an unconstitutional law. Proposition 8 was a response to a previous California Supreme Court ruling that removed the ban. So what happened? When I listen to NPR programs and international news, the idea of a democratic system is divinely regarded. Has this ideal system of popular rule failed? The answer is that the inevitable has happened and that mob rule is fundamentally flawed.

Ayn Rand, a champion of freedom and an influential writer of the twentieth century regarded democracy as “a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.”

Democracy, or mob rule, has no principles except for the assumption that whatever the majority desires must be what’s right and beneficial to society. Essentially, democracy is a political system based on the idea that force can be used against you if 51 percent of people in your community agree. I’d like more people to see this as unethical and destructive to human development. Unfortunately, most nations operate within this system.

America was never set up as a democracy. Though there are aspects of mob rule in electing officials or voting on certain laws, our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are built on a much deeper understanding of human nature. While a democracy is based on a superficial view that the people will choose the good, our constitutional republic recognizes the necessity for protection from the majority. Your life, liberty and property are inalienable, meaning they are as naturally “yours” as the blood that runs through your veins. The central, most important job for the government is to protect your freedom.

Economically, we are massively indebted to the largest expenditure of our federal government: the welfare system. While good intentioned, entitlement programs have made economic slaves of this and future generations.

In the past ten years Americans have suffered from great losses in civil liberties. The government claims that it is for your security, but this loss in freedom subsequently makes us less safe. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.”

Legislation like the Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act, Social Security Act, and The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act have two things in common: They were popularly supported, and there is nothing in the constitution that authorizes their power. Sadly, this great republic is buried in debt and its people are losing rights due to the fact that we are moving away from a constitution and towards mob rule.

Homosexuals, people generally in the minority, have experienced the oppression of democracy in California. The majority of voters want to take from them their natural right of the pursuit of happiness. The best safeguard against this oppression is the constitution, but we will always end up with mob rule if people don’t stand up to protect it.

Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu

Recall the scene in Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” when the Joker threatens to kill innocent people each day until Batman reveals his true identity.

This makes for an entertaining storyline, but has this ever happened in real life? A variation of this scenario is being played out in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Banners hang throughout the city warning that a police officer will be killed every day until Julian Leyzaola, the city’s new police chief, resigns. This message of fear is fabricated by the drug cartels that have been playing a tug-of-war for power with the government for decades.

Analyzing this problem by focusing on the big picture shows that gangs, cartels, the mafia and most forms of organized crime draw their power and thrive because of their reliance on a key term: illegal.

How would you like to get into a multi-million dollar business that gives you a tax-exempt status and one in which the government takes out your competition? Al Capone ruled Chicago starting in the 1920s because prohibition introduced the opportunity for a government-created monopoly. The operations of underground crime obtain as much power and resources due to illegal competition. This means the guy with the most guns and money is usually the winner. This complete world of violence is created by the enforcement of laws put in place by people who want to force you to make “good” or “moral” choices.

After billions of dollars wasted and millions killed and incarcerated for victimless crimes, it should be clear that the war on drugs has been a complete failure. Actions and crimes that have adverse effects on others, such as murder, rape and theft, should obviously remain illegal. But what about the actions only affect the individual committing them?

What if we chose to stop eating healthy and decided to eat 15 pizzas a day? It is clear that this would be harmful to our health, but should anyone have the authority to force us to stop? And would it make it any better for us to promote a law that forced you to stop? The answer, based on personal responsibility and freedom, is no. Unfortunately, many people want to utilize force to stop us from making decisions that should be within our scope of rights as free adults.

A government that is not interested in protecting freedom but rather works toward planning our choices and behavior is detrimental to prosperity. Such a government would be composed of people who make laws telling the population how to behave and what to choose. I hope most people will see how these actions violate human rights and lower standards of living.

As for the cartel, the answer is found in simple economics: open markets. The demand is uncontrollably and abundantly existent. Both the Mexican and American governments have failed to stop or even control the supply, distribution or use of the cartels product. These governments successfully provided an environment for gangs and cartels to succeed. We need to mature as a society to the point where the freedom of choice and personal responsibility is valued and respected, only then can we defeat organized crime.

Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu

On Tuesday, ASU President Michael Crow released a statement regarding the renewed “guns on campus” bill that is being debated in the Arizona legislature. He condemned the initiative as “a misguided attempt to increase school safety.”

After emotional arguments, unclear claims to authority and saying he does not oppose gun ownership, Crow failed to understand the indispensable benefits that come with a trained and armed populous on campus.

Crow’s argument crumbled in a closing paragraph of questions and hypotheticals, proving that his argument’s only strength is its ability to strike fear.

Crow unsuccessfully, and to the detriment of his argument, attempted to show that Senate Bill 1474 is proposed “without a shred of evidence to support the assumption that schools are safer if students are armed.”

If President Crow wants evidence, a quick Google search will show that since 2006, Utah allows licensed individuals to carry handguns on the campuses of public and technical colleges. Both Colorado State University (since 2003) and Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia (since 1995) have allowed concealed carry. For a combined total of over one hundred semesters, these schools have not seen a single gun-related incident, including threats, suicide, or gun theft.

There are even some examples in which armed students have actually stopped crime.

In 2002, a graduate student at the Appalachian School of Law was halted by two armed students after killing three people. In 2007, at the University of Akron, a man demanded entry into a student’s apartment, holding him at gunpoint. The student returned fire with a roommate’s gun and the suspect fled the scene.

If officials like Crow are really worried about safety, they should look into more deterrents for gun crimes. Tens of thousands students, faculty, staff and visitors step onto one of ASU’s campuses every week. The belief that a single rule will keep all of these people from bringing guns onto campus is a farfetched idea that puts us all at risk.

Feeling safe is not equivalent to actually being safe. So let me introduce an idea: The most effective deterrent of violence on our campus would be the knowledge that people are not defenseless.

The hypothetical situations offered by Crow do not paint an accurate picture of law-abiding, trained individuals. The feared problem of whether people will be trained for such situations is easily solved by making training and gun safety courses mandatory steps in the process. Again, fear, and solutions lacking in common sense, is the only strength in the argument made by gun opponents like Crow.

To my fellow classmates, I ask that you look past the artificial bickering produced by administration officials and attempt to see beyond the surface and get into the facts of the matter that will affect our safety. Having people on campus that are trained and able to defend themselves and others is an essential part in maximizing our security. Once again, the facts and experiences surrounding this issue will show that freedom is the best alternative.

Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu