The Rally for Real Change

By Audrey Pietrucha

It is always humbling to look back on the choices and decisions that have brought us to where we are now in our lives and, in a way, I guess I have to thank George Bush, Hank Paulsen and all those other “too big to fail” guys because they brought me to Montpelier and the “Rally for Real Change” on Saturday.

Three years ago in October I joined the Campaign for Liberty out of frustration with what was happening in Washington D.C. and on Wall Street. It was a presidential election year and Ron Paul was the only candidate addressing my concerns, which chiefly revolved around my three kids’ future and what little would be left of it after the politicians and the bankers got through mortgaging it. By this point Dr. Paul had dropped out of the race but the organization that had grown out of his run for the nomination, the Campaign for Liberty, was the only organization I knew of to join. What would become the Tea Party movement was just starting to simmer – Rick Santelli had not yet had the famous rant from which it would take its name - but I had to do something – anything! So I sent in my $30 and became Bennington County coordinator for the Vermont C4L.

Now, three-plus years later, I was in a room full of people I never would have had the privilege of knowing were it not for Ron Paul. Many of these people have become quite dear to me – it is amazing how a core belief in individual liberty and the necessary respect and esteem for our fellow citizen required by such a political philosophy can cut through superficial differences and help hearts hold on to one another.


On this particular Saturday we were there to further Dr. Ron Paul’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination and commit to real change, the kind of change that can only come when citizens become informed, committed, active and energetic. We were there to reach out to people of all political philosophies, personal persuasions and lifestyle choices. We were farmers and lawyers and housewives and entrepreneurs and musicians and computer geeks. We were from the Northeast Kingdom and the Banana Belt, the ski towns and the small towns. We were Vermont and we were there to try to take our state and our fellow Vermonters back to when we were strong and self-reliant, when we cherished independence and respected each other and ourselves.

Anti-progressive? No, the push against human progression was applied by those who sold our citizenry back into a form of serfdom in which we are all dependent on our governmental masters either for crumbs or permission to produce those crumbs. The call to change this degrading relationship was the first one issued as organizer Steven Howard opened the Rally for Real Change after a rousing round of politically-charged songs from the band Oneoverzero.

“We demand change and we are willing to work for it,” Howard said. As citizens of Vermont and the United States, he said, we can no longer accept the status quo and the two political parties which perpetuate it. We must demand accountability from elected officials, the media and the financial powers-that-be. Most of all, we must change the way our neighbors and friends look at political institutions. Too many accept the huge role government has come to play in their lives. We need to reach out to them, talk about liberty and how it sweetens and enriches our lives. We must convince them to search out and support the people who are talking about the changing the relationship between the people and their government. People like Ron Paul.

“There are no promises,” Howard said, “except that if we do nothing we won’t get the change we want.”

Speaker Jessica Bernier, founder of the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty, reminded us that frugality and ruggedness are essential components of the true Vermont character.

“The Vermonter knows how to make do or do without,” Bernier said.

One thing Vermonters would like to do without, Bernier said, is the constant state of war the United States is in. She reminded the crowd that 18-year-old voters today have lived more than half their lives with their nation at war.

Bernier said issues of import to Vermonters have been taken over at the federal level even though people know better than government officials what is best for them. She called for returning authority to people and local institutions and urged us to use ideas to fight for liberty.

Dick Tracy of the Central Vermont Tea Party Coalition said the three core principles of his group are fiscal responsibility, limited constitutional government and support for free markets.  He illustrated the federal government’s inability to retrain its spending by pointing to our nation’s 15 trillion dollar debt.

“Fiscal Responsibility – we know it when we see it and we know when we don’t” Tracy said.

Tracy spoke of limiting government to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and pointed to the Federal Reserve as an example of the harm an extra-constitutional institution can do.

“Today the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is five-percent what it was when the Fed was created,” Tracy pointed out. He said under those circumstances claims that the Federal Reserve is necessary to “control inflation” are laughable.

Tracy cited Ron Paul and his support for free markets, which he described as nothing more complicated than willing buyers and willing sellers. He expressed concern about healthcare legislation which ignores the economic reality that healthcare is a limited commodity and seeks to subvert market forces.

New Hampshire liberty activist Chris Lawless talked about the methods employed in New Hampshire to earn Ron Paul a second place finish in that state’s January primary and urged us to get off our computers and go out and talk to people in Vermont.

“You can’t let Romney get fifty percent,” Lawless said. He said Ron Paul needs to win a minimum of twenty percent of the votes cast March 6 in order to gain delegates and that translates into at least 8,000 votes. To reach that number, he said, we need to see through crude stereotypes, form coalitions of people from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints, find commonalities and reach out and get more people involved. Common sense, Lawless said, is our common ground.

“We are on the cusp of the next revolution,” He said. “We, the people, need to make the decisions to take back our towns, our states – take back what is ours.”

Civil Libertarian Maurice Kinney opened his remarks with a description of the gravesites in Maine where his Revolutionary War veteran ancestors lay. He said he has been aware since childhood that these men had risked their lives to give Americans the civil liberties they cherish.

Kinney then cited the USAPATRIOT act as a “systematic effort to deprive us of our civil liberties” and said Ron Paul was the only candidate talking about this dangerous law.

Kinney said Ron Paul’s support continues to grow as those of us who cherish liberty see there are many Americans who agree with us. Essentially, he said, there is strength and courage to be found in numbers and civil liberties are a natural point of consensus around which we can form coalitions.

Kinney also spoke out against the unconstitutional way by which the United States has entered wars for the last seven decades. He called the preemptive wars in which we now engage a waste of lives and resources that are counterproductive to their stated goal of keeping us safe. Today’s wars, Kinney said, are not national defense but offense.

Kinney said the liberty movement has arisen in recognition that we have problems which need to be faced and encouraged us to keep at it. Quoting Samuel Adams he said, “It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” He then urged us to be pyromaniacs for freedom.

Keynote speaker Robin Koerner, a blogger at the Huffington Post, publisher of WatchingAmerica.com and coiner of the phrase “Blue Republican,” converted to the Austrian economics viewpoint in his early thirties. He looked around the Vermont State legislative chamber at the more than 80 people in attendance and said “This is what a state capital looks like when it is actually filled with people who love liberty,” for which he received a resounding round of applause.

Koerner began his remarks with some instruction on winning arguments with those of different political ideologies. He said persuasive arguments need to start from our opponents’ points of view.

“Libertarians are good at talking to each other,” Koerner said. We’re not so good at persuading others to our positions, he said and that is something we need to work on.

Moving on to the current state of the nation, Koerner said Obama is Bush-plus and the only course for principled liberals and democrats is to support Ron Paul. He reeled off a list of abuses by the federal government, including corporations and lobbyists writing federal legislation, violations of the fourth amendment and due process laws, the National Defense Authorization Act and the lack of financial privacy. Some laws, he said, actually make it illegal to tell the truth. For instance, banks are required to file suspicious reports on their clients but cannot tell clients that the government is accessing their records, even if asked.                           

Koerner urged us to get past the old left-right animosity and see the synergy between movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party, who don’t even realize how much on which they agree. He said government overreach, not neglect, is the cause of the majority of our problems today. He also blamed fear-driven policies and politics.

“America is not a scared country,” said Koerner, a native of Great Britain who hopes to gain American citizenship within the next three years. Love, he said, is the opposite of fear and is at the core of the Ron Paul revolution.

“Ron Paul’s politics say to the nation ‘As you wish,’” he said. Put in place, he added, they have the potential to unleash a torrent human potential.

Koerner said we don’t ask those on the left to give up their principles but to look at the results of decades of top-down government interference in our lives and society.

“Have the goals of social justice and economic justice been reached?” he asked. Our friends on the left, he said, need to start separating the means from the ends. No taxes are high enough to solve our problems because we need to understand the source of our problems, not just treat the disease. He believed the root of our problem is that we have strayed from our nation’s, “sublime document,” the U.S. Constitution, which leans neither left nor right but toward human liberty.

So that's how I spent last Saturday - how was your weekend?

The Morality of Capitalism

By Audrey Pietrucha

For some time now capitalism has served as the world’s favorite piñata. The blame is misplaced since most of our economic troubles are not the result of laissez-faire economics but the antithesis: market intervention and manipulation. In reality, capitalism and free markets are responsible for and supportive of much of what we value in our lives, our relationships and our society. For those who love freedom, capitalism is the highest moral ground on which they can stand. 

The most obvious evidence of capitalism’s constructive influence is the cooperation free markets produce among participants. When people engage in commerce there is an inclination to get along. Both parties want something from the other and both believe that exchange will somehow improve their lives. When I visit the Crazy Russian Girls bakery and buy a scone, I give them a couple of dollars because that scone is more valuable to me than the money. They accept my money because it is more valuable to them than the scone. We have both freely given to each other and the interaction has added value to our lives.

That peaceful exchange, like millions that are engaged in by people throughout the world every day, was prescribed by Thomas Jefferson as a good on the international level as well. "An exchange of surpluses and wants between neighbor nations is both a right and a duty under the moral law,” he said. He often linked peace and free commerce between nations, recognizing trading partners seldom declare war on one another.

Free markets also promote competition, which is nothing more or less than the pursuit of excellence. Competition encourages individuals and businesses alike to improve, grow and flourish. In the market this striving for excellence transpires in the service of others. Businesses are more successful when they please their customers so they compete with each other to provide the best goods and services. Pioneering businesses and cutting-edge entrepreneurs use competition to push themselves and their products forward. Consumers are the biggest winners in these contests.

Emulation is another positive component of free markets. Remember when you were a kid and your best friend went out and bought the same baseball cap you had but then dressed it up with some stickers? You complained to your mom, who told you when someone copies you they are paying you a compliment. Free market innovators copy each other all the time and they keep adding stickers to the original baseball cap until it is almost unrecognizable. They use free information garnered by both those who have come before and contemporaries to see what succeeds and what fails, and then act accordingly. This is how the goods and services we use evolve and improve. The key board I’m typing on was not invented by the same person who invented my laptop. It isn’t even the same one that first appeared on a typewriter decades ago. My laptop was not invented by one person but by many people building on ideas and inventions that came before them – and so on and so on.

This idea of emulation reveals the miracle of the free market. Many years ago it was expounded in a wonderful essay called“I, Pencil.” Written by Leonard E. Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, “I, Pencil” is the autobiography of a pencil. What appears to us to be a simple object is actually the culmination of hours of labor and centuries of innovation and discovery. As Read succinctly concluded:

I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles: a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles which manifest themselves in Nature an even more extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies—millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human masterminding! Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree.

No, no one man or even a committee of men could create a pencil. This is why planned economies always fail. No group of people, no matter how smart they or we think they are, is smart enough to anticipate what Austrian economist Murray Rothbard described as the “highly complex, interacting latticework of exchanges” necessary to produce and distribute the goods and service human beings demand.

 

Capitalism is not without flaws, but then no system is because it is engaged in by people and people are imperfect. Still, a system that encourages voluntary cooperation and peaceful exchange must be considered morally superior to one in which force and coercion are necessary components, as is the case with any system that relies on confiscation and redistribution of wealth. Just as Winston Churchill said of democracy, capitalism is the worst economic system - except for all the rest.

Audrey Pietrucha hosts The Catamount Room on public access television. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

Economics in one short lesson

Audrey Pietrucha

“The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”- Henry Hazlitt

This is the one economic lesson taught in Henry Hazlitt’s aptly named classic, Economics in One Lesson. It is a lesson that has not been learned by either the ruling or the chattering classes, who continue a short-sighted, group-focused approach to economic policy in this country. The examples on our current economic landscape are myriad – repeated stimulus programs, the housing loan crisis, “Cash for Clunkers”- yet their lessons continue to be ignored even as the consequences of mistaken and harmful actions manifest themselves in an economy that refuses to improve.

Hazlitt upheld the theories of his philosophical predecessor, Frederick Bastiat. This 19th century French political economist challenged the moral and practical right of government to intervene in financial transactions between free people, as well as its effectiveness in creating prosperity. He observed that economic intervention is most commonly proposed by one group in society trying to gain for themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Bastiat also famously warned of the unintended consequences inherent in such intervention. Unintended consequences are the economic equivalent of Sir Isaac Newton's third law of motion, which states "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" and they abound. The “Great Society” programs were not intended to increase out-of-wedlock births and broken families nor were extended unemployment benefits meant to discourage employment searches but these are partial results nonetheless. Guaranteeing loans to banks is not supposed to make them more reckless in their lending practices but often does. Social Security was not meant to nearly eliminate personal planning for retirement but has.

“Depth in economics consists in looking for all the consequences of a policy instead of merely resting one’s gaze on those immediately visible,” Hazlitt said in his economic treatise. Bastiat put it thus: “The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

Too many of today’s economists fit Bastiat’s definition of bad, and too many of our leaders and opinion-makers rely on their incomplete prognoses. That politicians are also shortsighted is not surprising but one could wish for more depth from some of the experts who advise them as well as the media which report and comment on their doings.

That we even accept the role of government in fashioning our economy is a sad statement on how far we have strayed from the laissez-faire model under which our nation thrived during its first few decades. There is a strange belief that politicians and bureaucrats know better how to spend our money they we ourselves do and, therefore, the more of our money that ends up in their control, the better. It is as though money that avoids being deposited in government coffers disappears when, in fact, the opposite is true. Money that remains in private hands is distributed more immediately and efficiently to others through trade or philanthropy.

Keeping more of our money in the private sector might also have a positive unintended consequence: it might minimize the politicians’ proclivity to be constantly seen as doing something when often the best thing they could do is nothing at all. Perhaps congressmen and presidents would not need to prove their worth so much and would stop tinkering since they cannot possibly understand, control and anticipate all that produces a thriving economy. Maybe as they saw the American people participate in mutually beneficial financial transactions without their help and interference they would gain some much-needed humility, as well as trust in people to conduct their own lives and financial affairs.

Our current economic situation is the result of actions taken by short-sighted and narrowly-focused policymakers who came long before us and worked their dark magic over many years. It is not the fault of Barack Obama or even George W. Bush, though both have contributed and both are blamed by their political adversaries. It is the result of intervention in the free economy by progressives and industrialists, bankers and champions of social justice. Financially powerful individuals will always try use government to steer economic policies in directions beneficial to themselves while the politically powerful will always try to use government to achieve social and financial goals beneficial to their favored groups. Unfortunately, government itself is a willing player in this game.

Our leaders should learn Hazlitt’s lesson and put it in practice. Their vision should extend beyond their next self-important sound-bite on the evening news or the upcoming re-election campaign. They should have the strength of character and the wisdom to resist special interests of all stripes and make decisions that will benefit the American people over the long haul. They should admit sometimes the best decision they can make is no decision at all and let the American people be about their business. We can take it from here.

Audrey Pietrucha helps coordinate the Vermont Liberty Alliance. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

The Case for Christmas

Audrey Pietrucha

T’is the season for religion in general and Christianity in particular to come under attack by the not-so-tolerant anti-god folks. Having pretty much eliminated any references to Christmas in our schools and other public spaces (Holiday Trees anyone?) they can now put all their energy into the battle against nativity scenes and Tim Tebow.

At such a time it useful to consider the role religion plays in a free society and what the founders of our republic thought of its importance to a people who wished to be self-governing. It’s hard to argue that our nation’s tilt toward secularism has produced a more virtuous people so what might more personal religiosity as well as moral and ethical introspection do to improve our current situation?

While the founders differed in their personal religious beliefs, they still honored the Judeo-Christian worldview which influenced western civilization. They also recognized the need for the teaching of morality and republican values in the young American population. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, said John Adams. “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

George Washington agreed. In his farewell address he argued that religion and morality were “indispensable supports” of the fledgling nation. “The mere Politician, equally with the pious man,” said Washington, “ought to respect and to cherish them.”

As adherents to John Locke’s philosophy of natural moral law the founders believed, in the words of Samuel Adams, that an American citizen retained the right to “worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.” This belief was codified in the First Amendment to the Constitution which states, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” Taken at face value it is hard to see how that translates into first graders being forbidden to eat cupcakes off Santa Claus paper plates at their celebrations-formerly-known-as-Christmas-parties but in my nieces’ upstate New York elementary school that is exactly how far anti-religion fervor and political correctness have been taken.

This begs the question of why religion threatens so many people. Certainly we’ve all heard the contention that evil acts committed in the name of religion outweigh the good. This is a specious argument for two reasons: first, it is impossible to know how many good and decent acts have been carried out by people of faith, especially since small daily acts of kindness rarely makes the news; but even more obviously one can argue that much more evil has been perpetrated by leaders and regimes that claimed no connection to religion whatsoever, but were in fact officially atheistic. Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot were not exactly known for their piety. They were, however, officially sanctioned heads of state so should we look into abolishing government?

This actually gets a little closer to why religion threatens some. A self-governing people need less external control, which makes much of government unnecessary. When neighbors take seriously the commandment to love one another, and provide such services as meals and rides to the doctor for those in need, these state-sponsored services become unnecessary. When families care for their children and their elderly we don’t need state-sponsored daycare and seniorcare. When families form in the first place we don’t need as many poverty programs. A community of compassionate, benevolent and committed people like those often produced through adherence to a religious creed takes care of its own so the state doesn’t have to.

On an individual level these people can also be threatening because they demonstrate that there is another way to live, a way that demands more of us than we sometimes wish to demand of ourselves. The attacks on devoutly and unabashedly Christian Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow illustrate this point.

Tebow has been excoriated for dropping to a knee in prayer after throwing a touchdown pass, sporting biblical verses on the paint beneath his eyes and thanking Jesus first and foremost after every game. During the off-season he participates in mission trips to third-world orphanages and generally walks the walk of which he talks. It’s a little puzzling that behavior such as this is an issue in a league where it is estimated one out of five players will be arrested at some point on charges of anything from DUI to domestic assault to murder but some commentators and players have made it so and the young man has been roundly criticized.

But Tebow also has his defenders and they are starting to include the majority of Americans. Even when we ourselves do not live up to high standards of behavior we usually admire someone who does. This coincides with our appreciation of religion and Christmas in particular. According to a recent Rasmussen poll the number of religious Americans is on the rise and eighty-eight percent of American say they celebrate Christmas. In light of these numbers a lot of us are wondering why the remaining twelve-percent get to call the shots when it comes to the upcoming holiday.

There is nothing “offensive” about a nativity scene on public property and wishing someone a “Merry Christmas” is not an attempt to convert the non-religious. Both are merely universally understood expressions of love and good will. Exposure to religious ideas and symbols does not harm psychologically healthy people but provides guidance and comfort to many.

The Judeo-Christian worldview is the foundation of many of our American values and should be accepted as such. Tolerance should go both ways.

The questionable value of experts

By Audrey Pietrucha

At the beginning of April of this year some of us were wondering if the baseball season was worth playing or if we should just go straight to the World Series. The experts had conducted their deep, thoughtful analysis and concluded, quite adamantly, it would be the Phillies and the Red Sox in the world championship games with the actual title somewhat up for grabs.
It’s a good thing the St. Louis Cardinals didn’t listen to the experts, only two of whom even put them in the post-season. It was the Cards, after all, who knocked the Phillies out in the first playoff round on their way to winning their eleventh World Series championship. As for the Red Sox, baseball fans will not soon forget that September night when they came within one strike of winning the AL wildcard slot only to lose the last game of the regular season – and their chance for post-season play – to the lowly Baltimore Orioles, a team that had nothing to play for except the satisfaction of being spoilers.

Fortunately, the experts at ESPN rebounded in October, offering spot-on predictions for the World Series with 22 out of 26 pundits forecasting a championship for the Texas Rangers. Oops – foiled again by that pesky element called human action.

Expert predictions influence many of our decisions as individuals and as a society. Predictions about who will win the Superbowl or take home an Academy Award are fairly innocuous – whether wrong or right, the outcomes of these predictions have little effect on the majority of Americans. Predictions in areas such as economics, and, however, can have far-reaching and often negative effects. This is especially concerning when we realize how often the so-called “experts” are actually wrong.

About twenty years ago research psychologist Philip Tetlock undertook one of the largest empirical studies ever conducted on the value of predictions. He concentrated on predictions regarding political outcomes and included 300 highly regarded political observers – college professors, media pundits, and policy makers – in his study. After Tetlock analyzed the accuracy of 80,000 predictions, he came to the conclusion that the “experts” thought they knew a whole lot more than they actually did. In fact, he found the accuracy of the professionals was no better than that of the well-read layman.

Two factors influenced the accuracy of predictions in Tetlock’s study. Dogmatism, the inability to adjust conclusions to new evidence, was one. The other was the complicated nature of some of the realms in which predictions are attempted. Linear predictions such as the amount of time it will take someone to drive from point A to point B are fairly easy to make accurately. But predictions about complex structures, whether they be weather systems, NCAA basketball or the economy, are difficult, if not impossible, to make accurately. With human systems it seems the more people involved the more likely the “experts” are to be wrong in their prognostications.

Knowing this is important as we evaluate our societal problem-solving strategy. If we begin to value reasonable study, experience and common sense as much as, if not more, than unproven theories, we may find the solutions to our problems are fairly straightforward.

A case in point is the strange romance politicians have with the idea of stimulus as a way to bring our nation to economic health. Any reasonable American would conclude that curtailing purchases and saving rather than spending money would restore economic soundness to a household but our politicians stand that common sense approach on its head. Instead, both Congress and our president pursue a course of increased borrowing and spending. In this they cite economic “experts” such as John Maynard Keynes, a man who seemed to discount the important influence of individual rather than institutional action on economic systems. It is telling, though, that even Keynes’ advice, as welcome as it is, is only considered to a point. While Keynes advocated government spending as a way to stimulate a sluggish economy, he also advised saving in preparation for economic downturns. Somehow, that part was overlooked.

This is the major drawback to public policy dictated by experts. First experts themselves are chosen according to how well their advice fits with what policy makers want to do in the first place. Then that advice is sorted through like a box of chocolates, with the caramels and raspberry creams being picked out while the mint jellies grow stale in their wrappers.

The founders of our nation expected the citizenry to be actively engaged in the cause of governance. Much of that engagement was supposed to take place within our communities, where we could solve small problems before they grew into statewide or national concerns. Certainly, they never expected us to abandon our birthright as Americans to “experts” whose solutions are not necessarily any wiser or effective than the ones we ourselves can find. Serious, responsible and thoughtful citizens are ultimately the only experts worth consulting.

Strange Bedfellows?

The nationwide Occupy Wall Street protests (OWS) have also occupied much of the news and discussion this past month. What has gone largely unacknowledged, though, is how many concerns OWS shares with the Tea Party, which itself began as a reaction to the Wall Street bailouts and the U.S. government’s use of taxpayer money to intervene in the financial system.

A few reforms OWS has called for with which the Tea Party could agree include: limiting the influence of lobbyists on Congress, including the odious practice of lobbyists writing much of the legislation that actually ends up on the floor of Congress; passage of “Revolving Door Legislation,” which would prevent government regulators from going to work for the companies they once regulated; and full investigations and prosecutions of all who criminally contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. While OWS concentrates on Wall Street financiers here, the Tea Party would include bureaucrats, members of congress and administration officials who were also responsible for the corrupt circumstances under which our financial system imploded.

Yet the reaction to OWS from both establishment media and politicians has been quite different from what greeted the Tea Party. It has also been predictably partisan. The biggest shock the Tea Party movement withstood (and continues to deal with) was the treatment it received from the press. Here was a large group of average citizens finally disgusted enough with the state of the nation to get off their couches and get involved. While most didn’t expect actual support from a media that tends to cozy up to the very people upon whom it should be exercising scrutiny, namely politicians, they expected to at least be taken seriously and allowed a fair hearing of their grievances.

Instead, many of the pundits who are praising OWS for moving the nation out of its complacency couldn’t think fast enough of names to call the Tea Party when it attempted to do the same. Favorites, of course, included “racists” and “tea baggers,” but there was also the penchant for pointing out that “most” TP activists (a slightly larger group within the group) were “old white men,” as if this somehow made their concerns less valid. In a rational universe the opinions of a group of people who has spent the past four or five decades raising families, building businesses, paying taxes and fighting America’s wars might carry more weight than those of a bunch of kids who haven’t really contributed much yet on either a personal or societal level. But the world of the establishment media is not rational and in this case ageism and sexism were perfectly acceptable reasons to dismiss out of hand an entire group of concerned American citizens.

Of course there are a number of the usual multi-millionaire Hollywood suspects jumping on the “we hate rich people” bandwagon. One is actor Alec Baldwin – the same Alec Baldwin who has been all over television lately touting the Capital One Venture Card. Baldwin is actually partnering with Capital One to support private foundations which promote the arts, a worthy cause and a model of how arts funding should be provided. It is interesting, though, that Baldwin would choose to partner with a bank rather than, say, the National Endowment for the Arts. Perhaps corporations have their uses after all.

And then there are the politicians. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went so far as to invoke deity when she gushed “God bless them for their spontaneity . . . it’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.” This is the same woman who called the Tea Party “dangerous,” compared its members to violent radicals and hinted that their free speech rights should be curtailed because she feared some of the rhetoric being used by the Tea Party could lead to violence. Exactly what about “Follow the Constitution” and “Give Us Liberty, not Debt!” frightened Mrs. Pelosi so much?
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama’s profound expression of empathy and understanding toward the Occupy crowds was not received very graciously. One member of the occupywallst.org forum recently posted “We are doomed. President Obama today praised OccupyWallStreet. How can we have a proper rebellion if one of our nation's leaders praises us? Time to join forces with the Tea Party - they were vilified.”
At least someone at OWS recognizes truth and his comment may be the most honest and helpful to date. First it recognizes that, too often, we the people are turned against each other and attention is deflected from the real culprits. It also nails the current media paradigm through which a few powerful media outlets hold the power to shape public opinion for or against a movement. OWS is now in the same precarious position the Tea Party once held - when the powers- that-be decide the movement’s fifteen-minutes of fame and respectability are up, reasonable and articulate spokespersons will be ignored in favor of fringe participants and their extreme statements and behaviors. Then OWS will know the same vilification from which the Tea Party has suffered.
These two groups should be talking to each other rather than the media. OWS might bring the Tea Party’s focus back to the economic issues around which it formed and Tea Party representatives could help OWS protesters understand liberty-oriented solutions to the problems created by the unconstitutional confluence of big business and government. If they could form an alliance, so can we.

Audrey Pietrucha helps coordinate the Vermont Liberty Alliance. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

US continues slide down economic freedom scale

Audrey Pietrucha

If economic and political liberties are necessarily linked, as many believe, then the United States’ reputation as the land of the free slipped a little further this week as documented in Economic Freedom of the World 2011 Annual Report.

The 15th edition of the report, as compiled by the Cato Institute, the Frasier Institute of Canada and more than 70 think tanks from throughout the world, ranks 141 nations for 2009, the most recent year for which data are available. Hong Kong and Singapore led the way as nations offering the most economic freedom while Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand filled out the top five. The tiny African island nation of Mauritius took the number nine spot ahead of the United States, which just squeaked into the top ten.

The report designates the basis of economic freedom as voluntary exchange, personal choice, security of private property and the freedom to compete and measures the extent to which a nation’s policies and institutions provide a foundation for these pillars. More than forty data points are used to summarize and measure economic freedom in five broad areas. These areas include the size and scope of government as well as its impact on the private economy through expenditures and taxes; legal structure, especially as it relates to property rights; sound monetary policies; free international trade and regulation of credit, labor and business.

The report attributes the United States’ decline over the last ten years partly to lower scores in legal structure and property rights, but the bulk of the problem comes from higher government spending and borrowing. Considering this report is based on data from 2009 and does not include the last few bloated budgets delivered by Washington there is reason to believe next year’s findings will be even more discouraging.

A fascinating finding of the report is the extent to which economically free nations outperform non-free nations in terms of the well-being of their populations. For instance, the average per-capita GDP of nations in the top quarter of the index was more than six times that of nations in the bottom quarter. The average income of the poorest ten percent of the freer nations’ populations was more than eight times higher than that of the poorest inhabitants of unfree nations. In fact, the poorest members of economically freer nations were almost twice as rich as the average citizen of the economically least-free countries with the $8,735 average income of the poorest members of the top quarter almost double the $4,545 overall income per capita in the bottom quarter. Poverty rates influence wellness, of course, so it is not surprising that life expectancy in the top quartile is almost nineteen years longer than that in the bottom quartile, 79.4 years compared to 60.7 years.

An interesting finding of this year’s report was a comparison of policies that promote freedom over entitlement in relation to economic development. Jean-Pierre Chauffour, lead economist with the World Bank, Middle East and North Africa Region, studied the balance between coerced economic decisions and free choices and concluded that nations which emphasize free choice in the form of economic, civil and political liberties over entitlement rights are likely to achieve higher sustainable economic growth. In contrast, pursuing entitlement rights through greater coercion by the state is likely to be self-defeating in the long run. This is important information for developed countries to consider as they pursue reform of the welfare state and even more important for developing nations as demands for political freedom spur the creation of new social contracts with citizens.

The African experience is important evidence of this finding. Post-colonial Africa turned almost exclusively toward socialism and authoritarian rule. Two notable exceptions were top-ten contender Mauritius and Botswana, which ranked 68 on the economic freedom scale. Sadly, eight of the ten least-free nations were African including bottom dwellers Angola and Zimbabwe. The South American nation of Venezuela and the Asian nation of Myanmar were the only non-African nations to so dubiously distinguish themselves.

The message is clear – societies that embrace economic and political freedom thrive while those whose people are not given choices in how they live their lives and spend their money fail. As we continue the discussion in our own nation about the proper balance between private and public economic behavior let’s err on the side of freedom and at least give Mauritius a run for her money.

Audrey Pietrucha helps coordinate the Vermont Liberty Alliance. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.