Originally posted on The Word From the Wise, Alec’s personal blog.

According to Samer Naji, the Vice President of External Affairs for the Associated Students at the University of California, San Diego, due to complaints and “various concerns raised about the Occupy Resolution, the External Affairs Office decided to draft a different resolution directed mainly towards our campus.”

Therefore, instead of passing a resolution to support the occupy movement, they decided to focus their efforts on passing a resolution in support of Reclaim UCSD.

However, the AS office of External Affairs does not stop there. Instead, their new resolution decides to overturn their former Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community that was passed last April. The new resolution states: “LET IT BE RESOLVED, the ASUCSD shall rescind their decision to maintain neutrality in regards to world events and political issues and instead shall take a more proactive approach to allow the association to partake in relevant political affairs that deeply impact students and are significant to their student lives.”

This clause effectively overturns AS decision to remain neutral regarding world events and national political issues. Sadly this clause in the current resolution is completely unnecessary. The Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community only restrains AS from remaining neutral on “divisive external political issue[s].” Although divisive, Reclaim UCSD is an on campus issue and does not fall under the purview of the Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community. Therefore, the AS Office of External Affairs is effectively trying to once more assert itself as a partisan organization by seeking to repeal the Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community.

It was your actions and your emails that got the AS office of External Affairs to update its resolution. Keep up the hard work. To express your disapproval for the Associated Students at UCSD passing this resolution, email asvpexternal@ucsd.edu or contact the council members directly: http://as.ucsd.edu/council

Attached is the updated resolution: Resolution in Support of Reclaim UCSD

Originally posted on The Word From the Wise, Alec’s personal blog.

On April 13, 2011 the Associated Students at the University of California, San Diego voted to endorse a principle of neutrality on political and divisive issues and refrain from passing resolutions.

Yet this promise has faded quickly, with the announcement that the AS Vice-President External Affairs Samer Naji will be introducing a resolution on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 that will explicitly announce the Associated Students support for the Occupy movement.

Although I am generally sympathetic with some of the goals of the Occupy movement, such as their concern that big business is in collusion with government and that bailouts for banks are wrong, yet other claims, such as debt forgiveness for all and “magic” money for every pet project they could imagine are hollow demands and are stupid. In addition, the recent acts of violence in Washington DC, Oakland, and San Diego (among others) has slowly eroded their positive attributes.

In addition, the resolution conflates the recent protests that have been met in some cases with what could be characterized as “excessive force” in the UC System with the Occupy movement at large. The resolution opens with statements claiming: “reckless greed committed by Wall Street firms and Executives,” “corporations prey[ing] on the hopes and aspirations held by millions of people with the simple and selfish aim to maximize profit,” “these corporations are responsible for the eviction of millions of people from their homes due to predatory lending practices.”

Most concerning of all however, this resolution calls upon the “Associated Students [to] provide support for protests and or occupations, should students decide to set up an occupation on campus.” This means that the A.S. will be using your student fees to bring the Occupy movement to UCSD and then proceed to disrupt traffic and interrupt classes and speeches. If members of A.S. want to use their stipends to cover the “Occupy Movement,” then that is their prerogative. But it is a shame that the Associated Students at UCSD continue to try to misrepresent more than 23,000 undergraduates, display their biases in a official capacity, and for revealing their belief that they know whats best for you.

I hope that UCSD students will tell AS to keep itself out of political and controversial matters and let them get back to problems that they have direct influence over, such as improving the parking situation at UCSD, dining dollar inflation, and restoring SunGod.

To express your disapproval for the Associated Students at UCSD passing this resolution, email asvpexternal@ucsd.edu or contact the council members directly: http://as.ucsd.edu/council

Below is the Resolution in full.

***

Resolution to Support the Occupy Movement

Whereas, individuals in the United States and across the world have been severely impacted by the reckless greed committed by Wall Street firms and Executives;

Whereas, these corporations preyed on the hopes and aspirations held by millions of people with the simple and selfish aim to maximize profit1;

Whereas, the profits made by the major businesses and corporations are being used to influence the American political system and the choices it makes, regardless of the impacts to ordinary individuals2

Whereas, these corporations are responsible for the eviction of millions of people from their homes due to predatory lending practices3;

Whereas, University of California, San Diego students, faculty, staff, and workers have been deeply impacted by the 2008 Financial Crisis and following recession that was caused by reckless management of domestic and international financial systems;

Whereas, billions in taxpayer dollars were committed to bailing out selfish and predatory corporations at the cost of neglecting Main Street America and cutting public funding for vital public services4;

Whereas, funding cuts to institutions of higher education, including the University of California, have led to skyrocketing tuition and fees, service cuts, and faculty, staff, and worker layoffs;

Whereas, personal and student debt has and continues to skyrocket5;

Whereas, concerned individuals have committed to peaceful occupation of symbolic centers in protest of the symbiotic relationship between corporate and government institutions, in addition to protesting public service cuts and the continual reduction of their standards of living,

Whereas, the demands made by the various occupations are closely aligned with the demands made by the University of California Student Association, including but not limited to:
The demand for corporate accountability,
The demand for a separation between corporate money and the American political system,
The demand to reform Proposition 13 to raise corporate property tax rates,
The demand to return for public higher education to return to be fully publicly funded and affordable.

And whereas, local police departments, including the University of California Police Department, have resorted to forceful eviction and suppression of peaceful demonstrators, in violation of their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble6;

Let it therefore be resolved that the Associated Students of the University of California, San Diego endorse the Occupy movement;

Be it further resolved that the Associated Students provide support for protests and or occupations, should students decide to set up an occupation on campus;

Be it further resolved that the University of California, San Diego Chancellor sign a pledge, ensuring students’ rights to free speech and assembly on campus;

And let it finally be resolved that the Associated Students strongly condemns and demands that the University of California, Davis, and the University of California, Berkeley Chancellors and Police Chiefs resign immediately for authorizing the use of force by the University of California Police Department on UC students, faculty, staff, and workers

1. http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/109/bradley.html
2. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12184365

4. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html
5. http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136214779/college-student-debt-grows-is-it-worth-it
6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/03/occupy-militarisation-policing-protest

Iran dug itself into an even deeper hole on Tuesday when a collection of United States federal agencies foiled an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. In addition to this plan, it is also widely suspected that Iran was planning on attacking the Israeli embassy in Washington.

As the story goes, two Iranian citizens held a meeting in Mexico in May of this year seeking assistance with the assassination of the Saudi ambassador. That is when U.S. federal agents began to infiltrate the plot which then led to the September 29 arrest of Mr. Arbabsiar, one of the two men believed to be a part of the conspiracy.

Politically, this has come at a very bad time for Iran. The Iranian regime is currently seeking a nuclear program, whether it is for power or weapons. In response to these Iranian actions, the U.S. Congress has passed sanctions against Iran in order to slow down the Iranian financial sector. Congress’ hope is that this pressure will grind Iran’s nuclear program to a halt. Not only does the United States fear a nuclear armed Iran, but so do regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Israel and others as confirmed by Wikileaks. Although up to this point the United States has spoken somewhat rhetorically in regard to an attack on Iran in order to prevent the advancement of their nuclear program, it seems that this Iranian attempt might be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

First and foremost, the United States has been reluctant to advocate a military option due in part to its recent military engagements in the Middle East. But now, it would not be surprising to see the American stance on Iran become slightly more hostile. On this point does this whole hypothesis rest: if the United States increases its threats against Iran, even moreso will Israel and Saudi Arabia increase their threats against Iran. Thus, these threats could turn into action and an attack could be eminent. Below, a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facility will be played out.

Understandably, the Saudis are not going to take the Iranian threat lightly. Saudi Arabia and Iran have had poor relations for many years. As a client of the United States, Saudi Arabia has one of the most advanced militaries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia’s arsenal includes around 200 F-15s, one of the most advanced airframes in the world. If Saudi Arabia feels that Iran is posing enough of a threat, these planes could play a very large role in a potential reprisal raid against Iran by Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia would be most useful as an origin for the attacks.

In addition to Iran’s poor relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran’s relations with Israel have fallen apart since the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has, on multiple occasions, called for the absolute destruction of Israel, a statement that Israel does not take lightly given its location and the Jewish people’s long history of persecution. In comparison to Saudi Arabia’s almost 200 F-15s, Israel weighs in with about 100 F-15s and about 225 F-16s. Likewise, given Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear program and calls for the destruction of Israel, these airplanes could play a pivotal role in an attack on Iran. However, one of Israel’s best weapons is its logistical resilience. Israeli planes knocked out the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s without losing a single plane.

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia come nowhere close to the United States’ air capabilities. The United States has almost 500 F-15s, about 1000 F-16s, 22 B-2 Bombers – all just in the Air Force. If you include the other branches of the military, there are literally hundreds of other attack aircraft available for a retribution strike against the Iranian nuclear program. Also, unmanned drones and cruise missiles could play a large part in a potential attack.

Winning a battle or, in this case, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, would take more than a bunch of airplanes. This attack would require lots of logistical planning with simultaneous strikes taking out Iran’s air force, anti-aircraft defense, and its early-warning radar. This is precisely where the various countries involved can best be put to work. The Saudis, for instance, are located closest to Iran. The headquarters for this reprisal operation could be centered from an airbase in Saudi Arabia. In regard to gathering intelligence, Israel has one of the most effective intelligence gathering organizations in the world. With regard to tactical planning, Israel and the United States have lots of practice. While the United States made easy word of the Iraqi early-warning radar and missile-defense system in both Desert Storm and the Gulf War, Israel has shown its planning resilience in the Bekaa Valley and in the attack on Iraq’s Osiraq reactor. Needless to say, the combined ability of the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia could prove devastating to the Iranian state. Further, there are many more countries, be they regional or part of NATO, that also feel threatened by Iran’s nuclear program and could feel prompted to join in on an attack of Iran’s nuclear facilities if prompted to do so.

It will be very interesting to see how the Saudis, Israelis, and Americans respond in the next few weeks. The United States has already said that it will be pushing for stronger sanctions against Iran, but Saudi Arabia might feel so threatened that it might choose to attack. And if Saudi Arabia is determined to balance the Iranian threat, Israel and the United States might well be tempted to provide assistance to the process as well.

Steven is a senior in Revelle College majoring in Political Science: International Relations. He is currently studying abroad in Israel.

Cross posted on Peter’s blog.

Recently the United States Customs and Enforcement(ICE) agency has shutdown more than a hundred .com and .net websites, under the grounds these websites are under U.S. jurisdiction. Erik Barnett, Assistant Deputy Director for ICE, claims the United States has jurisdiction over all .com and .net websites because all Domain Name Service(DNS) indexes are “routed” through Verisign, a United States based company. In this article, I will outline three protests against the over-expansion of ICE’s power: jurisdiction, international law, and constitutional law. And, ultimately, I will question the very nature of intellectual privilege that has lead to these abuses. First, let us debunk the argument the United States has jurisdiction over all .net and .com websites.

Let me be clear: under the current rule of law, the U.S. government has power to seize domains that do not follow the law in their territorial rule. The ability of the United States to enforce these laws, is curtailed by the Bill of Rights and limited in ways which I will address later in this article. But, the United States does not have the power or authority to apply its jurisdiction over entities outside of its territorial rule, by mere definition; jurisdiction outside of territorial rule is enforced through agreements made by international actors. The question now is: does the United States have the power to enforce its jurisprudence over entities that are headquartered in their territorial rule but cross international borders, like multinational corporations? The short answer is no. Let me propose the question: does the United States require multinational corporations to pay its foreign employees, outside of its territorial rule, federal minimum wage? The United States Supreme Court has upheld that the federal government has no such power. Now, this is not to say the Supreme Court has not said the federal government does not have the power to regulate the conduct of these multinational corporations, but these decisions also take into account the jurisdiction of international actors. Under the current rule of law, the claim ICE is making would not even be upheld in court, and this is not even the very nature of domain name services. The truth is these domain name service providers that are being seized by ICE are completely outside of the United States. To understand this, let me briefly explain what a domain name service provider is, and what a domain name index is. A domain name service is a pointer that translates a name to a given address, in this case an Internet protocol address. A domain name index registrar like Verisign translates the top-tier domains such as .net and .com. and points to the given registrar of the domain name. No information outside of the header’s pointers are ever directed through these registrars. For example, when you visit google.com, your browser is pointed by the top-tier domain(TLD) to its lower-tier(Google), which then points to an IP address, and your browser then pulls information directly off of the given address directly to the client’s browser. In laymen terms, DNS acts as nothing more than a physical address, while the data between two individual entities are directly sent to one another. Currently the domains ICE is seizing are outside of the United States, and are under the jurisdiction of other states. This implores only one thing: the United States is contesting the jurisdiction and sovereignty of other nations; an act some would call war. To understand how jurisdiction and sovereignty work in the realm of what political scientists call international anarchy, we must understand how intellectual privilege is enforced through International Law.

The primary enforcement mechanism of intellectual privilege in international relations is treaties. The first major treaty signed over intellectual privilege between international actors was the Berne Convention of 1886. The United States did not ratify this treaty until 1988. Let me note: this is the only constitutional way to enforce intellectual privilege across borders. Other intellectual privilege treaties have been signed since the Internet’s creation, one such treaty is the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty(WIPO); this treaty was ratified in the United States under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The WIPO treaty is enforced by many states around the world. And, of course, if there is a conflict over intellectual privilege between these states that have signed this treaty, they use the proper mechanisms described in the treaty to solve disputes. ICE is currently circumventing these mechanisms, which are the proper legal means to enforce the notion of intellectual privilege. To reject this notion is to reject the rule of law. A third concern I have with the over-extension of ICE’s power is the realm of their constitutional limits, the natural rights of those around the world, and the rights protected by the United States government in their agreement with the people of the United States: the Bill of Rights.

To reject the fact the United States Bill of Rights enforces natural rights, is to reject the rich history given to us by the Founders of the United States. One of the most important natural rights that is to be protected by the U.S. government is the Freedom of Speech. An ally to liberty, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, recently wrote an amicus brief over these concerns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation takes note that many of the domains being seized by ICE never contained intellectual privilege violations, but instead contained links to sites that may be committing those violations. This of course was found unconstitutional in Ctr. for Democracy and Tech. v. Pappert. Not to mention, most of the websites that are found in violation of Intellectual Privilege, are sites directly suggested to them by the MPAA and the RIAA. In an open letter to ICE, Senator Ronald Wyden has addressed the fact these sites have not been able to defend themselves from domain name seizures in a court of law. In their amicus brief, the Electronic Frontier Foundation(EFF) notes:

Basically, the EFF proposes a fundamental problem with domain name seizures: it censors speech that is non-infringing to intellectual privilege. So, under what grounds does ICE have the power to seize domain names? Well of course they have the powers granted to them by Congress, but under constitutional limits. In my belief, in their constitutional boundaries, ICE only has the power to issue warrants against websites in the United States that have violated intellectual privilege. So far, I have addressed several concerns with the abuses ICE is committing internationally and domestically. So what has lead to these abuses? I argue it is the very nature of intellectual privilege that has lead to this abuse of power.

If you have not already noticed, I have supplemented the word property for privilege in “intellectual property.” Why you ask? The phrase “intellectual property” is a misnomer. Property is non-rivalrous in consumption, tangible. Stephan Kinesella, in his work Against Intellectual Property writes:

The truth is that, unlike other resources, ideas are not scarce. Or as a Bouckeratt puts it: “only naturally scarce entities over which physical control is possible are candidates” to be real property. Stephan Kinsella writes:

This, I believe, justifies the phrase “intellectual privilege,” because it is nothing more than the state granting a monopoly. Of course, by its very nature, “intellectual property” is thus a creation of the state. This of course leads state actors and entities to compete over such a privilege. And, in many ways this power is controlled by large entities. In the United States, such a privilege (IP), to own ideas, was primarily at the mercy of the state until the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, but with contentions. It turns out that many of these “property rights” only exist because the government has deemed that they do, of course under the influence and lobbying of large corporations like Disney. The power of corporations, unions, and other institutions to influence the state, by very nature has created the “right” of “intellectual property.” So, we should not be surprised by the recent acts ICE has committed or by the grand amount of influence the MPAA and the RIAA have over our government; after all it is in their best interest. At the end of the day, I believe conservatives and liberals should demand our government to adhere to the Constitution, and libertarians should contest the control of ideas and call it for what it is: the greatest form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Note: I first heard the phrase “intellectual privilege” from Professor Tom W. Bell at Chapman University.

After increasing tuition nine times over the last ten years, undergraduates in the UC system will now be paying more than 200 percent what their contemporaries ten years ago had paid, in order to pay for a bigger UC bureaucracy. Since 2000, the UC administration has also increased in size by more than 200 percent.

At the UC Regents upcoming meeting on July 12-14 in San Francisco, the Regents plan to discuss an additional 9.6% tuition increase. If this tuition increase is passed, it will raise costs for an instate student from $11,124 to $12,200 for the coming academic year.

In March 2011, the President of the UC Regents, Mark Yudof, told students to be prepared for a possible mid-year tuition increase of 32% for 2011-2012 if state funds are not restored. At the current rate of tuition increases, it has been estimated that instate student tuition could hit $25,000 by the 2015-2016 academy year.

To understand the effect of this increase on a UCSD undergraduate, the cost of fall tuition alone in 2003-2004 was $2,035.50 while in 2011 it will have increased to $4,352.56.

Mark Yudof said in 2009 that the tuition increases were unfortunate but necessary because, “When you have no money, you have no money.” Yet why does the UC system have no money? The students are paying more and the faculty is shrinking so those cannot be the problem. Rather it is the administration that is to blame for its continued expansion. Since 2000, the size of the UC administration has increased by more than 200%. In addition, the number of UC employees that are making over $200,000 has grown. This bureaucratic growth comes as no surprise when considering the power of the University of California’s public employee unions. Much of the salary increases were the result of “automatic longevity raises mandated by union contracts.”

UC President Mark Yudof has continued to negatively affect the UC budget as well. He was ranked 76^th among top-paid employees, earning $577,650 in 2009. This comes as no surprise as he was the highest paid public administrator serving public education in the United States while he served as the head of the University of Texas in 2003.

As the administration continues to expand the stress they place on undergraduates increases. At UC San Diego class sizes continue to grow, required classes are less frequent, and the hiring freeze has made many UC faculty members to fear for their jobs, but not administrators. UCSD has just added the new position of the Vice Chancellor for Equity, Inclusion, & Diversity during the 2010-2011 academic year.

In 2009 the UC System Total Budget was around $19 Billion, which is more than the economies of many small countries. In addition, the UC system has more employees than some Fortune 500 companies. $5.6 Billion (29.47% of the total budget) amounted to the Core Funds, which are needed to continue the mission statement of education. $3.2 Billion (57.14% of the Core Budget or 16.84% of the total budget) comes from the State of California. Although the undergraduate education budget is not even 1/5^th of the total budget, it amounts to the majority of received state aid. As the State has been forced to tighten its belt, the student body of the UC System has been left footing the bill. The UC Regents who are responsible for the management of this budgetary process have failed miserably. Their lack of accountability to the UC students and California taxpayers needs to change.

California Students are waking up to the fiscal irresponsibility that is surrounding them in the UC system. We need to ask the hard questions and demand accountability of those who claim to work for us. With these continually rising costs students are starting to wonder if their degree is worth the expenses associated with it.  Until the UC Regents and UC administrators are transparent and accountable to their students the quality of our education will continue to deteriorate.

Alex is a senior in Eleanor Roosevelt College double majoring in biochemistry and history.

***Editors Note: This paper discussing Marxism was submitted as a final paper in Spring 2011 at UCSD and was later permitted to be republished on the California Review.

The twentieth century has seen many opposing philosophies that attempt to reconcile economic productivity with democratic ideals such as equality and freedom (which we will attempt to define over the course of this essay). Perhaps chief among these opposing viewpoints are those of Marxism and classical liberalism. Liberalism in this sense is meant to mean economic and even social freedoms which eschew most government oversight, whereas Marxism is generally defined as a social philosophy grounded in ideals such as class equality and social welfare. It is important to note that although there are many different variations of liberals and Marxists, we will stick to these general definitions for the sake of simplicity. This essay will attempt to make a general liberal criticism of Marxist class analysis by critiquing two fundamental Marxist arguments: (a) that the leisure class necessarily dominates the working class, and (b) that the free market is a fundamentally repressive institution. This analysis will in large part concern economics, which both perspectives would use as a necessary premise for their social philosophies. We will use the works of liberal scholar Milton Friedman and Marxist scholars Thorstein Veblen and Herbert Marcuse to further make sense of this argument.

As Veblen argues in his text The Theory of the Leisure Class, a common Marxist criticism of a ‘capitalist’ society is the inevitable formation of the economically dominant group, the leisure class, over the economically (and thus socially) suppressed group, the proletariat (Hollinger 133). This argument, that in a liberalized market class inequality will inevitably rise, is a core tenet of Marxist thought. After all, there will undoubtedly exist capitalists who will be left unchecked to control prices of goods and wages of laborers. They will then proceed to reap the large surplus profits of their subjectively overpriced goods, leaving the workers with a negligible percentage of the profit and creating a large economic gulf between the capitalists and the laborers (this alludes to the opposing subjective and labor economic theories of value). Veblen believes that, left unchecked, the free market creates a leisure class that not only exploits the lower classes, but does so by “withdrawing from them as much as it may of the means of sustenance” (Hollinger 139). Friedman, on the other hand, argues that a competitive market is in fact the most efficient check against the centralization of power in one group’s hands. He argues that a free society (one that practices economic liberalism) “enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement” (Friedman 15). But one may ask, how does it follow that the economic freedom of capitalists to set their own prices creates a check to power? Friedman makes the argument that capitalism leads to freedom and not class inequality on three levels: the ethical, the utilitarian, and the social.

The first argument is ethical in nature; Friedman makes the case that that a free market is nothing more than a “voluntary co-operation of individuals” that spontaneously work together to coordinate “the economic activities of millions” (Friedman 13). Friedman argues that the only viable alternative to this is a coercive society that must use central planning and military force to run the economy. In this society, the dominant class will be the political one, the one that has the threat of violence against its people. And it must be noted that the dominant class must use this violence to execute its societal planning and engineering in order to fill in the void of the market. This alternative, this path down the road to serfdom, is unethical simply on the grounds that it (a) necessarily creates the very dominant class of people Marxists fear (which we shall henceforth call the ‘planners’), and (b) takes away the freedom of individuals to earn money and voluntarily contract with the most appealing of multiple employers in the market. Veblen notably does not make an explicit argument for strong government coercion as an alternative to voluntary market forces; indeed, his argument is little more than a reaction to ‘the leisure class’, who Friedman would view as productive individuals who were able to make a profit by providing a service obviously valuable to society.

It would seem that the ethical argument against such a system would be sufficient, but Friedman makes a more practical case for market liberalism. His second argument is utilitarian in nature. Friedman makes the case that the free market is inherently self-regulating in that it is able to coordinate the economic activity of nations while not permitting any individuals or groups to control prices of goods and services in an economy. Coffee production, for instance, involves the coordination of literally thousands of individuals, from the farmers to the truck-drivers to the factory workers to the marketing agents to the grocery clerks (Friedman 13). They all work spontaneously, all in self-interest, and all without oversight. Perhaps more important is the fact that rival companies in all aspects of coffee production, for instance, compete with each other to simultaneously drive down prices and drive up quality, creating literally millions of jobs that add value to society (this is an important point, because we often see the state spend resources to ‘create jobs’ that do not add value in society, thus in fact hurting productivity. See: Broken Window Fallacy). This system of competition, done on a non-coercive level and through self-interest, creates wealth for all involved. In a way, the capitalist is the ‘slave’ of the average consumer, attempting to provide him what he desires for as little money as possible. This leads to Friedman’s concept of a free market as the best form of voting, where the consumers vote for what they want to see in society with a formidable form of leverage, their money.

Friedman’s third and final argument for why free markets do not breed class inequality is a social one. He argues that market mechanisms actively foster equality grounded in economic incentives. Many Marxists, Veblen included, often argue that capitalists have such a hold over society that they are free to arbitrarily discriminate against any group of people that they choose, be it due to their gender, their ethnicity, or some other seemingly random reason (Hollinger 136). Friedman makes the case that capitalism in fact regulates against such discrimination of minority groups. He argues that, “there is an economic incentive in a free market to separate economic efficiency from other characteristics of the individual. A businessman or an entrepreneur who expresses preferences in his business activities that are not related to productive efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who do not” (Friedman 109). Although the knee-jerk reaction to problems of discrimination seems to be the creation of social policies that attempt to ‘fix the problem’, Friedman essentially argues that the best mechanism to reconcile equality with freedom is in fact an unregulated market. Simply put, those who discriminate are at an economic disadvantage and are eventually driven out of business due to a combination of factors such as competition, reputation, and consumer reporting. It is obvious that under this system people will fall through the cracks and discrimination will be essentially legalized, which many Marxists do not fail to point out. However the Marxist solution, as discussed, gives rise to an elite class of planners that are necessarily more repressive than any capitalists could dare to be. Why? Whereas the capitalists face checks and balances to discrimination in a society governed by supply and demand, the planners have no such checks and in fact have the power of coercion at their fingertips. This alternative, the Central Planner Fallacy if you will, breeds a necessarily totalitarian state that forces people to be equal in that they all equally lack the right to voluntary association and basic civil liberties, among other things. A free market, Friedman concludes, is the only true system of equality and democratic ideals; it is blind to factors such as race, and it attempts to truly provide for what the people in a society need while maintaining the integrity and importance of the individual (twentieth century author Ayn Rand’s quote, “the smallest minority on earth is the individual”, rings quite true here).

The second tenet of Marxist doctrine that this essay will attempt to critique is the idea that capitalism is a fundamentally repressive institution. The primary neo-Marxist advocate of this theory is the scholar Herbert Marcuse, who in his text One-Dimensional Man makes the case that man becomes a slave to the modern-day materialistic world of ‘false needs’, rendering himself ‘one-dimensional’ (Hollinger 496). The thrust of his argument lies in the theory that free markets provide people with a false perception of liberty, a “liberty to work or starve” (Hollinger 491). For Marcuse, to be free is to transcend the daily rigors of labor, to have true liberty is to be free from work. To him, the daily rigors in a capitalistic society, which rest on premises of scarcity and toil, are inherently repressive and anti-progressive. As Marcuse states, “‘progress’ is not a neutral term; it moves towards specific ends, and these ends are defined by the possibilities of ameliorating the human condition” (Hollinger 498). Marcuse believes that while a liberalized economy is not coercive in the strictest sense, it is nonetheless repressive on account of its seemingly false choices such as ‘work or starve’, ‘buy this luxury or that luxury’, ‘do this labor or that labor’.

There is no denying that Marcuse presents a powerful argument against the dangers of materialism. However, this essay will make the case that a truly liberalized economy not only accounts for these arguments, but does a far better job of it than a regulated social economy. To begin, we must make note of the fact that Marcuse is making more of a reactionary argument against capitalism than a substantive theory that could viably account for even his own arguments (a recurring theme in Marxist literature, it seems). Indeed, Marcuse himself argues in the last chapter of One-Dimensional Man that his transcendent three-dimensional man will probably never exist in society, and he blames the subversive nature of free markets for ‘dooming’ mankind in this fashion. But the far more important reason for why a liberalized economy is not in fact repressive is the very fact that Marcuse has the liberty to advance his arguments in a free society. As Milton Friedman argues, funds are distributed spontaneously in a free market and can be used for whatever endeavor one chooses, making it “a mark of the political freedom of a capitalist society that men can openly advocate and work for socialism” (Friedman 16). Friedman continues to argue that this is obviously not true the other way around, as advocating for freedom in a Marxist society would entail the impossible task of trying to wrest funds from the state (which would necessarily have full control over wealth production, as we have discussed) in order to undermine it. More importantly, the very voluntary nature of a liberalized economy would in fact allow people to practice communism and transcend Marcuse’s materialistic, one-dimensional world. The major difference? In a free society, people living in a commune would be required to, heaven forbid, voluntarily agree to share their wealth and agree to let the planners regulate their mini-society. Similarly, a man could voluntarily choose to throw off his perceived ‘false consciousness’ and transcend his apparent one-dimensional nature, if that is what he has chosen to do (and as Marcuse himself seems to think he has done). It is absolutely crucial to note that the inherent merits of laissez-faire capitalism, communism, or any other doctrine are irrelevant to this argument. A truly free society (which entails voluntary, non-coercive association, which in turn entails a liberalized economy) will allow for individuals to contract and consent to any form of political or economic institutions that they prefer, letting the merit and validity of these institutions be governed by their effectiveness in society. Why is it that Marxists so often feel the need to discount this crucial factor of voluntary association, to force people into a far more suppressive system that does not dare allow different political and economic systems to be judged on their own merit? By this logic (and using Marcuse’s own definitions), if moving towards ‘progress’ means improving the human condition, and true freedom is the ultimate goal of the human condition, then how can any system that fails to incorporate the voluntary consent of each and every individual (which is fundamental to freedom) ever be progressive?

As Friedman states in the opening pages of Capitalism and Freedom, “the nineteenth-century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth-century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom” (Friedman 5). The classical liberal who fought for revolutions against the monarchs all across Europe in 1848 did so because he yearned for freedom, with an understanding that a liberalized economy would be the optimum form of wealth redistribution and promote equality and welfare. The conservative monarchs of nineteenth-century Europe had accumulated and controlled the wealth, and liberal revolutionaries had seen firsthand that even under the most benevolent monarchs, this centralization of power had put society far along the path to serfdom. For Friedman, the fact that Marxism had virtuous intentions was irrelevant. Their solution was a move back towards a pre-1848 Europe, back towards centralization, back towards serfdom. Their reaction against the perceived inequality and repressive nature of liberalized economies may have been a compassionate attempt to account for those who fell through the cracks, but their solutions only served to deteriorate freedoms and institutionalize inequality. In this case, the quote, “the path to hell is paved with good intentions” has never rung more true.

I love Capitalism
It’s way better than Marxism

It’s slogan should be “Yes, I can
I don’t need the man!”

Marx was a goon
He wanted all your money by noon

Capitalism is the best
It let’s me invest
In whatever I want

Marx can only taunt
At his misguided theories
That make me so dreary

Capitalism is the best
It made everyone move west
Away from Marx the goon
Who wanted redistribution to the moon!