Sam’s blog

I've moved my blog to WordPress.

Thanks,
Sam

One concept I think many people misunderstand is that liberty is not the same as democracy. Here is an interesting article about it on the Mises blog. Democracy is majority rule over the minority. This has nothing to do with liberty. Liberty is the ability to take action as you see fit to achieve your desired ends, so long as you do not infringe on the liberty of others.

Majority rule will always eventually lead to a less beneficial result for everyone. The more and more liberties that get put up to vote lead to more liberties unjustly being taken away. Those who fall in the minority face must choose in either falling in line with the majority or facing persecution of some sort. This is not really an "optional" choice for the individual, much like taxation.

I recently heard a story at 4th of July gathering that I found sad and frankly, it pissed me off.

A former teammate of mine is now one of the coaches of the local high school lacrosse team. Towards the end of the season, the school board found out that one of his players was not legally allowed to go to that particular high school, because his legal residence changed during the season. As a result, the school board threatened to make the team forfeit the entire season. If that isn't unfair enough, it gets worse from there.

The reason the player changed residence is because his single mother could no longer afford the house she was living in. He was homeless moving from house to house. His mom worked multiple jobs trying to make ends meet. Despite all that, he was going to school and playing a sport that he enjoyed. The problem only started when the bureaucracy did what it always does best...enforce arbitrary rules.

The story has a semi-happy ending. The player was reinstated and the team did not have to forfeit any games. However, it is extremely unjust to have that player's personal life exposed for no reason. If you think going through high school isn't tough enough as it is, imagine having a very embarrassing secret exposed for everyone to know.

The lesson here is not better laws to mitigate special circumstances like this one. New cases will come up in the future that are unforeseeable. Give the parents and students the right to choose where they go to school. Borders are arbitrary whether they be national, state, county or school district.

"Freedom is the answer. What is the question?"

Imagine this scenario. What if I told you that there was an institution that didn't compensate its employees much more than room and board and that institution made billions every year? Most people would be up in arms just based on that! But it gets worse from there. The employees are banned from obtaining any other supplemental income. The employees are forced to spend tens of hours listening to people talk about subjects that they couldn't care less about. Any employee who decides to opt out of this institution is demonized as selfish and greedy. On top of everything, customers voluntarily donate millions of dollars to the institution every year. This institution is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the employees are its athletes (primarily in football and men's basketball).

The NCAA has shoved the concept of "student-athlete" down the public's collective throats for years. The idea is that the NCAA is doing the athletes a favor by providing them a college education, so that they will have something to fall back on after their athletic career is over. Unfortunately, the prevailing opinion is that compulsory education is a good thing and that everyone "know whats best" for these young people. However, most athletes stopped caring about education even before entering college.

So one might ask: If most young athletes do not care about education, then why do they still go to school? Well, most athletes use the college game to hone their skills and gain exposure on their way to the professional leagues. They really have no other option. The professional leagues have union rules in place to block young athletes entry in order to protect the jobs of older athletes. These rules are propagandized as helpful to the young athletes by saying they should stay in school until someone arbitrarily decides that they are "ready". If athletes try to go early to the professional leagues, the NCAA bans their return under certain scenarios. The NCAA, in consortium with the professional leagues, effectively create an compulsory, unpaid apprenticeship starting in high school (and sometimes even junior high school).

One of the most common arguments is that the athletes should be paid. That leads to many other questions. Who pays them, the NCAA, the school? How much should they be paid? Should all athletes be paid equally? Should a player who sits on the bench all year get paid as much as the most valuable player? The only just solution is to adopt a free market. Each school would compete for athletes by paying them according to their perceived value, just as in the pros. Of course, this is not about to happen any time soon, but it would be great for the athletes!

Imagine this scenario. What if I told you that there was an institution that didn't compensate its employees much more than room and board and that institution made billions every year? Most people would be up in arms just based on that! But it gets worse from there. The employees are banned from obtaining any other supplemental income. The employees are forced to spend tens of hours listening to people talk about subjects that they couldn't care less about. Any employee who decides to opt out of this institution is demonized as selfish and greedy. On top of everything, customers voluntarily donate millions of dollars to the institution every year. This institution is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the employees are its athletes (primarily in football and men's basketball).

The NCAA has shoved the concept of "student-athlete" down the public's collective throats for years. The idea is that the NCAA is doing the athletes a favor by providing them a college education, so that they will have something to fall back on after their athletic career is over. Unfortunately, the prevailing opinion is that compulsory education is a good thing and that everyone "know whats best" for these young people. However, most athletes stopped caring about education even before entering college.

So one might ask: If most young athletes do not care about education, then why do they still go to school? Well, most athletes use the college game to hone their skills and gain exposure on their way to the professional leagues. They really have no other option. The professional leagues have union rules in place to block young athletes entry in order to protect the jobs of older athletes. These rules are propagandized as helpful to the young athletes by saying they should "stay in school" until some arbitrarily decides that they are "ready". If athletes try to "go early" to the professional leagues, the NCAA bans their return. The NCAA in consortium with the professional leagues effectively create an compulsory, unpaid apprenticeship starting in high school (and sometimes even junior high school).

One of the most common arguments is that the athletes should be paid. Then that leads to many other questions. Who pays them, the NCAA, the school? How much should they be paid? Should all athletes be paid equally? Should a player who sits on the bench all year get paid as much as the most valuable player? The only just solution is to adopt a free market. Each school would compete for athletes by paying them according to their perceived value, just as in the pros. Of course, this is not about to happen any time soon.

I was watching the College World Series on ESPN today and the commentators started complaining about Title IX midway during the game. They find it unfair that baseball is only "granted" 10.7 scholarships, while sports like football get 85 and women's basketball get 15. They argue that the university presidents should lobby for more scholarships for baseball. For those who aren't familiar with sports, here is the law (from Wikipedia):

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance"

The only fair method of scholarship distribution is to eliminate Title IX. The athletic programs at each school would decide the number of scholarships in each sport that is most profitable. Instead, there is an extremely bureaucratic governing body granting scholarships to (typically women's) sports where hardly any paying customers show up at all. It is only a privileged few who enjoy this benefit. It is up to the taxpayers, other paying students (who go to school to actually learn...well at least some of them) and distribution from patrons of profitable sports (like football) to make up the cost.

Title IX hypocritical in its nature, it causes discrimination. Schools provide many scholarships based on sex, instead of their individual merit. Of course, the greatest problem in the law are the final four words: "receiving Federal financial assistance". How schools distribute their scholarships should be based on their choice, not a federal mandate.

I can't think of anything I enjoy more than watching Ron Paul speak. In fact, I like it so much that I went here and gave him $100. I then found out that some people are trying to stop Ron Paul from speaking so I wrote them emails encouraging them to allow him to speak. There is nothing better than the message of freedom and I cannot think of anyone who articulates it better than Dr. Paul. I learn something new everytime I watch him.

Yearn to be free. End the welfare-warfare state. Go Ron Paul!

I am an avid football fan as well as an individualist. Many of my fellow football fans see this as a contradiction. Football is a team game, I do not deny that. When one player puts him or herself above the team, it is usually detrimental to the team. However, being part of a team does not mean you should have to surrender all your rights as an individual. Here is an email thread from a few acquaintances of mine (all is verbatim):

Person 1: "This is the greatest punishment ever.  I'd like to see some of the Florida teams try issue this out to their players. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-paterno052207&prov=yhoo&type=lgns&expire=1"

My response: "That is the worst punishment ever. You think it is correct to punish those who had nothing to do with it? I don't."

Person 1: "Last time I checked there was no I in team. There were at least 15 players at the party. Almost 20% of the team."

Person 2: "I think it is because like he said, it’s a team sport, and a good majority of the team embarrassed the school and the team.  Other schools would still make the whole team run wind sprints which solves nothing.  So why not make the whole team clean."

My response: "20% is not a majority, that is a minority. Even if it were 99% of the team, it is unfair and unjust to punish the 1%. I agree you are part of a team during team events (practice, films, games), but once you leave that venue, you are acting on your own.

Say I am part of the team. I was studying that night for my exams. Now, I am punished on Sundays for doing nothing detrimental to the team. To avoid losing my Sundays next season, I must police around 100 other people for 365 days. This is unfeasible and even more unfair to me.

I respect Joe Pa as well, and he can run his program however he wants. If some players feel the same way I do, they are free to leave and transfer to a team they feel is just. However, I disagree that he doesn't have to answer to anybody. No one is omniscient and authority should always be questioned. The minute you stop questioning is when you willingly place someone else's collar around your neck."

Unfortunately, no one responded past that point. I imagine more out of a dismissal. None the less, I am interested to hear what other people think. Your thoughts?