Daily Archives: February 3, 2022

After giving a paper about free will at a professional philosophy conference, I was surprised by a questioner asking: When you say I love you to your wife, what does that mean to her? Given my Calvinist view of free will according to which God sovereignly determines everything that comes to pass, the questioner felt I couldnt rescue any meaning in human love relationships.

I quipped that as a Frenchman I could find romance in anything, and that with my view, I could tell my wife she was literally my destiny (I should have added, irresistible!). The audience laughed, but its a serious philosophical question with practical ramifications: how does ones view of free will affect how we see human love? Does God make us love him and love one another?

Lexham Academic. 216 pp.

Evil is a problem for all Christians. When responding to objections that both evil and God can exist, many resort to a free will defense, where God is not the creator of evil but of human freedom, by which evil is possible. This response is so pervasive that it is just as often assumed as it is defended. But is this answer biblically and philosophically defensible?

InGod Reforms Hearts, Thaddeus J. Williams offers a friendly challenge to the central claim of the free will defensethat love is possible only with true (or libertarian) free will. Williams argues that much thinking on free will fails to carve out the necessary distinction between an autonomous will and an unforced will. Scripture presents a God who desires relationship and places moral requirements on his often-rebellious creatures, but does absolute free will follow? Moreover, Gods reforming work on the human heart goes further than libertarian free will would allow.

With clarity, precision, and charity, Williams judges the merits and shortcomings of the relational free will defense while offering a philosophically and biblically robust alternative that draws from theologians of the past to point a way forward.

Lexham Academic. 216 pp.

In trying to explain how an all-good, all-powerful God could exist while there is so much evil in the world, many Christian philosophers have suggested human free will is one important answer. Its argued that God has given humans free will and doesnt determine the outcome of their free choices, which unfortunately means that humans will at times misuse that gift, with all kinds of evil resulting from their bad choices.

On that view of the human will, which is called libertarian free will, our choices are not determined by God, and it would be a contradiction in terms for God to make us freely do anything, much less make us freely love him.

Thaddeus Williams disagrees. In his book God Reforms Hearts: Rethinking Free Will and the Problem of Evil, he reexamines the place that libertarian free will has taken in Christian responses to the problem of evil, and more particularly whether authentic human love requires libertarian free will. Williams, an associate professor of systematic theology at Biola University, doesnt merely suggest that libertarian free will is uncalled for, he argues that its outright incompatible with true love and much of the biblical data. In its place, Williams commends the so-called compatibilist view of free will, according to which human free choices are compatible with their being determined by God. In this view, typically affirmed in the Reformed or Calvinist tradition, it truly is God who reforms hearts and thereby makes us freely love him and love our neighbor as ourselves (55).

It truly is God who reforms hearts and thereby makes us freely love him and love our neighbor as ourselves.

The book, organized into three parts, consists of one long and sustained argument against libertarian free will as a good answer to the problem of evil.

Part 1 clarifies the issue by drawing some of the philosophical distinctions necessary to understand the debate on free will and evil, and offers some philosophical problems with libertarian free will as a condition for authentic love. Part 2 presents three important arguments often raised in favor of libertarianism and offers biblical and philosophical responses. Finally, part 3 makes a biblical and philosophical case for the claim that God indeed reforms hearts, thereby determining the outcome of our choices and securing the existence of true human love.

The biblical and philosophical bi-disciplinary approach gives this book an interesting angle: it contains more biblical exegesis than youd expect from a philosopher and more logical argumentation than youd expect from a biblical theologian. Williams goes deep into the biblical text which he handles carefully (complete with reference to the original languages), including a nice study of human ability in the Gospel of John and a mini biblical theology of divine intervention in human hearts. He interacts with libertarian theologians (like Boyd, Geisler, and Marshall) and yet is also conversant with some of the important libertarian Christian philosophers (like Plantinga, van Inwagen, and Hasker).

The main focus of Williamss argument is the place of free will in genuine human love, but it maps closely onto the debates on free will as a condition for moral responsibility. Therefore, many of the arguments that bear on the matter of love are the usual suspects in debates on free will and moral responsibility: we find coercion cases, manipulation cases, the maxim that ought implies can, and discussion of whether indeterminism would make human choices arbitrary or improperly grounded in human desires.

While Williams offers some of the traditional compatibilist arguments and counterarguments, he often offers his own unique wording of the issues. Theres a risk that the reader may at times be put off by non-standard terminology, but, on the upside, Williamss new wording is often clever and colorful, and may invite libertarians to engage with his fresh formulation of the issues.

For example, I enjoyed his description of five increasing degrees of divine intervention in human hearts: heart persuasion, heart cooperation, heart activation, heart reformation, and heart circumvention (138). Williams argued we need to reject the fifth but affirm nothing short of the first four. It will be interesting to see if libertarians agree with his categories, and if so, what exit they take from this highway of divine intervention. And do they accept the problems Williams lays out for those who wish to exit too early (139144)?

I am mostly sympathetic to the books thesis and many of its supporting arguments, so let me just mention two potential shortcomings or elements readers may wish had been included.

The first is a question that many libertarians will no doubt raise and should be addressed. When facing conceptual arguments against libertarian free will like some of those Williams offersclaims that it makes choices arbitrary or meaningless because one needs to transcend ones own self (41), or act against ones desires, or with a liberty of indifference (5059) or with a freedom from ones own heart (3437)libertarians often punt back to God and say: at least God isnt determined, he has libertarian free will, so that shows that theres no conceptual problem with libertarian free will in itself, and its just a debate on whether humans have it too.

This is a fair retort, and applies equally to the question of authentic love: does God love us authentically? But isnt Gods free will libertarian? And if it is, does this invalidate conceptual arguments against human libertarian free will? And if God doesnt have libertarian free will, does this entail the so-called modal collapse where every truth is necessary and there is only one possible world? And would that modal collapse be a problem?

Compatibilists who use the conceptual arguments against libertarianism (arguments which I myself find generally plausible) would do well to provide elements of answers to these questions.

And finally, I may point out that the book doesnt really offer an actual theodicy in response to the problem of evil. Williamss goal was to make progress against the problem of evil (27), but his project is more a pushback on the wrong answer (libertarian free will) than a proposal of the right answer (like a greater good theodicy, soul-making theodicy, evil as Gods megaphone la C. S. Lewis, or other positive theodicies) to respond to the skeptic.

In the final chapter, Williams does offer a practical application of his positive claim that God reforms hearts and secures human love: when humans are facing moral evil in the real world, they are called upon to pray that God would do exactly what Williams says he does: change hearts.

When humans are facing moral evil in the real world, they are called upon to pray that God would change hearts.

God Reforms Hearts is a serious, academic-level treatment of the topic of free will and its role in love relationships, with a focus on divine involvement in human hearts. While not written at the popular level, the careful lay reader will benefit from it, and proponents (and detractors) of libertarianism will be challenged to think deeply about the place of free will in their response to the problem of evil.

Its a nice complement to recent philosophically robust treatments of free will and evil from a Calvinist perspective like Greg Weltys Why Is There Evil in the World (and So Much of It)? (Christian Focus, 2018), and the multi-author volume Calvinism and the Problem of Evil (Pickwick, 2016). As a Calvinist myself, I rejoice to see another philosophically-informed theological determinist, especially one who teaches at Biola University, a traditional fortress of libertarianism!

Let Williamss voice be heard, and the Reformed view of free will embraced to the glory of God who indeed sovereignly reforms our hearts.

More here:

Review: 'God Reforms Hearts' by Thaddeus Williams - The Gospel Coalition

Its hilarious that some folks are having a fit over President Joe Bidens plan to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court to fill the seat of retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. Youd think it was the most outlandish and horrific presidential proclamation in recent history.

Ive lost track but it seems the whining has reached a crescendo. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas recently called Bidens pledge offensive and an insult to Black women on his podcast. (Query: Whats more amazingthat Cruz speaks for Black women or that theres an audience for his podcast?) He added that Biden was essentially dissing White America, if youre a White guy, tough luck. If youre a White woman, tough luck. You dont qualify.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi also chimed in, calling Bidens as yet unnamed nominee, the beneficiary of this sort of quota. And ex-presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard (remember her?) tweeted: Biden chose Harris as his VP because of the color of her skin and sexnot qualification. Shes been a disaster. Now he promises to choose Supreme Court nominee on the samecriteria. Identity politics is destroying our country.

For a woman whos yet to be identified as a contender, shes apparently already a bona fide catastrophe.

The Pied Piper of these rants is arguably libertarian Ilya Shapiro, former vice president of the Cato Institute, who started his attacks with a series of tweets on Jan. 26, right after Biden announced his plan to put a Black woman on the high court. Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, tweeted Shapiro, alluding to the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He added that Srinivasan is solid prog & v smart. Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesnt fit into latest intersectionality hierarchy, so well get lesser black woman.

Theres a lot to unpack. And because of the outrage sparked by his tweets (since deleted), Shapiro has been put on administrative leave as the new executive director of Georgetown Law Schools Center for the Constitution.

Though hes apologized for what he calls an inartful tweet, I thought his tweets (not just one, as he claimed) were actually quite artful in delivering his message that no Black woman could be up to the job.

Shapiro was adept at using the specter of the unqualified woman of color to stir fears that one of our most sacred institutionsthe U.S. Supreme Courtwould be jeopardized. Simply put, he used a racist tropethe radical affirmative action queento argue that a policy that advances a Black woman is inherently racist.

Unless Shapiro has identified every potential Black woman nominee and can defend their inferiority to Judge Srinivasan, this is the worst sort of casual racism and sexism, says Adrienne Davis, a professor at both the law and business schools of Washington University in St. Louis. Or, as [African American feminist scholar] Moya Bailey would call it, misogynoir.

Ketanji Brown Jackson is sworn in at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Indeed, the list of Black women who might be contenders for the Supreme Court is almost an embarrassment of riches, chock full of Harvard and Yale law school graduates and former Supreme Court clerks. The three top contenders, according to multiple press reports, are: Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and former clerk to Justice Breyer; Leondra Kruger, a judge on the California Supreme Court and former clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens; and J. Michelle Childs, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Other names rumored for consideration include: Holly Thomas, a judge on the Ninth Circuit; Eunice Lee, of the Second Circuit and Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. And the list goes on.

So what century are Shapiro and his cohorts living in when they suggest that theres no worthy Black woman to fill Breyers seat?

Also insidious is that Shapiro is stirring resentment between people of color. When he tweeted that Sri Srinivasan was the best pick, he signaled to Asian Americans to watch out because an unqualified Black or Brown Americanin this situation, a Black womanmight snatch away a coveted seat that rightfully belongs to them.

By all accounts, Srinivasan is an outstanding jurist but why is he suddenly being trotted out by foes of Biden? Is diversity suddenly a passion of the right?

Bringing Asian Americans in the picture can be done positively or negatively, says Frank Wu, president of Queens College, City University of New York, and the former chancellor at University of California, Hastings Law School. All too often, Asian Americans are introduced as spoilers, not in the spirit of civil rights and diversity, but instead to try to make Asian Americans an alternative to other people of color.

California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger

Official Photo, California Supreme Court

Gabriel Chin, a law professor at University of California at Davis, adds that this is a familiar play. Critics of race-conscious policies try to pit people of color against each other, intentionally or unintentionally, he says, citing the Harvard admissions litigation in which the plaintiff argued that Asian American applicants are harmed by affirmative action, as an example. Chin says he believes breaking down historical patterns of discrimination benefits all groups. I do not think that if a Black woman wins, the potential Asian or other candidates lose.

Is Shapiro deliberately throwing fire at relations between people of color? I cant read his mind. (Ive attempted to reach out to Shapiro via Georgetown Laws press office, but I havent heard back.) But let me say this: Raising the bogeyman (or bogeywoman) of affirmative action is a distraction from those who truly enjoy the rights and privileges of power. Let me put it this way: Of the 115 justices on the Supreme Court since 1789, 108or 94% of them have been White men, as CNN reports.

All this brings up whats intrigued me for a long time: Why do we dissect the qualifications of minorities, particularly minority women, while White men seem to get an automatic pass?

I guess the answer should be apparent.

Read more:

The Next SCOTUS Justice Will Be a Black Woman. Deal With It. - Bloomberg Law

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Greg Abbott is embracing an industry that sees itself as a libertarian form of finance free from meddling by banks and governments

Author of the article:

Bloomberg News

Michael Smith

Last fall, Texas Governor Greg Abbott gathered dozens of cryptocurrency deal makers in Austin where they discussed an idea that, on its face, seemed almost upside down: Electricity-hungry Bitcoin miners could shore up the states power grid, a top priority after a deep freeze last winter triggered blackouts that left hundreds dead.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The industrys advocates have been making that pitch to the governor for years. The idea is that the miners computer arrays would demand so much electricity that someone would come along to build more power plants, something Texas badly needs. If the grid starts to go wobbly, as it did when winter storm Uri froze up power plants in February 2021, miners could quickly shut down to conserve energy for homes and businesses. At least two Bitcoin miners have already volunteered to do just that.

Theres no guarantee anyone will build more generation or switch off just because theyre asked. Theres even a chance the idea could backfire and put more strain on the grid overall. But at last Octobers meeting at the governors mansion, Abbott made it clear that he was going to count on the miners assistance when the electricity grid faced colder months ahead. Help me get through the winter, the governor said, according to four people who attended the meeting.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Getting through the winter may be key to Abbotts political fortunes as he stands for re-election. He faces two main opponents in a March 1 Republican primary and a tougher fight in November against Democrat Beto ORourke. The grid is one of the governors few weak flanks: The most recent University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, from October, showed that 60 per cent of Texans disapprove of how state leaders have handled the reliability of the grid.

There has to be a really thoughtful approach to bringing gigawatts worth of Bitcoin onto the system, said Doug Lewin, an energy consultant in Austin. He said regulators need to require miners to shut down during a crisis, instead of making it voluntary. Weve got to make sure that if were getting close to scarcity, people arent mining Bitcoins anymore.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Abbott is embracing an industry that sees itself as a libertarian form of finance free from meddling by banks and governments an ideal that appeals to his core GOP voters. That support, and Texass cheap electricity and near-zero regulation, helped spur big companies like Riot Blockchain Inc., Singapore-based Bitdeer Group and the U.K.s Argo Blockchain Plc to build some of the worlds largest Bitcoin mines in the state.

We've got to make sure that if we're getting close to scarcity, people aren't mining Bitcoins anymore

Doug Lewin

In all, there are seven big miners and more than 20 smaller ones in Texas, according to the lobbying group Texas Blockchain Council.

Abbott and Republican lawmakers have taken some of the most aggressive steps in the U.S. to lure the industry. Last May, Texas became one of a few states to make it easier for businesses to hold crypto assets and use them as collateral for loans. Abbott also created the Work Group on Blockchain Matters, staffed by industry experts and insiders.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

He sees this huge opportunity, I believe, around the energy sector, said Christopher Calicott, a managing director at Austin venture capital firm Trammell Venture Partners whos on Abbotts crypto task force.

Texas is luring miners partially because other places dont want them. Governments from China to Kazakhstan to Iceland have outright banned or limited crypto mining because of their drain on electric grids.

Lee Bratcher, president of the Texas Blockchain Council, finds opportunity in these bans. Hes met with Abbott several times to promote Bitcoin minings benefits to the power grid, including at the governors mansion last fall.

Its really a healthy dynamic that brings tax revenue, brings job creation and also is a grid strengthening mechanism, Bratcher said in an interview. Governor Abbotts been very supportive.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And Abbott isnt alone. State leaders, from Austin Mayor Steve Adler on the left to conservative Senator Ted Cruz, are pushing Texas as a crypto paradise. A few days before the governors crypto meeting in Austin, Cruz spoke for 38 minutes at a blockchain industry conference, keying in on the potential for Bitcoin mining to bolster the states power system. In five years, I expect to see a dramatically different terrain with Bitcoin mining playing a significant role as strengthening and hardening the resiliency of the grid, he said.

Depending on Bitcoin miners is risky because theres a chance they wont shut down or will take too long to power off, said Ben Hertz-Shargel, global head of energy consultant Wood Mackenzies Grid Edge unit. As crisis looms, miners could vie for power with families and businesses. At those times, Bitcoin mining would be competing with basic core societal needs like heating or cooling homes or the functioning of hospitals and nursing homes, Hertz-Shargel said.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Abbotts spokespeople didnt respond to multiple email and phone requests for comment.

The governors embrace of crypto mining goes back years. Gideon Powell, an oil wildcatter in Dallas, recalls pitching crypto to Abbott soon after he got into Bitcoin mining about five years ago. And at another meeting a few weeks after last years storm, the governor quizzed him about how the industry could help stabilize the grid.

He definitely seems to grasp it, Powell said. And its such a weird concept: Hey, were gonna put more energy consumption in an energy system, and thats going to stabilize the grid.'

Texass competitive power market is central to the miners pitch. Nothing is more important to Bitcoin mining than electricity. It powers the computers that hum nonstop to solve complicated algorithmic equations. This work is the source of all the worlds Bitcoins.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Within two years, enough new Bitcoin mines will come online to require as much as 5 gigawatts of additional electricity in Texas, according to the Texas Blockchain Council. Thats enough to light up Austin, a city of almost 1 million, twice over.

Theres a risk those projections may need to be adjusted. Mining is only profitable when Bitcoin trades above the cost of the power and computers needed to create them, and prices are off almost 50 per cent from a record high reached in November. An extended slump could delay the mining expansion.

For now, the idea of putting further stress on the grid is anathema to Texans who lived through last years storm, when frigid weather swept across the state, freezing up gas wells and forcing power plants offline. The blackouts left more than 200 people dead and paralyzed the state for almost a week. Texans blamed Abbotts lax regulation of the electricity system, and lawmakers ordered hundreds of power plants to winterize.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Everything that needed to be done was done to fix the power grid, Abbott said in June. The power grid operator also is optimistic Bitcoin miners can help the grid, a spokesperson for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or Ercot, said in a statement.

But there are signs the risk of blackouts remains. Two arctic blasts in January shut down some gas production, exposing continued vulnerabilities for equipment that ensures the flow of fuel to electricity generators.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Rivals are hounding Abbott over his handling of the power disaster.

Experts continue to warn that Texas could face another grid failure the next time we experience an extreme weather event, ORourke said on his Twitter account in December after the governor promised the lights would stay on this winter. Abbott and his appointees shouldnt be betting our lives on the weather.

Former state senator Don Huffines, a GOP primary challenger, announced a plan this month to do more than Abbott to stimulate crypto, especially to strengthen the power grid. I am committed to making Texas the Citadel for Bitcoin, Huffines said in a statement.

At the Oct. 13 meeting in the governors mansion, Abbott made it clear hes already all-in on crypto mining. His blockchain working group is looking for more crypto-friendly laws and incentives to pursue, and the industrys expansion plans have his support. When someone asked if Texas is Bitcoin Country, the governor smiled and agreed.

Bloomberg.com

_____________________________________________________________

For more stories like this one, sign up for the FP Investor newsletter.

______________________________________________________________

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the Financial Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Financial Post Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the original post:

Texas governor turns to Bitcoin miners to bolster the power grid and his re-election - Financial Post

In 2014 Zephyr Teachout contested Andrew Cuomo in his bid for reelection and the WFP was divided over the question of whom to back. They went with Cuomo. | Hans Pennink/AP

NEW YORK Labor unions, leaders from the now defunct New Party, powerful non-profit advocacy groups, and community organizations formed the Working Families Party (WFP) of New York in 1998. It has always upheld this labor-community alliance though the strengths of its various pillars have changed.

Every movement for social change experiences major and minor disruptions, internal differences on certain issues, and changes in membership. Member organizations (affiliates) can change their leadership, and the new administrations might not be sympathetic to the larger movements to which they belong. For a party that was formed from such diverse sources, such as the WFP, these truths can be magnified.

Unions that help found or were prominent players of the WFP included the United Auto Workers, Communication Workers of America (CWA) District One, Hotel Trades Council, Greater New York PAC Laborers District Council, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), Local 1199 SEIU (Service Employees International Union), Local 32BJ SEIU, United Steelworkers, United Federation of Teachers, Amalgamated Transit Workers Union, Transport Workers Union (TWU), and UNITE Amalgamated NE Joint Board.

It is practically impossible for union leaderships to ignore even halfway decent incumbents running for reelection. Progressive challengers nearly always have a slim chance of success, and going against a sitting governor or other executive officeholder is typically not forgiven after the predicted reelection victory. Moreover, union leaderships are elected, often by large memberships, and if they cannot deliver victories in struggle or legislatively, they can be easily voted out. In contrast, leaderships of non-profit agencies never face the difficulties of elections by their mass memberships. Finally, trade unions have a firm understanding that social change is often glacial in pace, something community organizations comprised of very different memberships might not realize.

Earlier departures of trade unions from the WFP included the teachers and transport workers unions. After intense intraparty discussions over the 2014 and 2018 gubernatorial elections, other unions left.

Fordham University professor of law Zephyr Teachout contested Gov. Andrew Cuomos first reelection in 2014, and the WFP was divided over whom to back. After some negotiations, Cuomo pledged to support various progressive policies and to actively campaign against renegade Democratic state senators (the Independent Democratic Conference members) who were caucusing with the Republicans and thus preventing the Democratic Party from exercising its elected majority.

At the WFPs contentious nominating convention, the compromise to back Cuomo over Teachout won with only 58 percent of the floor vote. Supporting Cuomo over Teachout and soon leaving the WFP were Local 1199 SEIU and the Hotel Trades Councils.

Prior to the elections, the IDC claimed it would end its alliance with the Republicans, who regained their majority after November 2014 but lost it after the arrests of several senators and accompanying special elections. The IDC then reversed course and remained partners with the Republicans, again preventing a Democratic majority.

Over the next two to four years, Cuomo did sign into law some worthy reform legislation but many progressives charged him with dragging his feet. He did not campaign vigorously against the IDC in 2014 and indeed seemed to later hide behind it, blaming it for his own reluctance at more robust reform. After the 2016 legislative elections, the IDC grew its membership and Cuomo ignored calls to help bring it back to the Democratic Party caucus. Furthermore, he was the leading force behind the 2014 founding of the so-called Womens Equality Party (WEP), deliberately named similarly to the WFP.

Those developments set the stage for yet more disruption within the WFP for Cuomos second reelection bid in 2018. Activist actor Cynthia Nixon opposed him, and there was more support within the WFP to finally revenge the governor. There were meetings between leaders of the WFP, its former and then-current affiliated unions, and the governors office. At one of these, Gov. Cuomo told all WFP-affiliated trade unions to lose my number if they gave money to non-profit and community organizations most critical of the governor. These were Citizen Action, New York Communities for Change, and Make the Road Actionall affiliated with the WFP.

The WFP backed Nixon in the primary. Opposing the Nixon primary endorsement and thus leaving the WFP were the RWDSU and the two largest union affiliates: Local 32BJ SEIU and CWA District One. Cuomo won that round, and the WFP, to retain its ballot status, had no choice but to support Cuomo in the general election. This was a tactical necessity that was probably lost on many WFP-sympathetic voters.

It is too easy for progressive individuals not connected to the union movement to trash the departing unions. Likewise, left or progressive organizations that spend most of their time outside of todays real, existing unions might be too quick to criticize.

Aware of the tactical difficulties facing unions, the WFP has never spoken in hostile terms after member union departures. For example, after 2018, then WFP State Director Bill Lipton said he respected the unions decisions and acknowledged they were in a tight spot. He added, The Working Families Party has always fought for the rights of unions and for all working families and that will never change. He continued, We will stand up for workers, tenants, commuters, homeowners, immigrants, people of color, studentsand every other New Yorker who needs a voice. We will continue to fight for a New York that works for all working families.

Important unions remain. Among them are the United Auto Workers PAC Council, New York State Nurses Association, New York Professional Nurses, New York State United Teachers, and the Profession Staff Congress. Smaller Teamsters locals and the quite militant members from the Laundry, Distribution and Food Service Joint Board are also present.

It is true that non-profit organizations and community groups are playing an increased role within the WFP. ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and Citizen Action helped cofound the WFP. ACORNS successor organization, New York Communities for Change, and the latter group are still prominent. So is Community Voices Heard Power, Make the Road, Metropolitan Council on Housing, New York Political Action Network, and VOCAL-NY Action Fund as well as others.

______________________________________

From 1938 until 2020, a third party in New York State could obtain ballot status if it won at least 50,000 votes in a gubernatorial election. Meaning, in the four years following a successful campaign, the third party could run candidates on its party line and not have to gather 15,000 valid signatures for its name to simply appear on the ballot.

Obtaining 50,000 votes was made easier because New York is one of eight states that allows fusion voting. (California is a ninth, but only for presidential elections.) Fusion means that more than one party can nominate the same candidate for office. Seemingly odd today, it was common throughout the country until the late 1800s.

State ballots list each party, so voters can pick a candidate on any line under which he or she is running. For example, in 1998, Peter Vallone, Sr., ran for governor and won over 1.5 million votes on the Democratic line and 51,325 votes on the WFP line. The two were combined for his total of 1,570,317, but the WFP had credit for its gathering of over 50,000 votes. Thus, the new WFP won ballot status for the next four years.

Third parties can run their own candidates instead of fusing with others but risk becoming spoilers. Some parties tactically accept this dilemma and fuse with the major party that is ideologically closest. However, other third parties are blind to the spoiler possibility and instead barrel ahead on principle. The Green Party is the strongest example.

Most trade unions and the best of democratic movements seem to separate goals from tactics. Progressive and liberal lawmakers legislatively improve the positions of unions and the lives of the working class, all people facing racial and national discrimination, all women, LGBTQ communities. From this view, how these legislators get into office is a tactical issue, especially given the restrictions of the two-party system. In areas in which third parties are an unviable option, running as a minor party sounds heroic but arguably wastes valuable energy, time, and resources and might throw the election to the opposite side of the spectrum.

Gov. Cuomo was outraged by the 2014 and 2018 primary challenges. Also, the WFP, other progressive organizations, and key labor unions routed the IDC senators in 2018. All of this seemed to push Cuomo over the edge in his hatred of his opponents, especially the WFP. In late 2019, the legislature had agreed to a commission to sort out publicly financed campaigns. Commissioner Jay Jacobs, a Cuomo ally and chairman of the New York State Democratic Party, led efforts to link that reform with much tougher ballot status requirements. The states Supreme Court struck down the law, but the legislature voted for the same restrictions in the state budget in April 2020 amidst the panic of coronavirus.

Under the new law, public financing was progressively expanded. However, ballot status regulations went in the opposite direction. Third parties now had to win 130,000 votes in gubernatorial as well as presidential elections. If 2 percent of all votes cast was greater than 130,000, then the threshold would be the 2 percent figure. The Working Families and other third parties sued, but without success.

______________________________________

Back to 1998. Five minor parties had ballot status. Of these, the Independence Party (formed in the early 1990s) outperformed all others when running their own candidates (instead of endorsing either the Democrats or Republicans). Politically, it has swung wildly depending on internal power struggles.

The Conservative Party was founded in 1962 based on far-right dissatisfaction with the state Republican Party, which at the time was more liberal than the nations Southern Democrats. Though it ran its own candidates in its early years, Conservatives subsequently cross-endorsed Republicans. The Right to Life Party was founded in 1970. It won ballot status in 1978 and maintained it until the 2002 gubernatorial election, never fusing with Republican candidates for the governors office.

The Liberal Party reached back to 1944 as an anti-Communist alternative to the American Labor Party. It continued as a right-wing social-democratic party until the 1990s, when it further deteriorated and backed Rudy Giuliani for mayor and Betsy McCaughey, conservative critic of President Bill Clintons health plan, for governor.

The gubernatorial election graphs below show the third parties by order of votes. Since the Democrats and Republicans are excluded, each graph shows the third, fourth, fifth, etc., line on the ballot for the following four years.

______________________________________

In its infancy, the WFP cross-endorsed Democrat Peter Vallone for governor in November 1998. Since it gathered over 50,000 votes (51,325), it won ballot status for the next four years. So did the Green Party (52,533 votes), which ran its own candidate. (It has never fused with the Democrats.)

Four minor parties maintained their ballot statusthe Independence, Conservative, Liberal, and Right to Life parties. Of these, only the Conservatives cross-endorsed (Republican Gov. George Patakis first reelection).

The graphs show each partys percentage of the total vote below the party name. It wasnt relevant in 1998 but would become so in 2020 when the qualifying rules changed (and winning 2 percent became a possible hurdle).

______________________________________

Four years later, parties that cross-endorsed were again the WFP (Democrat Carl McCall) and Conservatives (Republican Gov. Patakis second reelection). A power struggle within the Independence Party had one side favoring Pataki but the other side, which favored Rochester billionaire Tom Golisano, took the day. The Right to Life, Green, and Liberal parties all fell below the 50,000-vote threshold. The Green Party would come back in 2010, but the RTL and Liberal parties never regained significance.

______________________________________

In 2006, the same three parties maintained ballot status. The Independence Party, after more internal fighting, fused with the Democrats (Eliot Spitzer), as did the WFP. The Conservatives again cross-endorsed the Republican (John Faso). The vote total for the Independence line plunged more than 460,000 while the WFP gained considerable ground on the Conservatives.

______________________________________

Four years later, the Green Party regained ballot status while the Libertarian Party (LP) nearly won it. The Independence Party fell to fifth place on the ballot (third on the graph) behind the advancing Conservatives and WFP.

This time, the Independence Party fused with the Republican candidate (the bombastic Carl Paladino), as did the Conservatives, again. The WFP fused with the Democrats (Andrew Cuomo), while the Greens, Libertarians, and all other parties ran their own candidates.

______________________________________

As mentioned above, different sides within the WFP reached a compromise and backed Democrat Gov. Cuomo in 2014. So the WFP fused with the Democrats. The Conservatives (backing the Republican candidate Rob Astorino) again drew the most minor party votes. The Green vote rose dramatically, and the Independence Party switched back to cross endorsing the Democrats. Its considerable drop in vote is decent evidence of its right-of-center voting base. The WFP vote fell by roughly 30,000 but its share of the total vote stayed at 3.3 percent.

More drama came from the Womens Equality Party, a hostile creation of Cuomos, given the WFP compromise. There was now a WEP and a WFP line, both endorsing him, and the WEP won over 50,000 votes in the ploy. On a line created by Astorino and fusing with the Republicans, the Stop Common Core Party also won ballot status. The Greens did not cross endorse.

______________________________________

Four years later, again competition against Cuomo was followed by an offensive against the WFP. Actor Cynthia Nixon was running, and there was movement within the WFP to pick her. After endorsing her in the primary, the WFP fused with the Democrats to pick Cuomo in the general election.

The Conservatives again did the best, maintaining their 250-something thousand total (though their percent of the overall vote fell from 6.6 percent in 2014 to 4.2 percent). The WFP overtook the Green party though its number and share of votes declined from 2014. The Libertarians achieved ballot status for the first time, as did a new party, the Save America Movement. Failing to win the necessary 50,000 votes were the WEP and the now-named Reform Party (previously known as Stop Common Core).

The WFP, Independence Party, and WEP fused with the Democrats and supported Gov. Cuomo. The Conservatives and Reform parties fused with the Republicans (Marc Molinaro). The Greens, Libertarians, and SAM ran separate candidates. This was the last qualifying election under the old rulegather 50,000 votes for a candidate for governor, enjoy ballot status for the next four years.

______________________________________

Presidential elections were not relevant for third-party ballot status until 2020. Regardless, it is interesting to review them. Gov. Cuomo must have studied the old returns as he sought ways to eliminate the WFP.

The black dotted line in the presidential election graphs, at 50,000, is the old number of required votes, needed only in gubernatorial elections. These graphs red line at 130,000 shows the new threshold, needed in each gubernatorial and presidential election beginning in 2020. If 2 percent of the total vote is larger than 130,000, then the 2 percent figure is the threshold. Parties appear according to their ballot position. (This was the order of their votes from the gubernatorial election two years prior.)

In 2000, only two parties won more than 130,000 votes and 2 percent of the total vote: the Conservatives and the Greens. Two parties fell below the 50,000 vote barrier: Independence and RTL. Liberals and the WFP won more than the old hurdle but less than the 2020 mark.

The Conservatives cross-endorsed the Republican (George W. Bush), Liberals and the WFP fused with the Democrat (Vice President Al Gore), and the Independence, RTL, and Green parties ran their own candidates.

______________________________________

Only three third parties qualified to be on the 2004 ballot. The Conservatives won more than 130,000 votes and 2 percent of the vote total. The WFP surpassed 130,000 votes, but their 133,525 was only 1.8% of the total. The Independence Party outdid the old but not the 2020 standards.

The Conservatives endorsed the Republican (Bushs reelection) and the WFP backed the Democrat (Sen. John Kerry), but the Independence Party did not fuse.

______________________________________

Four years later, the same three third parties with ballot status. The WFP cross-endorsed Democrat Barack Obama while the Conservative and Independence parties fused with the Republicans (Sen. John McCain). All three parties passed the 2020 barriers of number of votes won and percent of total votes.

______________________________________

Though it had ballot status, the Independence Party did not run its own or fuse with another candidate in 2012. The Conservatives (backing Republican Mitt Romney) and the WFP (endorsing Pres. Obamas reelection) crossed the 2020 obstacles. The Green Party, regaining ballot status two years prior, ran its own candidate but did not surpass the then-existing 50,000 threshold.

______________________________________

A crowded ballot in 2016 due to the chaos in the 2014 gubernatorial election. The Conservatives, backing Donald Trump, towered above all others. The WFP cross-endorsed Sec. Hillary Clinton. Like in 2004, its votes were greater than the future 130,000 barrier (140,043), but still below 2 percent of the total. The WEP also fused with the Democrats but its 36,292 votes were under the 50,000 mark.

The Independence and Libertarian parties endorsed Gary Johnson, and both fell short of the future 130,000 threshold. The Stop Common Core Party become the unaffiliated Reform Party, was sued by the national party, became affiliated, witnessed a hostile takeover, and then unaffiliated from the national. It did not appear on the 2016 presidential ballot.

______________________________________

The presidential election in 2020 was the first test of the new ballot regulations. The Conservatives fused with Republican Donald Trump while the WFP cross-endorsed the Biden-Harris Democratic ticket. The Greens, LP, and Independence Party ran their own candidates.

Only two parties won enough votes to stay on the ballot for the next two years. The WFP had its best showing ever and won nearly 5 percent of the total vote, to be listed as the third party on the state ballots. By backing Trumps reelection, the Conservatives had their strongest finish since the 1998 governors race. Coming up short were the other parties with ballot statusthe Libertarian, Green, and Independence parties. The SAM party did not run a presidential candidate.

Next year will be the first test for third parties to gather the higher required vote total in a gubernatorial election. It will be a midterm election, and those are rare wins for the major party that holds the presidency. Meaning, the Conservative Party might have an easy path to hold its state ballot status. Conversely, the WFP might have a rough time doing the same.

On the other hand, Gov. Cuomo resigned in disgrace due to multiple sexual harassment accusations. Had he clung to power, the WFP would have either been practically forced to cross endorse or face playing a spoiler role by not fusing but risk throwing the election to a Republican. One truth is certain: losing ballot status puts a third party in a completely different situation.

Read more from the original source:

Labor History: A brief history of the NYS Working Families Party - People's World

As some K-12 school districts are removing books from established curriculum, Gov. Bill Lee sees an opportunity to add curriculum with an emphasis on civics.

Lee announced in his State of the State address on Monday he is working to formalizea partnership with Hillsdale College, aprivate institution in Hillsdale, Michigan, that has become widely known for its politically and religiously conservative values.

Lee's office said it plans to outline more details about the partnership in the coming weeks. But details from Hillsdale indicate the partnership will be an opportunity to further the K-12 education initiatives the college has been exporting outside Michigan.

"When Governor Lee visited Hillsdale College, he was impressed with the College's ongoing efforts in supporting charter schools with its K-12 curriculum and teacher training," Kathleen O'Toole, Hillsdale's provost for K-12 education, said in a statement.

Lee's State of the State: Billions of dollars and no COVID talk: Takeaways from Gov. Bill Lee's State of the State

There are about 1,500 undergraduate and graduate students currently enrolled at Hillsdale, according to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, a database of information thatcolleges and universities report to the federal government.

The college was founded by Baptists and has preserved its Christian identity, which ithas infused with intellectual, cultural and political conservatism, said Adam Laats, a history professor at Binghamton University and an expert on institutions like Hillsdale.

The college has positioned itself as "a sort of libertarian or 'fusionist,' is what the nerds call it, type of conservative alignment," said Laats, author of "Fundamentalist U: Keeping the American Faith in Higher Education."

In the past decade,Hillsdale hasgrown its multifaceted K-12 program, most notably defined by the 21 charter schools it helped establish throughout 10 states.

There is oneset to openin Williamson County for the 2023-24 school year, USA Classical Academy, according to the academy's website.Whether the school has applied to the Williamson County Board of Educationfor approval of a charter is currently unknown.

The Clarksville-Montgomery County School Systemalso recently received an applicationfor a Hillsdale-affiliated charter school, according to Main Street Clarksville.

"The college's curriculum and teaching support helps classical schools to provide the type of education that all Americans both need and deserve one that is rooted in the liberal arts and sciences, offers a firm grounding in civic virtue, and cultivates moral character," O'Toole said in the statement.

In addition to the charter schools it helps establish, Hillsdale has produced, "The Hillsdale 1776 Curriculum," that includes lesson plans for teachers.

Latest on school choice push: New Tennessee school voucher bill clears key Senate committee

Those includes a list of "Hillsdale College-vetted books" and other resources to guide the practice of teaching. About 30 schools, all seemingly private or charter, have officially partnered with Hillsdale to download and use the free curriculum, according to the website. Only one Tennessee school, Ivy Academy's Skillern Elementary, a charter school in Soddy-Daisy in Hamilton County, is on Hillsdale's "curriculum schools" list.

Both of Hillsdale's major K-12 initiatives are part of the governor's plans.

"Hillsdale is involved in a number of initiatives that align with our priorities in Tennessee," Lee spokesperson Casey Black said in a statement Tuesday. That includes expanding "high-quality education options for Tennessee students" and developing new charter schools, Black said.

Hillsdale President Larry Arnn met with Franklin parents in the fall and alluded to a conversation with Lee about developing 50 new schools in Tennessee in six years, according to a recording published by Hillsdale.

Partnerships between states and colleges and universities for K-12 education initiatives is common, Laats said. But he said there seems to be uniqueelements withtheprospective Tennessee-Hillsdale partnership.

"What strikes me as the unusual takeaway is that the governor is intentionally wheeling the state into this very ideologically loaded and electorally loaded civics education," Laats said.

The college promotesconservative Christian values and has close ties with former President Donald Trump's administration. Some Hillsdalealumni served in the Trump administration.

The school is popularly known for rejecting federal government financial aid, meaning it is not subject to somefederal regulations that many colleges and universities are.

The college also publishes Imprimus, a free monthly digest founded in 1972focusing on speech and religious liberty issues that is well-read among conservativethought leaders. In December, it hired its first executive director for the new Blake Center for Faith and Freedom in Somers, Connecticut.

The prospective partnership with Tennessee aligns with two efforts Lee has prioritized since taking office. The governor has pushed for expanding school choice in Tennessee, including passage of his hallmark education savings account program that is now tied up in state court and establishing the Tennessee Public Charter School Commission.

The states current efforts to revamp how it funds K-12 schools also has a charter school component, with additional funding proposed for charter schools.

Teeing up the announcement of the Hillsdale partnership in his State of the State, Lee quoted former President Ronald Reagan whom Hillsdale has a statue of on its campus talking about teaching the "basics."

Referring toReagan's words, Lee said, "Some 30 years later, these words are more true and now more than ever, its important that we teach true American history, unbiased and nonpolitical."

Reporters Meghan Mangrum and Melissa Brown contributed to this report.

Liam Adams covers religion for The Tennessean. Reach him at ladams@tennessean.com or on Twitter @liamsadams.

The rest is here:

Civics, charters and classical ed: What to know about Hillsdale College's K-12 efforts in Tennessee - Tennessean

If you want to vote by mail, you have to request a mail-in ballot.The Maryland State Board of Elections is mailing ballot request forms for mail-in ballots to more than 3 million registered Maryland voters in advance of the state's 2022 primary election. Ballot requests forms will begin arriving in mailboxes later this week. Maryland's 2022 primary election is on June 28. This year, Maryland state law requires election officials send all voters a form to request a mail-in ballot. After filling out the request form, sign and seal it and return it in the postage-paid envelope that came with the form. To receive a mail-in ballot for the primary election, return envelopes must be received by June 21.Voters who want to vote in person should not fill out and return the form.Alternatively, voters can request a mail-in ballot online if they have a Maryland driver's license or Motor Vehicle Administration-issued ID card.Voters can also visit their local boards of election and fill out and return their ballot request form.This first phase of request forms for the primary election are addressed to registered Democrats and registered Republicans. Voters registered with other political parties, such as the Green Party and Libertarian Party, and unaffiliated voters will receive a request form in a second phase of mailers if there is a primary election in their school board district. Request forms for these voters will be mailed after the deadline for candidates to file for office, so that election officials will know where there are contested school board elections. There will be a final phase of mailers after the primary election for all other registered voters.To vote by mail, you must be registered to vote in Maryland. Visit elections.maryland.gov to register or update your voter record.

If you want to vote by mail, you have to request a mail-in ballot.

The Maryland State Board of Elections is mailing ballot request forms for mail-in ballots to more than 3 million registered Maryland voters in advance of the state's 2022 primary election. Ballot requests forms will begin arriving in mailboxes later this week.

Maryland's 2022 primary election is on June 28.

This year, Maryland state law requires election officials send all voters a form to request a mail-in ballot. After filling out the request form, sign and seal it and return it in the postage-paid envelope that came with the form. To receive a mail-in ballot for the primary election, return envelopes must be received by June 21.

Voters who want to vote in person should not fill out and return the form.

Alternatively, voters can request a mail-in ballot online if they have a Maryland driver's license or Motor Vehicle Administration-issued ID card.

Voters can also visit their local boards of election and fill out and return their ballot request form.

This first phase of request forms for the primary election are addressed to registered Democrats and registered Republicans. Voters registered with other political parties, such as the Green Party and Libertarian Party, and unaffiliated voters will receive a request form in a second phase of mailers if there is a primary election in their school board district. Request forms for these voters will be mailed after the deadline for candidates to file for office, so that election officials will know where there are contested school board elections.

There will be a final phase of mailers after the primary election for all other registered voters.

To vote by mail, you must be registered to vote in Maryland. Visit elections.maryland.gov to register or update your voter record.

Read the original:

Mail-in ballot request forms sent to Maryland voters ahead of primary election - WBAL TV Baltimore

Earthling Ed propped up a table and banner in White Plaza: VEGANISM IS A MORAL OBLIGATION: CHANGE MY MIND. Its provocative, all-caps claim drew a small crowd of bike-wheeling students. Ryan Loo 25 braked to a halt on his way back from class. Kawther Said 25 and Susan Ahmed 25, members of Stanfords People for Animal Welfare (PAW), came soon after Ed first propped up his table. Gerrit Van Zyll who doesnt go to Stanford is a digital marketing analyst whose lunchtime bike ride was interrupted by the sight of Ed, one of his favorite YouTubers.

Earthling Ed was talking to a philosophy major (Ed is not affiliated with the University). Their discussion, ranging from Kants ethics to the diets of Inuit peoples, was ripe with academic camaraderie. Eventually, the student stood up, shook Earthling Eds hand and revealed she is already vegan.

I just like to have these kinds of conversations, she shrugged. Eds videographer adjusted his camera on its tripod. Everything would be uploaded online. Except, perhaps, the parts to come.

Ed Winters became Earthling Ed while scrolling through BBC News in 2014. The headline Hundreds of chickens killed in M62 lorry crash drew his eye; by the end of the day, he had found a new conviction. He could no longer justify his complicity in the murder of animals. The leftover KFC in his fridge now carved caverns in his conscience.

A year later, Winters, who resembles a vegan Jesus in a Steve Jobs turtleneck, set up his YouTube channel. He began by uploading street interviews in his native United Kingdom, where he spoke to strangers about the ethics of eating animals. Since then, he has co-founded the Official Animal Rights March, a global event which drew 41,000 participants in 2019; released a documentary expos on U.K. land farming; taught as a guest lecturer at Harvard University; opened nonprofit vegan restaurants in London and Brighton specializing in tofish and chips; and written his debut book on veganism, released in January 2022.

But most people find him through YouTube. His most popular video, Coronavirus is just the start. Something far worse is coming, has 4.5 million views to date.

This Nov. 18 visit to Stanford University was part of a Northern California tour, sandwiched between stops at UC Berkeley and Davis. Winters goal is to get students talking about veganism and, in the most utopic outcome, convince them to make the switch. According to his website, 33,248 people have gone vegan thanks to his content.

The day before was a dream. Belinda Yu, a Bay Area animal-rights activist, could vouch for it. She loves Earthling Ed to the point of seeing him debate at not one but both rival schools. At Berkeley, according to witnesses, Winters faced a resistant but open-minded student who, at the end of their tte--tte, declared himself convinced. He was going to go vegan.

I think many of us are compassionate hearts, Yu said. We would make very different choices. Its the industry its just profit. Its capitalism.

But then again, yesterday there was no Leah Waites 23. As Winters readied himself for his next debate, Waites approached with two handmade posters. They were capitalized. VEGANISM IS FINE BUT JUDGING PEOPLE FOR NOT BEING RICH IS V V WACKY, she had written in black Sharpie on posters from the Stanford Bookstore. I GUARANTEE THESE MFS UPHOLD ANIMAL & HUMAN OPPRESSION MORE THAN YOUR AVERAGE JOE.

Waites, a philosophy major decked in transition sunglasses and lugging a water bottle, staked claim to a patch of grass near the bookstore. Winters asked her to sit and speak with him.

No! she yelled, raising her signs higher. I passed your sign earlier, and it was disgusting. And it was racist and classist, and Im not here for it!

Waites is a native of rural Alabama. Growing up poor in a food desert, there were times when dinner consisted of taquitos from the Dollar General, she said. When she first tried the vegan options at the Stanford dining halls, she said, she was shocked to find vegan food could taste good. There just wasnt any where she grew up.

Earlier that day, Waites, who is a white woman, opened Instagram to see several people of color posting about how Winters sign is offensive to Indigenous and African cultures that prepare meat in a respectful and sustainable manner. (She was not sure she remembered the specific details of the posts.) She called her parents, told them what she was going to do and went to buy her posters.

They worry about me, she told me. Its just me up against a lot of people all the time. Waites explained that these confrontations are not out of the ordinary for her. They were especially common back home, she said.

In White Plaza, Waites told Winters that being vegan would take a disproportionate toll on her as a poor person. But Winters challenged this why cant she be vegan at Stanford? There are abundant options at the dining hall.

I could be vegan, she said.

So, why arent you?

Because its not something that I feel I need to spend my time doing. Because I do a lot of other moral things that help humans more.

Waitess volume reached a level that drew stares. A middle-aged woman walking her dog stood and listened by the Claw. Waites was criticizing Winters, heatedly, for spending his time talking about veganism when there are workers at these dining halls who are being exploited right now, actual people of color. He tried to respond and was cut off.

Youre a white guy, Waites said. I can interrupt you.

And youre a white woman.

Well, youre copping out of the fact Im saying that youre racist, and youre not saying youre not a racist. Youre saying, how do you? Thats not an answer, right? Apparently because you wont even say you arent.

Ed turned to the audience. Anyone else here think Im a racist? he said. What about the people of color who arent white? Why is it only the white woman who thinks Im a racist?

The audience was silent. More students filtered into the crowd. The decibel of raised voices had proved magnetic.

Youre not worth it, Waites told Winters, but I hope people read these signs. She faced the gathered students, now almost 20 of them. Several iPhones had risen to film her.

Isnt it funny to hear him talk? she said to the cameras.

Its good to hear him talk, a voice in the crowd said.

Then Winters vied for the onlookers sympathy.

Who would have thought that asking someone not to kill an animal could be such a divisive scenario? But it enrages people. It makes them a racist because they say, Hey, if you dont have the moot to cut the throat of an animal

Awww, did your sign say that? Waites said.

Sideways glances in the audience. Ed looked lost, like he had been dropped into an alternate reality.

The only place Ive had people scream at me is here!

Im glad! Im glad people here have the guts!

A beat of silence until, finally, Waites said, Id like you to stop talking to me, and then she turned away.

For Said, one of the PAW members, this was an opening to pose a question. She asked Waites why she felt she could speak on behalf of people of color.

Why should the people who are affected most have to fight for things? Waites responded. If I have free time as a white woman to fight for shit because its easier for me to come here and stand up for people, shouldnt I fucking be doing that?

Youre just making them look bad, Said said.

Im making people of color look bad?

Yes, you are, because youre saying shit that doesnt make any fucking sense.

Okay. Thats one of the strangest arguments Ive ever

You are very strange. Youre a very strange person, Said deadpanned. You cant just throw around the word racist. How is he racist for saying to go vegan?

For the first time, Waites turned quiet and still.

Okay. Then, we see the world too differently for me to argue with you about this. Im sorry.

Waites turned on a Bluetooth speaker. Pop music swept into the scene, finding Earthling Ed with his palms up in disbelief, wearing a pinched look that appeared to be saying, Forgive them, for they know not what they do. Waites raised her signs above her head and swayed to the songs.

The crowd splintered. Friends turned to friends to discuss.

I understand the desire to want to be an ally for marginalized voices, Loo said. But I do feel as though its in poor taste to be unnecessarily hostile about it while also saying, Oh, Im doing this for this group of people.

Celeste Jupiter 22, a senior studying human biology, pursed her lips at Winterss behavior: His consistent reference to what do you people of color think today? was like Im not gonna be your representative for people of color today.

A new student sat at the table to debate Winters. He introduced himself as a libertarian. Their conversation was barely audible, its nuances washed away by Waitess music only feet away. She remained, signs up, rooted.

The next day, Winters would go to UC Davis. He anticipated negative reactions to his sign Davis is a big agricultural school. It hosts a poultry judging competition every year.

But here, in Palo Alto, the sun was inching to leave. Some 20 minutes later, Waites folded her posters under her arms. She told Winters he did not have permission to post the footage of her online.

It was nice to meet you, Winters called out, turning from his conversation with the libertarian, to which Waites replied her back shrinking from the foreground No.

As the videographer packed his tripod and the crowd dwindled to zero, White Plaza was left in a virulent whiplash of emotional reactivity, a dissonant mood of unconsciousness. The trees swallowed the sun. All that was left of Earthling Ed were four indentations in the grass where his table stood moments ago. The teachers left to learn from themselves, and White Plaza was left alone. Students biked like newsboys from corner to corner.

Go here to see the original:

The teachers of White Plaza - The Stanford Daily

On 23 January,The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)published Is Star Treks Dream of a World Without Money Utopian or Dystopian?, a piece does not serve the cause of Liberty well. Sure, the article is not written in bad faith. But it ends up justifying a parasitic form of capitalism that has less and less to do with entrepreneurship and increasingly colludes with and corrupts regulators and political authorities.

The issue of moneys disappearance has long been at the centre of heightened debates. Probably, some familiarised with the idea thanks to the cult sci-fi serial Star Trek. Yet, much earlier than that, classical Greek thinkers like Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle reflected on the function of money. And there are also more recent discussions on this issue: from political theorist Anitra Nelson to industrial designer Jacque Fresco. However, two millennia of debates have not yielded many results or anything resembling a consensus on the function/s money serves.

Against this background, unwarranted claims by eclectic billionaires become the unwitting target of misplaced defences of nowadays monopolistic, crony capitalism. Henceforth, this sort of capitalism or accumulation regime, as some economists label it is referred to as neo-feudalistic capitalism. Even paradoxically, perhaps, given that the authors of such articles really believe they are defending freedom and individual self-determination. Recently, the Foundation for Economic Educations (FEE) published a piece titled Is Star Treks Dream of a World Without Money Utopian or Dystopian?, which is a clear example of such misplaced defence of neo-feudalistic capitalism in the name of an enterprising, freedom-generating capitalism that does not exist.

Namely, the piece samples many of the libertarian fields weakest talking point and reflects a narrow-minded conception economic theory. First, the text creates a fake equivalence between capitalism as it is now, raising living standards and absolute-poverty reduction without observing the data critically and informing their readers correctly. Secondly, it oversimplifies most counter-arguments ignoring the many problems of neo-feudalistic capitalism and recent findings in behavioural economics.

Instead of merely criticising, deconstructing these arguments offers an occasion to imagine a wider front of liberty defenders. After all, Mises, Keynes, Marx, Sowell and Friedman disagree on the road towards, rather than notion of freedom. Hence, libertarian, conservative and progressive economics ought to reject the current form of predatory capitalism not to defend it.

One of libertarians, neoliberals, and conservatives most-often repeat argument in defence of capitalisms current form tackles the problem of poverty. In fact, the piece reads that capitalism has been successful at lifting most of humanity out of poverty. But, did it?

Indeed, this is true when considering UN data on absolute poverty; or the severe deprivation of basic human needs. And the UN lists these basic needs as: food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. In fact, the authors themselves use Our World in Datas (OWD) chart showing the reduction in absolute poverty since 1820. In addition, Figure 1 (below) shows also OWDs chart showing the share of the world population in absolute poverty. Still, it would be worth asking if is it possible for almost 90% of the world population to be extremely poor at any point in time.

Figure 1 Data on extreme poverty, (A) absolute numbers and (B) percentage. All data are before taxes and transfers. (Charts from: Our World in Data)

Looking at the methodological note on OWDs website, the solution appears related to the definition of absolute poverty. In fact, the charts count the people who lived in conditions that are similar to the living conditions of the very poorest in the world today. Therefore, OWD is assessing poverty as if the 20th centurys basic needs were universal or trans-epochal. Clearly, logically and rationally this is an econometric and statistical absurd. Conversely, it should be unsurprising that in the 19th century sanitation, education and information were of lower quality.

As a matter of fact, as countries get richer, the value of what they consider as basic needs increases. If anything, the reason lies in societys constant evolution, which ingenerates new needs and spurs new technologies also before modernity. Hence, the real success of an economic system lies in increasing the number of people who can live a decent lifeby their times standards. And economists gave a name to this measurement: relative or social poverty. According World Bank data in Figure 2, the current version of capitalism has achieved little or nothing in this respect. On the contrary: the total headcount of societal poverty is essentially at the same level it was in 1990 due to the increasing global population.

Figure 2 World Bank data on relative poverty between 1990 and 2015.(Data source: Jolliffe and Prydz 2017; Chart: Authors elaboration)

Table 1 Data on relative poverty from Jolliffe and Prydz (2017).

The second argument supporting the unquestionability of money derives from Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged:

Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. [] Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders.

For anyone with an up-to-date understanding of economic theory this is straightforward naivety. In other words, there should be is nothing in a monetary transaction besides the free will of the participants.

Yet, there are enormous conditionings that weight on the result of any transaction beyond ones free will. For instance, there may be regulations prohibiting the provision of certain services to specific individuals (e.g., international sanctions). Again, rules can fix certain goods and services minimum or maximum price (e.g., the US Office of Price Administration). More, indirect taxes, surcharges and subsidies alter prices leading some people not to buy and other to buy more. Finally, laws can impose a transaction (e.g., US law mandated covid-19 tests, but either employers or employees had to pay).

Even assuming no State intervention, one cannot disregard the power relations in the economic sphere mention one. In fact, neo-feudalistic capitalism is full of monopolies and oligopolies with stratospheric margins that dictate unreasonable prices and lobby regulators. Moreover, major corporations tend to develop predatory traits and annihilate any competition at first sight or even in the cradle. Additionally, behavioural economics shows that advertising and other practices alter preferences and behaviours surreptitiously, with the potential to generate inefficiencies.

Clearly, contrary statements prove that Kurt W. Rothschild was right when he wrote power is neglected in contemporary economic theory. Furthermore, they lead to a completely false reading of economic history. In fact, the authors strenuous critique of Marx and Marxism goes as far as saying that workers chose industrial jobs because they paid better than those in agriculture in 19th century England. Really, this reconstruction may appear rational to a libertarian but, as Karl Polanyi wrote, it is simply false. In fact, wealthy individuals began enclosing previously common plots of land, forced poor farmers out into the towns. And once there, disorientation, hunger, and other desperate peoples competition of dissipated any semblance of fair wage negotiations.

Admittedly, the aim of this article is not to prove that the abolition of money would create a utopia. Nor to support the authors claim that it would almost certainly lead to a dystopia. In reality, money is not a guarantee of freedom but neither is its abolition. Meanwhile, given that nowadays societies are already on the brink of a dystopic tomorrow, talented libertarians like the authors should refrain from pursuing counter-productive critiques of far-fetched speculations like a money-less society. Indeed, neo-feudalistic capitalism seems even unable to abolish cash let alone money itself.

Instead, it is high time for libertarians, conservatives and progressive to join forces to protect civil and economic freedoms. Each of these groups can contribute with a different, and differentiated, analysis of todays deep crisis. Yet, only forming a united front can they stop neo-feudalistic capitalisms mania for social control, monopoly and state capture. Essentially, no one supports an embryonic social-credit system, the death of small and medium businesses and reckless monetary policy. Yet, this is the direction in which neo-feudalistic capitalism is leading humanity at an accelerating speed.

Once this formidable adversary is no more, there will be plenty of time for libertarians to criticise some risk-prone progressives. As well as to serve an uppercut to some conservatives cultural traditionalism. But until then, everyones attention should be on stopping the current drift before it is too late.

Related

View post:

Freedoms and free-market capitalism beyond utopias and dystopias: A World Without Money revised - Modern Diplomacy