Nathan Tabor

As the United States enters into the 2008 and another presidential election, there is widespread anxiety over the state of the economy. The subprime mortgage crisis, and the subsequent collapse of the housing market have cast a pall across even the most optimistic projections. In response, many Americans look to government to alleviate their concerns and usher in a new cycle of economic growth. Though such impulses are understandable, it would be a grave mistake to take any steps which would lead us away from the free market.

The reason to hold fast to free market principles is simple: no other institution can so effectively meet the wants and needs of American citizens.

The roots of our economic system can be found in the basic human drive to create, buy, and sell—interactions which have taken place since human beings began to form communities. These interactions are entirely voluntary-- no government ruled that they should take place; rather, they have occurred spontaneously as human beings seek to satisfy their desires for food, comfort, and entertainment.

For that reason, buying and selling only occurs when both parties stand to benefit from the exchange. The other side of the coin is that neither party is interested in paying more than he or she believes a particular good or service is worth.

In the free market system, price and value are determined by the time, labor and expenses that contribute to the finished product, as well as the total supply of such products on the market, their relative availability to the customer, and the customer’s need to purchase the product. This incredibly complex latticework of variables is what sets prices and determines value in such a way that the manufacturers’, the buyers’, and the sellers’ considerations all factor into the equation.

In short, the genius of the free market system is its ability to process and transmit information to billions of people while continuously adapting in response to the actions of its participants.

Government intervention into economic activity, on the other hand, usually results in a form of price control. In contrast to the free market, which sets prices according to the behavior of people, government’s attempt at determining price is always arbitrary, for it cannot grasp the concept of value in a market system. This is why government intervention into the price mechanism usually worsens, rather than alleviates, economic crisis.

In response to the embargo set by OPEC in 1974, the United States interfered with supply and demand by rationing gasoline. There were long lines at gas stations, and citizens could only buy gas on certain days of the week. And yet, in Germany and Japan, there were no gas lines. The reason is that Germany and Japan allowed the market to continue to set gas prices. As supply went down and demand remained constant, prices went up. The increase in price transmitted valuable information to consumers: gasoline is less readily available than it was a few months ago. The United States attempted to avert the crisis by superseding the market, and paid an economic price for that action.

As the United States attempts to weather the housing crisis and the slowdown of the economy, it is important to remember that there are no quick fixes; no silver bullets. Government tampering with the machinery of the market tends to come at a steep price. The best course for now is for businesses and consumers alike to exercise caution and prudence in their dealings. The market forces will balance, as they always do, and hard work and ingenuity will continue to be rewarded in the land of opportunity.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

Over the past eight years, out-of-control spending, Iraq, economic concerns, and the culture wars have eclipsed gun control in the public debate over politics. However, the renewed debate that accompanied the expiration the assault weapons ban has shown that Americans remain deeply divided on the subject of gun rights. Unlike some political fields of discussion, there are no new arguments when it comes to the issue of gun rights. However, the importance of the issue is reason enough to revisit the fundamentals of the case for private ownership and use of firearms.

Supporters of and detractors of gun rights can generally be sorted into their respective categories based on their views on crime. Those who favor stronger gun control measures tend to believe that readily available guns increase crime. Those who disagree tend to believe that crime, like all unsavory activities, stems from human nature; prior to guns, crimes were committed at knifepoint.

In the laboratory of the real world, the dismal success rate of gun control laws tend to support the latter position. England, notorious for its strict gun control laws, has seen violent crimes increase by nearly forty-five percent since 1997. Australia, which also tightened its gun control laws in 1997, saw violent crimes increase by thirty-two percent.

The common sense explanation for the results in the data is simply this: an armed citizenry does little to incentivize robberies, muggings, and carjackings—the “jobs” become much more hazardous. Additionally, few criminals submit to a background check to acquire their weapons—the black market is their source of armament.

In other words, gun laws are for the law-abiding, which means that gun control only disarms ordinary citizens. However, the knowledge that potential victims are most likely armed will cause many criminals to think twice.

The Founding Fathers knew that assuring citizens of their rights to life, liberty, and property meant nothing if those citizens did not have the authority to act under their own power to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods.

By the same token, freedom could not be guaranteed without a tangible limit to state power which could be reinforced on a daily basis. That limit is the right of all citizens to bear arms. While it is common on the left to slander gun rights enthusiasts as “gun nuts” and lump them in with survivalist militias, they are missing the point—the Founders intended that the Second Amendment serve as a kind of shield against tyranny.

This idea, while often papered over or forgotten, is intrinsic to the intent of the Second Amendment, and the Constitution itself: the rule of law is preserved by placing limits on power. The Second Amendment is a reminder that no one--especially the government--is above the law.

When revisiting the issue of gun rights, once the hyperbole has been stripped away from the debate, two facts remain: gun control empowers criminals while leaving ordinary citizens defenseless. However, a robust set of gun rights reduces crime, allows citizens to protect themselves, and acts as a check on government power. Like all rights, there will always be legally-defined limits to the right to bear arms, but we must not forget the vital importance of the Second Amendment, for all our liberties depend upon it. Without the right to bear arms, we cannot truly be considered free.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

After a bruising and extended primary fight, the Republican die has been cast; for better or worse, John McCain appears to be our next nominees. As our thoughts turn to the general election, the alignment of the Supreme Court becomes an issue that hinges on November’s results.

Thanks to liberal decisions made by the Court over the past thirty-odd years, the culture wars have enflamed public opinion and divided Americans. Debates over gay marriage, abortion, and public expressions of religiosity—at best, deeply controversial—were exacerbated and prolonged by the Supreme Court’s forays into policymaking.

While the legislative process forges consensus by allowing all voices to be heard, judicial fiat leaves no room for compromise. It is impossible to craft law without extended dialogue, and a great deal of give and take.

When social policy is left to the Court, it does not matter whether decisions are made in the spirit of compromise; the first casualty of such decisions is polity.

Case in point is Roe v. Wade; Justice Harry Blackmun’s now-controversial decision was not an attempt to impose his will on the entire country—his invocation of the trimester framework was an attempt to forge a compromise between abortion supporters and abortion opponents.

Yet, despite Blackmun’s best intentions, Roe cannot be described as anything less than an abuse of the Court’s power and an overstepping of its constitutional bounds.  This is the rotten fruit borne by the seeds of radical judicial interpretation.

The postmodern view of the judicial role is often referred to as the belief in a “living Constitution.” According to this view, the Constitution is constantly in need of adjustment and update, much like a computer operating system; regular “patches” are necessary in order to keep things running smoothly.

As harmless as this approach may sound, it overlooks the fact that there is already a mechanism for Constitutional change; the amendment process. The Founding Fathers believed that momentous decisions which could shape the future of the nation needed to be handled in such a way that a consensus could be arrived at.

This is why Constitutional amendments must be ratified by two thirds of the states, and it is also why lawmaking is the business of an elected legislative body which serves at the favor of its constituents.

Thanks to President Bush, the Supreme Court has taken a measured turn back towards judicial restraint and humility with the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

The next president will play an immeasurably important role in determining the trajectory of American jurisprudence over the next few decades.

The next appointment could resurrect the flawed thinking that led to judicial disasters such as Roe, or bury it forever.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

After the South Carolina primary and the subsequent withdrawal of Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter’s presidential bids, the Republican field has narrowed considerably. Barring a Giuliani victory in Florida, the nominee will almost certainly be Romney, McCain, or Huckabee.  As none of the remaining candidates can lay full claim to the conservative mantle, how do conservative voters select from among these three without splitting the party and dividing the base?

In the past, the various factions that compose the GOP made common cause based on a set of principles; a muscular foreign policy, free market economics, and promoting a culture that values life. After spending decades in the political wilderness, Republicans chose Ronald Reagan to turn these principles into policy. The order of events was no accident; the man (Reagan) met the moment (the Cold War and the supply-side boom) once Republicans were united in purpose.

In 2008, party unification (and subsequently, electoral victory) hinges on one thing: internalizing the lessons of the past. It is for that reason that conservatives and Republicans must approach the primaries from a different angle. Rather than viewing a choice between the current candidates as a series of trade-offs (Huckabee the social conservative vs. Romney the economic conservative), we should look at the principles beneath the positions. In that light, the current choice is between two conservatives (Romney and Huckabee) and a moderate who leans right on foreign policy (McCain).

In order for the GOP to usher in four new years of conservative governance, its voters must have one priority: to pick the candidate who 1) best embodies conservative principles and 2) is able to put those principles into practice so that they fully address the needs of the nation and its citizens.

For this reason, Mike Huckabee deserves a second look by primary voters who have written him off as “the social conservative candidate” or “an economic populist.” While he has drawn heat from a number of prominent conservatives for his attacks on the Club for Growth and the fact that he raised taxes while governor of Arkansas, there is more to Huckabee than meets the eye. While it is true that he raised taxes five times as governor, he also lowered them ninety-four times.

Additionally, polls indicate that the middle class is trending Democratic—largely over economic issues. While tax cuts are excellent for stimulating economic growth, they do nothing for job security. Huckabee’s overtures to Americans concerned about their jobs have not abandoned the principles of free-market economics; they still emphasize empowering individuals over expansion of government power. Rather, they are an attempt to answer the needs of the voters without resorting to the socialism-lite offered by the Democrats.

The fact is that America in 2008 faces different problems than in 1980, and while principles should not change, solutions must change where necessary to effectively meet America’s needs.

An avowed supporter of the pro-life movement and traditional marriage, Huckabee also offers a fresh perspective on the culture of life. By speaking on the genocide in Darfur and the slaughter of the unborn in America in the same breath, he has effectively linked America’s responsibility to the unborn and its responsibility to champion freedom and protect the innocent abroad.

This moral clarity is vitally important.

To those in the party who would like to put the issue of abortion on the back burner in favor of economic and foreign policy issues, Huckabee’s rejoinder is, why choose? All life is sacred. At the same time, it is an eloquent rebuttal to those Americans who are suffering from Iraq-induced fatigue and prefer a “non-interventionist” foreign policy. As President Bush noted, the terrorists began this conflict, but we’ll decide how and when to finish it.

Though the slate of Republican candidates is smaller than ever, conservatives need not despair. There is more than one candidate remaining whose platform is rooted in conservative principles. If, however, conservatives are looking something more—if they are looking for a candidate who can utilize these principles to craft new policies to meet our current challenges, they could not do better than to consider Mike Huckabee. The man from Hope is selling his own brand of optimism to voters—which makes him Reaganesque in more ways than one.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss