Disaster in Anarcho-Capitalist Utopia

An oil drilling company critically underestimates the potential harm from having its oil rig fail, and millions of gallons of crude begin pumping into the Gulf of Mexico. The drilling company immediately defaults.

Who cleans up the oil?

The Free Rider Problem

Over at UNRSFL, poster Keabag has posted a set of questions raised by Barry Belmont's Anarcho-Capitalism II lecture. Keagbag's 12 questions more-or-less center around the free rider problem, but I have seen Barry dance around answering direct questions about this apparent flaw in his philosophy on several occasions, and I'm curious to see if he will do so again.

The main problem with idealistic cities-in-thought (e.g., anarcho-capitalism, communism, pure capitalism) is that they gloss over the problem of members who are either not able or willing to make equal contributions to society.

Philosophies like Barry's tend to take a hard-line approach: people who do not contribute will face social pressure to conform, or else they will be excluded from essential functions of society (dating, selling, etc…), and that people who are incapacitated (the elderly, the severely handicapped, orphans) will either be taken in and cared for by their families, or else private individuals will raise the necessary capital to provide for those folks as an altruistic gesture. But this solution ignores the history of humanity that shows that even when private entities attempt to intervene to help those in need, there are still many who are unable to receive the assistance they need in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

I expect Barry would deny that such a result would occur in his idealistic system of government. Yet, even Ludwig von Mises, one of Barry's anarcho-capitalist heroes, argued that government was necessary for a limited number of functions, and it was because, as a practical matter, human self-interest is not sufficient for ensuring the smooth operation of society. Only governments, through their monopoly on the legal application of force, are in a position to solve market failures such as the free rider problem (even if they do so inefficiently).

It will be very interesting to see how Barry responds to Keabag's insightful questions. I suggest following the discussion.

A logical reason to not be mean

Basis: A person tends to ignore statements—regardless of the statements validity—from individuals the person dislikes while receiving openly statements from individuals the person does like.

Assumption: An individual’s aversion to mean people is predicated on biology or sociology (the way in which the brain is wired or matures due to cultural influences, etc) and is therefore not easily overcome and not instantly arbitrary.

Proposition: When attempting to convince others of one’s own correctness the stated assumption should be accounted for.

I make a claim I would like others to take seriously.
I know it is more likely to be accepted if I am well received.
I know I can increase my chances of being well received if I propose my claim respectfully.

Conclusion: Propositions (e.g., criticisms) should always be as truthful as possible. However, presenting propositions with respect and dignity will never harm one’s chances of being heard. Therefore, not being mean is a logical route to convincing others of one's own correctness.

Mean

Our good friends at UNR Students for Liberty have a post discussing meanness. Reading the title, I immediately filled in the blanks and assumed Mr. Belmont was going to confess to making average arguments. However, he was only ardently defending his juvenile approach to debate. Alas. However, I was interested enough to look up mean in the dictionary.

We all know mean is the sum of a group divided by the number of members, in other words, the average.

But did you know that mean is also defined as inferior and poor? As in He has a mean and narrow understanding of human relationships.

BUT, mean also means excellent, very skillful or effective. As in He is a mean debator.

So, mean can describe anything along the continuum from crap to cream of the crop.

What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.

It is easy to assume one's cause so virtuous as to justify any action in support of it. The youthful libertarians of UNR Student's for Liberty convinced themselves their recent Abolish ASUN event was a justified attack on a system they find wasteful. Not too many people were amused with the event. Many expressed disgust. However, the political savants at UNR-SFL remain unapologetically unabashed. Those who are annoyed, bemused, confused, disgusted, enraged, flabbergasted, etc are just too simple-minded to get the enlightened point being made by UNR-SFL.

Well, John Russell has proved his assumed beliefs might be just a little too large for him to wear intelligently. His recent post condemning ASUN's Flipside Productions recent event suggests he still does not get why people will label him and his fellow club members hypocrites and still support Flipside's event.

You stand on a soapbox professing disdain for waste and then engage in waste yourself; regardless of the purpose, you are a hypocrite. The club's petty behavior may have made a point, but it was not done elegantly. It was done with contempt and displayed rank hypocrisy.

p.s. Another reason you are all hypocrites is your voluntary attendance at a tax supported state sponsored school.

Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
~Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Just what exactly do they hope to accomplish?

The UNR Students for Liberty Ludicrousness want to Abolish ASUN. So what exactly do they hope to accomplish? Oh, right. Abolish ASUN. Unfortunately, their latest endeavor in ludicrousness is destined to fail. Putting aside their pure hypocrisy, why are their efforts wasted? Because what they want can't happen.

What exactly is their petition seeking? A student ballot question to dissolve ASUN? Board of Regents action to eliminate ASUN? The petition is unclear as to its effect. Without the petition's legal effect being clear, it is insufficient to be recognized. Aside from the petition's lack of clarity, other concerns exist.

First, as a matter of ASUN law, the petition does not propose a proper popular initiative. The ASUN Constitution limits popular initiatives by petition to constitutional amendments and popular enactment and repeal of legislative acts (i.e. laws subordinate to the constitution). There is nothing in the ASUN Constitution that authorizes the dissolution of the Association (compare student government constitutions that contain express dissolution provisions). As a matter of ASUN law, the petition seeks something that the government cannot grant: a popular vote on whether to abolish ASUN. (This is predicated on my understanding of what the petition in fact seeks.)

Second, the petition is directed to the Board of Regents, suggesting that the petition is not intended to implicate ASUN's electoral process at all (can you understand my confusion about what this petition is asking for?). The Regents are not inclined to abolish ASUN without the consent of the students. But if ASUN cannot legally place a dissolution question on the ballot, this question will never get to the Regents. The only way I see the Regents abolishing ASUN is if the organization becomes so demonstrably corrupt that wiping the slate clean is the only option.

Third, even assuming that ASUN could place a dissolution question on the ballot, what vote would be sufficient to abolish ASUN? A majority of those voting? A majority of the membership of ASUN? It is entirely unclear what vote is necessary, as a matter of law, to dissolve a student government. To me, it seems that an absolute majority of the membership is required. Also, keep in mind that ASUN is not self-chartering. The Board of Regents is the chartering authority. Thus, to eliminate ASUN requires their approval, and as I've said, it's unlikely they'll grant it.

Fourth, the electronic version is an unacceptable medium in which to circulate the petition. ASUN law does not allow for petitions to be circulated electronically. Thus, the ASUN Attorney General has no authority to accept such a petition.

Finally, what the petition is against, namely "a student government that funds itself through a compulsory student fee," implicates a solution that is worse than what exists now. Implicitly, UNR SFL is in favor of an ASUN that does not obtain revenue through a mandatory fee. But it's that mandatory fee that prevents ASUN from engaging in content and viewpoint discrimination when deciding who gets funding and who does not. In other words, if UNR SFL requested funds for its "Abolish ASUN" event under a voluntary fee system, ASUN could deny the request simply because it didn't agree with the message. It is because ASUN has a mandatory fee that the U.S. Constitution prevents ASUN from engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

One last thing to consider: Getting rid of ASUN isn't going to make college less expensive by $5 per credit. The Regents will happily reallocate that money to something else. In short, doing away with ASUN will do more harm to students than good because the students will lose their official representation.

UNR Students for Liberty and Beautiful Irony

In an ingeniously cruel move, the UNR Students for Liberty have secured funding from ASUN for an Abolish ASUN event. I can't imagine a more brilliant way to demonstrably validate their view that ASUN bureaucracy is a joke.

What's more disturbing is the ease with which the funding was given. You can view the brilliant discourse had by the club commission in a video provided by SFL. I'm sure there are some legal ramifications I am unaware of that might compel the government to fund SFL without discrimination, but that is not what happened.

I grow regularly more and more convinced ASUN serves little purpose. When the club commission cannot stand in defense of the government it purports to serve, the institution has a problem. I've always stood behind ASUN as a great tool to help students learn, but I've seen very little in my years to suggest that SFL is not correct. It seems all ASUN is good at is taking money from all students to redistribute to more active students. ASUN must learn how to advocate for students on issues students care about and be able to defend at least some part of its institution against the funny, but childish antics, of SFL.

Teabaggers want ASUN to go away; world yawns

We've discussed UNR Student for Liberty before, particularly their radical views and single-mindedness. We didn't realize just how crazy these folks are until a recent comment popped up on their blog (the one about constitutions not having binding force). Traditional libertarians argue for the minimization of the power of the state so as to maximize individual liberty. UNR Students for Liberty adhere to what they call "anarcho-capitalism," but let's get straight, what they advocate is anarchy. Libertarians recognize that the state is sometimes necessary to secure individual liberty.

Enter their "10 Days Before Christmas" campaign for improvements to ASUN. On the one hand, they believe no government can have legitimacy and thus no government should exist. Ever. On the other hand, they are telling ASUN what it is doing wrong and offering ideas for improvement. Leaving alone their condescension, these guys might be taken more seriously if it weren't for their total hypocrisy about government. (This was a problem for their political party, UNR START, which we explored here.)

If your underlying position is "ASUN should not exist," why should anyone listen to any of your ideas? What they are doing is like a vegan telling a burger lover how to cook his meat for a juicier burger.

If the Senate is looking for ways to improve the club funding policies, let's start with an easy one. Pass a law prohibiting the fraudulent use of club funding. If a club files a request that is approved but tries to spend the money on something else, not only will the club not get reimbursed for the expense but it will risk losing institutional recognition. In other words, lie and risk losing recognition.

None is this will actually change their views or behavior. You can't engage in a constructive dialog with those who are so single-mindedly immature they can't agree to middle ground.

Blatant hypocrisy

Come on guys, when even Coffin and Keys is pointing out your hypocrisy, you should probably take it down a notch or two.

UNR Students for Liberty have some legitimate beefs with ASUN, but you can't assert you do not acknowledge the legitimacy of government while at the same time suckling from the government's tit.

You've already shown that you don't quite buy into this "government is not legitimate" notion by accepting public funds, so why don't you guys abandon it in favor of encouraging real change in ASUN. You guys have a student judiciary available to you that would be more than willing to be used once and a while.

Why Barry Belmont's Single-mindedness Indicates a Useless Philosophy

Barry Belmont of the UNR Students for Liberty recently took time to comment on a recent post on Vis Lupi about illegal redaction of personal information be done to applications for the open College of Liberal Arts Senate seat. It is his opinion that "dumb" laws need not be followed. Here is one reason why he is wrong.

If a society agrees to, and forms around, the idea that it should be governed by laws, to allow any individual to arbitrarily choose what laws are "bad" or "dumb" means the rule of law is consequentially dead. Perhaps this particular violation cited by Vis Lupi and commented on by Belmont is ultimately meaningless but what Vis Lupi is attempting to report on is a trend in ASUN.

The individuals in ASUN have shown an inclination to ignore laws they find inconvenient or cumbersome. They also like to claim ignorance because the system is too complicated for them to understand. This is not fair to those that create expectations and behave in a manner befitting the rule of law. This behavioral asymmetry will lead to a culture that eventually places no value in following the rules of the law, and that culture will descend into anarchy.

While I'm sure the UNR Students for Liberty would love that, it is a scenario that if allowed to proceed apace will destroy any efficacy ASUN has. ASUN is partly a deliberative body. Deliberative bodies need rules so all members can participate on a level playing field. While I’m not particularly concerned if ASUN implodes or not, I would rather they succeed if they are going to be taking $5/credit hour from every undergraduate student. It’s not the law itself, it’s the idea that any person gets to choose what laws are worth following, that is a serious problem in ASUN.

A Letter to Barry Belmont of START and His Response

Barry,

I think what you guys are trying to do is great. And I also think that your ideas are very good at a very basic level. I was glib and condescending in my response on the Sagebrush website, for that let me apologize. This is an absurdly long email, but I hope it helps convey my sincere hopes and concerns for your success.

I would love for you guys to succeed on a number of issues including getting rid of waste in ASUN, improving club funding models, making programming more cost effective and responsive to students, and many other things.

What I had hoped to convey through my post was that your platform appears to lack actionable ideas.

Even though you didn’t ask, I’m going to provide a critical analysis of your planks that interest me and make suggestion on how to improve both the message surrounding the plank and how to make the plank a idea that can be implemented.

All Voluntary Student Senate

This plank focuses on the senate only. There are 21 senators, each getting paid $401/semester. That is $8,421 per semester out of student fees this year of $1.3 million, or 1.3% of the student fees paid into the budget. All expenditures on the senate total $38,662 or 3% of the budget. The budget of the executive board is 7.2%, yet it is never mentioned in your platform. Why? The senate controls all monies spent in ASUN, including wages paid to executive officers of the Associated Students.

Your platform also says, “Unless a good deed is done voluntarily, it has no moral significance.” A consequence of this stance that START has been asked to address several times is what about students who cannot afford to work for ASUN? Only those who are rich enough to be able to afford to volunteer (for a good senator) 10-15 hours per week minimum therefore lack virtue? This corollary actually suggests perhaps senators should be paid even more, so all students who feel a desire to serve students can, regardless of particular economic situations. I would appreciate a response.

Your own figures indicate 43% of the budget of the Association is consumed by Professional Salaries. My calculation actually came out to 48% for this year, if all positions had been filled. Regent policy requires only that ASUN has a business manager. While I personally believe ASUN has grown beyond just a business manager, I do not think it should cost $625,000 per year to run ASUN before any students are even paid. While it is laudable you are aware of the Constitution provision forbidding disapproval of contracts and salaries, that does not preclude anyone, including the Senate, from working with Sandy, Student Services, or the Board of Regents on this issue. Why is it START is unwilling to address this issue? Do you not view it as wasteful? Do you view it as a necessity of running ASUN?

Another part of this issue is credit hour reimbursement. Do you believe, especially during a crisis, the University will give ASUN over $16,000? ASUN would have to pay for the waivers. The political reality is ASUN will have had its per credit fee grow by nearly 100% next year, when compared to four years ago. The University is unlikely to be receptive to ASUN seeking a $16,000 handout. Further, even if credit waivers were secured, by whatever means, it would have a detrimental effect on a student’s ability to receive financial aid. Are you aware of this consequence? If so, are you indifferent? If so, I refer you to my prior points on the equity of voluntary service.

One are I think it would be both prudent and fair to look at cutting costs would be the retreats and the banquets, but the retreats serve as valuable team building exercises, while the banquet is a way to congratulate and thank students for serving. Is it necessary, no. Does it serve a purpose, yes. You call it wasteful spending without addressing other issues related to the spending. Do you feel retreats and banquets serve no purpose? Or do you feel the same thing could be accomplished for free or at least substantially less money?

Improving Programs

You claim “[c]lubs are awarded money without scrutiny.” I agree. There are Constitutional reasons, however, that there are not discriminating rules. The government has not right to act as an arbiter with regards to this. And even if it tried, do you not see a situation arising where clubs are funded in an even more irresponsible way; clubs with friends in powerful position getting more money for instance. It is very easy also, to create standards but what right do you feel the government (remember the ASUN is a government no different that the US except in scope, scale and importance) has to decide, probably somewhat arbitrarily, who gets money?

Spending Student Money

Your claim that “[t]here is not an incentive to save money” is again correct. This is a perennial problem with government. There is some fascinating research on the subject, but I am honestly curious: how do you propose addressing it?

The idea of creating a merit based system is a good one. However, it already exists in law. The biggest problem with this is that ASUN lacks the infrastructure to generate the kind of reports that would make evaluating services possible. It could be created, but it would cost money and take time. Further, there seems to be a lack of interest on the part of the Director of ASUN to make it easier to review programs (especially a pet program like Campus Escort). By law, and I’m unsure of the citation—I’ll find it and let you know—programs must go through a review process to get continued funding. I believe the process operates over a period of two or three years.

What I would like to see in your platform are more details on how to create a review process given senators will have been office for about a month by the time the budget is created. Once the budget is created, programming starts pursuing contracts for events, money starts getting spent. Although the budget can always be amended, by the time the senate as the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision, it may be too late to make a change? What process or method does START propose to address this concern?

Then there is what I would refer to as empty rhetoric: OrgSync, additional advertising potential (review my comments on the Sagebrush website), moving Homecoming under the Department of programming, ASUN speakers, the ASUN wastes valuable time, and stop raising fees (my biggest question on this is: How?). I am also curious as to what rule set or method START envisions replacing Robert’s Rules?

I hope you take me sincerely when I say I think what you guys are trying to do is good, but there is a lot of stuff you don’t know that is going to stop you in your tracks when you try to get stuff done. I’ve been watching and participating in ASUN for four years; I’ve seen a lot of people with good ideas not get anywhere because they were unaware of the resistance they will encounter from with the ASUN establishment and the because they lacked a deep understanding of campus politics.

Shane Steinbauer

And the response

Hello Shane.

First of all, thank you for this response. It is very insightful. I apologize, but I fear my response might be as long as your concerns. Please bear with me.

All Voluntary Student Senate

This pillar of our platform was decided after numerous heated exchanges between the members. Many brought up the exact same points (only the rich can run...) and I can see and understand this position. However, as you mentioned a good senator should work say at least 10 hours a week. Well for the 16 weeks of the semester (let's call it 15 for the sake of argument) that totals 150 hours worked for $400. Or roughly a wage of $2.70 an hour. It can be said that our senators are working for peanuts already and with this budget crisis it seems more pressing than ever to save ever last penny. What better way to show that we (senators) stand with the students than in refusing our pay to help them just that little bit more. I agree, the amount is minuscule, but it is such a simple and powerful gesture towards those we serve that the START members agreed that refusing the pay or using it as a means to give money back to students was the best idea. Obviously it might be hard to achieve and we certainly couldn't (wouldn't) force other senators to refuse their pay, but the option for senators to refuse their pay should be on the table.

Or...and this was also part of the debate...we should pay the senators what a normal job would pay...that way it would be more of a real job and not just some hobby for some people. But from looking at the attendance records, legislation passed, and overall performance of previous senates, it does not appear that the senators even deserve to be paid that much. I'm sorry to be blunt, but in all honesty it doesn't appear that most of them have earned what a minimum wage job would pay. We in START didn't think that throwing more money at senate would solve this problem (it hasn't solved many other of their problems) so we once again leaned on the side of volunteerism.

Also, as you have seen, there is a conspicuous lack of mentioning professional salaries and the executive board. During winter break when we were going over all the budget numbers we saw that these two take up considerably more money and if anything should get docked it should be these. We were fully prepared to come out and say cutting pay to these people or passing resolutions saying we don't want to pay so-and-so anymore because they haven't lived up to their job title...basically everything you've mentioned. Before we solidified our position we talked to numerous senators, ASUN staff, Eli Reilly, and even Sandy herself...many meetings about many things to see what could possibly be done. In so many words we were told that it is practically impossible (as a senator) to cut the pay to anyone but the senate (possibly judicial...). Sandy said she didn't feel entirely comfortable about the idea of the senate evaluating professional salaries and that that was her job to do. Honest to goodness, we tried to see what could be done, but answers were hard in coming and when they came, they were generally "no, you cannot do that." So rather than make promises that we weren't entirely sure we could keep, we decided to stick with senators' salaries for now...and if the opportunity presented itself at a later time, reopen the idea of professional and executive board salaries. Certainly, no one can think that we would be unable to say that we wouldn't go that far...I mean we're cutting our own pay, what makes people think we wouldn't be afraid to cut theirs? In conclusion, there is no mention of it for the simple reason that when we were asking about this we were utterly stonewalled.

Credit Hours

This seems to be our most misunderstood stance...I think I may rework the wording on the website. We are not talking about monetary reimbursemtn in the amount equal to credit hours. For instance, three credit hours = $400 or something. No. What we had in mind is that on our transcripts a simple three simple elective credits (that don't affect the GPA...basically pass/fail) would be added for each semester worked. That way senators are reimbursed for their time with three extra credits..but not with money. It wouldn't cost anybody a thing...I mean besides someone going into our accounts and transferring three credits. This position was met by a compromise between the members (many disagreed with it), but we figured it was a form of reimbursement and could possibly pave the way to "failing" a bad senator. Right now senators get their $400 a semester regardless of how good they are. If, in the future, someone could possibly "fail" being a senator, we believed this would provide a strong incentive to do good.

Retreats

Many memebers, having attended banquets and retreats felt that they don't serve the purpose they were designed to do: namely, leadership building, frienship building, commradery, etc. This isn't based on studies of what other groups do when they go on retreats or what the effect of these are "supposed" to be, but rather on the personal opinions of the members who have attended them. That being the case, we also felt more prudence would be exhibited if the ASUN was granted money the same way other clubs were, by asking for club funding. If the ASUN thinks these banquets serve a purpose, let them convince the club commissioners the same way all other people asking for money do.

Improving programs

We understand that the senate has little power to affect club funding. This is good. We do not believe the senate should be deciding to get into the club funding business. You are absolutely right, the government has no right to arbitrarily assign value labels to certain things or to help their buddies out. We do not want this. Our stance in improving programs is meant to highlight its importance (so that others may make note of it on this campaign and for the year to come) and also the prod the club commissioners into fixing the muck they set for themselves.


If you do not mind, I will finish the rest of my response tomorrow, but right now I've got to finish up some homework. Thank you once again for being level-headed about this and responding in a reasonable manner. All too often I have been met with people slamming hands down and yelling "you know nothing!" ...It's depressing hearing all the bad things said about you for no other reason but that you're running. C'est la vie. So I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to me, I'll finish this up as soon as I can tomorrow.

-Barry

UNR START: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

UNR START, a political party established by the Libertarians on campus, “believe[s] [they] must lead by example.” They claim that “[e]ngaging in active communication is the first step in transforming our great campus into one that respects, listens, and considers student voice" (UNR START Web site, accessed 9 February 2009 at 7:10 p.m.) (emphasis added for irony identification). We couldn’t agree more. It’s just too bad they don’t live up to their professed values. I, for one, certainly won’t live by the example that they actually lead.

The simple fact of the matter: This group, and the members who comprise it, put up a good façade, but offer nothing of reasonable substance to back up their positions. Worse, they profess to be in favor of an open dialogue, but do everything in their power to suppress dissent. To anyone who is supporting the group and its candidates, we offer this rejoinder.

(By the way, we welcome any comments UNR START may offer in response of our positions, and we promise to neither reject nor censor their remarks—no matter how stupid or ill-advised they may be.)

The author, and presumably the ringleader of the group, John Russell (also a candidate for Senate in the College of Business) states, “I encourage you to review our stance, our issues, and our plan, and give us constructive feedback you have by using the contact page” (emphasis added). Unfortunately, if anyone actually provides “constructive feedback”, or dares challenge their views, “fuck off” is their response, to all intents and purposes. Put less metaphorically, their response is to delete the comments that do not completely mesh with their views, to cleanse their site of anything that might question their views, and thus give cause to potential supporters to doubt joining their group and supporting its candidates.

VLEG (Vis Lupi Est Grex) has learned that the group has taken to sanitizing their facebook group of any wall comments that challenge their views. Although we do not have screen captures of the site, several individuals, including a contributor to this blog, have had wall posts deleted and have been banned from the facebook group’s membership, apparently for making such posts. You cannot "respect" and "listen" to comments than you ignore ever existed. Open communication indeed.

As Wolfie described in an earlier post (ASUN Political Parties), the members of UNR START are uninformed in their positions. In fact, their lack of good, accurate information, as well as their lack of perspective, makes their positions downright dangerous. (I will add my comments to the previous post later.)

And I see, as I am writing this post, Mr. Barry Belmont (also a UNR START candidate) has taken offense to some criticism leveled against his group. He writes that there have been some "hateful comments about what I believe in and stand for as was recently posted on some blog somewhere," and that upon reading them, "[he] was discouraged. Saddened even." Mr. Belmont goes on: "Because this blogger did not entirely agree with what I believed he deemed it necessary to say spiteful and angry words, while ridiculing about nothing in particular in some attempt to prove some point to somebody" (UNR START Web site, accessed 9 February 2009 at 7:10 p.m.) (emphasis added, for dramatic effect).

Did you see what he did just there? If you’re going to be accused of stifling dissent, accuse others of being a bunch of meany poo-poo heads. I guess irony is lost on Mr. Belmont. Some may have engaged in a little name calling, but at least they can voice their opposition to Mr. Belmont. Your group, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge differing points of view.

Looks like Mr. Belmont needs to learn the first rule of politics. The fact that Mr. Belmont (and presumably the rest of his group—if he speaks for the group) cannot handle honest criticism of his political doctrines and face tough critics of his politics suggests that he, and the UNR START group, supports nothing more than surrounding themselves with sycophantic yes-men. They profess that dialogue is vital, yet do everything in their power to eradicate it.

Those who provided feedback on the UNR START facebook page were put out from the group immediately. People cannot be expected, nor should they be expected, to trust individuals who feel the need to stifle dissent, to scrub what they perceive as "spiteful" words from Web sites. It demonstrates nothing less than a pervasive cowardice which will only worsen if they actually come to power.

Living in the public eye means living under public judgment. This situation brings to mind a proverb that Harry S. Truman often used: "If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Messrs. Russell and Belmont, if you cannot handle being in the public eye, please do us a favor: bow out.

Thomas Jefferson, presumably someone libertarians admire greatly, said, "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." The same thing applies here.

We call on UNR START to restore the wall posts of their critics so as to restore any credibility they may have had. If that is not technically possible, at the very least UNR START should allow a full and unimpeded debate to take place on their facebook page and Web site, free from fear of being blacklisted. People cannot trust your intentions, your professed values, when your actions demonstrate utter contempt for those values.

We call on UNR START to open their pages to comments, as we have done here, to allow a truly open dialogue. (Granted, genuine abuse need not be tolerated, but it must be of such clear and unambiguous turpitude to be regarded as such. Mere name calling does not fit that description.) The members of ASUN deserve no less.

Given their uninformed positions, and their out-and-out hypocrisy, the members of the Association should do themselves a favor and refuse to vote for UNR START candidates until they have demonstrated they have earned it.


UPDATE 1
From the facebook:

John Russell at 9:51pm February 9
All comments, positive and negative, were deleted once the race officially begun. We started the group a month before the race began to begin gathering comments and debating with everyone who was willing in order to augment student concerns. We took many suggestions and modified the platform. Keeping many of those comments would be unfair to us, since many of them we considered and changed.

However, now that the race has begun, we wanted to start fresh with our reworked and upgraded platform[.] (sic) We are NOT censoring material that is not completely denigrating to the candidates, and we welcome all criticism. In fact, we are scheduling an open forum for all senate candidates to come and discuss issues, and the date will be posted shortly!

Thanks again Gracie!

(emphasis added). We don't censor--except for the criticism which doesn't cast us in the best light possible.

Oh, and it's not "censorship;" it's polishing our message. Reminds me of "it's not torture; it's enhanced interrogation." Any bets as to whether this "open forum" means anything but?


UPDATE 2
As yet more proof of our assertion emerges, check out this comment Sen. Jessica Purney (Education) left on another post. Mr. Russell's hypocrisy is striking. Sen. Purney points out that Russell is a current Clubs Commissioner who receives a paycheck from the students. She wanted to know if Russell would put his money where his mouth is, literally.

Jessica Purney wrote at 8:31pm on February 6th, 2009
I was just curious...as a club commissioner do you give away your
stipend for private scholarships? Because you do in fact make more than a
senator does.

Under ASUN Public Law 75-48, Clubs Commissioners receive $1,000 per year (or about $200 more than senators). Not taking kindly to calling Mr. Russell on his hypocrisy, he tried to shift the focus.

John Russell wrote at 5:19pm
Thats a pretty good idea, do you want to help me do that? Maybe be my
campaign manager? Life coach?

Sen. Purney concluded:

Sooooo aside from the loaded language in his answer...and sarcastic tone at the
end...he never actually answered my question.

Do as I say, not as I do.

ASUN Political Parties

If you haven't realized yet, there are now "official" political parties in ASUN. On the RIGHT we have Students Taking Action and Reducing Tuition (START), a group of students who appeared out of no where with promises of "reducing ASUN costs and tuition." Lets take a look at their "platform" for a moment to discuss the reality of what they are proposing.

- All Volunteer Student Senate

According to their website "unless a good deed is voluntary, it has no moral significance. Anybody within ASUN should participate due to a genuine desire to help the school and a sense of being able to do good, not because they are being paid by student funds. Many benefits such as banquets, catered meetings, and numerous other perks that the ASUN senate receives are unnecessary and drain the ASUN budget." Their proposal is to change the way senators are reimbursed for their time. They plan on doing this by "securing credit hour reimbursement for ASUN leaders instead of paid salaries." It's not clear here if they intend on doing this just for the Senate or for all student employees of ASUN. If they plan on doing this just for the Senators, they are "ill-informed" because student senators already get paid 3 credits. It doesn't go to their ePaws bills but it's the same thing. Even if it was changed to go directly to their bill instead of in a check, IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY either way and it all comes out of ASUN's budget. So this entire proposal is worthless because it offers ZERO change from the status quo.

If they intend on doing this for all ASUN employees, that's a bigger issue. Money would still come out of the ASUN budget, probably around the same amount, because there is no way in hell the University is going to write-off that much money, and tuition waivers are MONEY LOST to the University. The only student in ASUN who even comes close to getting paid what they deserve is the President. The President makes about $8,800 a year. Compare that to the average part-time job off campus:

Job: Hours per week: Per Hour: Total Cost:

ASUN Prez 25-30 $6.75(approx.) $8,800

Off Campus Avg. 20 $10.00 $10,400

Off Campus High 20 $12.00 $12,480

Off Campus Low 20 $7.50 $7,800

So even the highest paid person in ASUN is making less than a student could make working 20 hours per week for $7.50 per hour. Anyone that runs for President to make a little extra cash, is a retard. There is NO FISCAL incentive for ASUN leaders.

But just to be sure, lets take a look at Mr. John Russell, the leader of START, in his current position as a Club Commissioner. Oh, that's right, he doesn't like to mention that, yes HE DRAWS an ASUN salary! According to PL 75-44, as a Club Commissioner Mr. Russell receives, "the equivalent of the cost of three (3) undergraduate credit-hours at the University, which shall be paid each semester." If you believe so strongly in the principals of START Mr. Russell, you should refuse to get your paycheck this semester, and return the one you received last semester!

- Improving Programs

This is an interesting part of their platform. It seems by their website that they have a problem with two major parts of ASUN, club funding and Homecoming. According to their website, "currently some clubs are taking advantage of club support." Their solution is to implement a program that was already approved by the Senate (signed by the President?) this year, OrgSync. But they also think that the Club Commission should be more restrictive in giving out funds.

YES THAT'S RIGHT ALL YOU CLUB LEADERS, S.T.A.R.T WANTS TO CUT YOUR CLUB FUNDING.

But according to records, Mr. Russell, a current club commissioner has voted almost completely with the rest of the commission in regards to club funding. So if there is such a problem with clubs getting "handouts" than Mr. Russell has done nothing in his current position to remedy this. It's hard to want to vote for somebody to change something that they already don't do in their current position.

In regards to Homecoming, START would like to move it back under Programming and cut it's budget. If they had done some research they might have found that this is the way it was in 2007, and was changed by the Senate at the request of then Director of Programming Eli Reilly and President Ragsdale. So even if they could get enough support to move it back under programming, which isn't likely to happen because we had an AMAZING Homecoming this year, they would have to override a veto (assuming Mr. Reilly gets reelected, and even then I doubt Mr. Cabrera would allow it to pass because he voted for the change when he was on the Senate.) So this entire section of their platform, that's meant to "Improve Programs" is a bunch of bull. Half they could be doing right now, and the other half is completely improbable.

- Spending Student Money

Again, according to their website, "there is no incentive to save money" in ASUN. Well DUH! If the knew anything about government or the University system, they would know that this isn't something they can fix. There is NO WAY to change this policy and implement their "merit-based system." First and foremost, the policy of zero-budgeting is state law. Every department in the entire state operates the same way. And because ASUN operates in the world of NSHE and in the accounting system of UNR, there is no way to change this.

Apparently ASUN spends "a lot" of money on themselves with things like, "gavels, nameplates, robes, retreats and private speakers." For one, gavels cost about $50, so your splitting hairs and the gavel is given to the Speaker of the Senate for that year as a REWARD for the position. As far as nameplates, I don't know how they can be "redundant" as each new senator, president, etc... has a different name. I don't think Mr. Russell would be very happy if he had to use a nameplate that said "Senator Richards" on it assuming he gets elected. This is just one of many of their campaign promises that are just plain stupid. And it's clear that the people who came up with this have NO CLUE what ASUN does, and the real story behind much of the budget. I would hope that these people did a little research before coming down with a case of verbal (typing) diarrhea and let all this shit come out of their mouth (hands?).

It's clear to anyone with any knowledge that this POLITICAL PARTY has no clue what they are talking about. Because if they did, they would know better than to say that nameplates are "redundant" and that the Senate can simply change the way the University does it's accounting. My recommendation to this POLITICAL PARTY is to get your nose out of Governor Gibbon's blackberry and go talk to people who actually deal with the budget.

So everyone knows who NOT to vote for if they want to keep the association alive:

CABNR:

- Paul Sanford

COBA:

- Nathan Devlin

- Jane Glasgow

- JOHN RUSSELL

Engineering:

- Barry Belmont

- Travis Hagen

CoLA:

- Mary Hunton

- Matthew Maggy

CoS:

- Tomsen Reed

- Zachary Rees


UPDATE: Looks like we have a fan!