Cornell Libertarians

In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment (also known as the Marriage Protection Amendment) was voted on by Congress and thankfully failed to pass. This piece of legislation would have amended the Constitution to make heterosexual monogamy the only form of legal marriage in the United States.

Of course, people who consider “marriage” to be synonymous with “heterosexual monogamy” often get offended at any suggestion to the contrary. They then respond with strong language that offends some ostensibly more tolerant people on the other side of the issue. Thus does the merry-go-round of increasingly shrill diatribes begin. In an attempt to prevent this article from becoming a catalyst for such a squabble, I will present the issue and my proposal from a perspective that I hope everyone can agree with: the time-honored American principle of “Leave me alone!” Read the rest of this entry »

On December 21, 2012, the deity Quetzalcoatl (Mayan for “plumed serpent”) is going to fly in and drop some magical bird doodoo on the head of every unsuspecting passerby, will seep into everyone’s brain and cause a major shift in consciousness. Yes, I have channeled the serpent god’s energy, and if you doubt me, lowly mortal, Google that shit. This day, ten days before President Ron Paul leaves office, will constitute a sort of farewell celebration to his illustrious presidency. On this day, as millions are rapt in a shitstorm of epic proportions, we can look back in collective wonder upon the outstanding triumphs of Ron Paul’s four years in office.

I know the question on the tip of your tongue is—why wasn’t Paul reelected to a second term? And while I do concede that eight years is a mathematically longer period of time than four years, it’s what you do with those years that matters. (Besides, it really doesn’t matter what happens afterwards because of that whole, you know, Apocalypse thing I just told you about.) Known to some as Dr. No (his answer to every question concerning more government), Paul is currently the Republican candidate for president destined to win by Quetzalcoatl, and he in all actuality will only need 7 days to slay the federal government and revert it back to the idyllic state from whence it came. Read the rest of this entry »

Whenever people perceive danger, they choose two paths: either to hide behind the largest force they can find or to take it upon themselves to protect themselves. Unfortunately, the first path is becoming increasingly popular: Americans perceive a problem and they run to the federal government for help.

It is especially frustrating for those of us who favor personal responsibility when the help asked of Washington prevents us from handling the problem the way we prefer. Such is the case with campus safety.

Clearly there is a problem with security on campuses: the much-publicized tragedy at Virginia Tech in April of this year and the more recent shootings in Delaware make this obvious. It is apparently less obvious what the solution is.

Read the rest of this entry »

The mainstream media is not afraid to parade images of scantilly-clad celebrities and blatant gore in front of the American public. They are scared, however, of something infinitely more repulsive, something so unspeakably terrifying that no major news anchor should ever let its name cross their lips. That name is—it pains me to say it, but I must—Dr. Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president.

I’m not one of those hacks who will claim this silence is motivated by pure partisanship—that, in essence, the evil liberal media is on a crusade to neglect our valiant Republican doctor. The truth is far worse, and far more disturbing than some silly epic conspiracy theory. Everyone knows that specific news outlets have their biases: the New York Times and CNN tend to swing liberal, while Fox News gets jiggy with hawkish conservatives. But all three of those outlets, as well as countless others, somehow consistently forget to mention Ron Paul’s name in their coverage of the primaries, while somehow consistently remembering to mention so-called “top tier” candidates (like “frontrunner” Rudy Giuliani, who was paraded as a political powerhouse until voters actually cast ballots). Read the rest of this entry »

We all made the choice to come to Cornell. We chose to come here because it’s a great institution that will impart a good amount of knowledge on us and open lots of doors for the future. No one said this is where we had to go, we picked the school that not only had a great track record, but also fit us as an individual.

So it puzzles me why people are so opposed to school choice when it comes to secondary education. Why is choice of colleges and universities such an obvious given when the majority of American students have no choice when it comes to their high school educations? It’s not the issue of funding, here in New York there are 64 different choices just within the SUNY system with tuition heavily subsidized by taxpayers. It’s certainly not for lack of the diversity of student interests and needs. Two students attending the same high school often have a wide range of options in terms of both level and subject of both academic, vocational and college preparatory classes. Different students have different needs, whether its culturally-relevant pedagogy, vocational skills, top-notch college preparatory instruction or strong community involvement. So why on earth must every student with different needs attend the same school? Choice not only allows schools to specialize but also promotes quality. Under the current system, students are forced to go to bad schools. Under school choice, students have the option of attending good schools, thereby phasing out bad schools and keeping good schools. Schools that students choose to go to and that connect with them will promote achievement, plain and simple.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sure, you’ve heard the names before: the Greens, the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Constitution Party.

Why don’t you see many of these third parties represented very often in elected office? Could it be that all these factions are completely undeserving, and the Democrats and Republicans are the best choice for public office 100 percent of the time?

Or, much more likely, is it possible that these groups are not earning seats because the voter — you — doesn’t know about them, doesn’t understand their positions on certain issues or is literally unable to vote for them?

The truth of the matter is that the politicians (consisting of — you guessed it — mostly Democrats and Republicans), on both a federal and a state level, have collaborated to make the rules such that it is very easy for the “Republiocrats” to qualify for ballot access but is comparatively very difficult for any third party to make the same qualification.

Read the rest of this entry »

The 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik was recently on campus. Anyone who’s met Michael can tell you that he is not the typical candidate for U.S. president. He has no college degree, does not pay taxes, has no driver’s license or social security number, and, most unusually, is a self-taught constitutional expert. Badnarik wrote a sort of constitutional self-help guide entitled “Good to be King: The Foundation of our Constitutional Freedom”, based on Badnarik’s famous 8-hour constitution course, which he taught during his visit, and which I was lucky enough to attend.

Read the rest of this entry »