Worried About Your Safety? Transfer to the U!

This article was submitted to the BYU Political Review shortly after CNN had posted a story on the University of Utah's policy of allowing guns on campus (which, naturally, was written in light of th NIU tragedy). For obvious reasons, this article was not printed, as BYU does not look to kindly upon anything that criticizes its policies.

Let it be known, I am a dyed-in-the-wool BYU fan and alumnus. As such, I have always held a healthy disdain for all things Ute. I proudly wear blue in Utah County, I cheer like a lion against their “sins-as-scarlet” -red-uniformed athletes, and I point out to my SLC buddies that Harline and Collie are still open. Yet in light of the recent shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois and the ensuing debates regarding guns on campus, I am forced to utter something I thought I would never in my life be guilty of saying: “If you are worried about your safety from shootings at BYU, then you’d better put in for a transfer to the U.” Hmmm… upon further inspection, that sentence contains two elements I thought I’d never declaim. Let me address the first part of that statement.

The teachings and quotes of Joseph Smith had always been a favorite subject of mine while growing up. I was especially enamored with his discourses and one-liners regarding the sacredness of the US Constitution, and it was a great source of pride for me to know both that the Constitution was written by inspired men, and that my church was prophesied to be its greatest champion. So when I enrolled at BYU, I was sure I was going to enter an atmosphere that matched the constitutional ideals so loved by the Prophet himself. And then I am told that one of my most fundamental rights as an American was prohibited on campus: NO GUNS ALLOWED!

Okay, I’ll admit, at the time, it didn’t really bother me that much. As a freshman, I neither owned a gun nor knew much of anything about the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, I was also sure that BYU was a haven of Zionistic love and happiness in a sea of unrighteous Sunday-shoppers (gimme a break; freshman, remember!). So I gave little thought to the fact that a Constitutional guarantee was being completely disregarded, at least until I began to educate myself on the matter. This education, coupled with the recent shootings at college campuses in the US, has awakened me to the fact that BYU, with its current gun ban, not only violates a natural right, but creates an easy target for a disgruntled student/teacher/postal worker/Jackson County-Missourian.

It may be of interest to know that, like BYU, the campuses at Northern Illinois and Virginia Tech had strict gun bans; in fact, when anti-gun legislation made the gun-ban effective at VT, spokesman Larry Hinckler said “…this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Indeed. The gun ban was only effective in disarming those who might have had the moral fortitude to stand up to the aggressors. It did nothing to stop the criminal. It never does. So when I make the assumption that some might fear for their safety at the Lord’s University, I do so with the knowledge that the measures leveled to curb violence have only made it easier to get the job done.

And this leads me to second part of my deplorable declaration: transfer to Utah. By now, I’m sure the CNN.com headline “Utah Students Hide Guns, Head to Class” has grabbed some attention among those in Provo. Yes, despite unconstitutional efforts to ban guns at state-sponsored universities, their student body is still allowed have handguns in their possession on campus. And no, the hyperbolic assertions made by pro-gun ban supporters of students getting into shootouts over bad grades, bad food, and bad football teams (couldn’t help it) have not occurred.

Instead, things have remained… uneventful. That’s the idea. Suicidal students bent on taking down as many others as possible will, by human nature, avoid the areas where they either know or even have the slightest inkling that their onslaught will be met with returned gunfire. Instead, they head for easy prey, i.e. gun-free zones like the VT and NIU campuses. Let’s say, hypothetically, that man who bears a grudge against the college elite decides he will wage carnage at a university in the state of Utah. Where is he most likely to head? Knowing full well that students at the U both have and exercise their right to carry, he will follow the path of least resistance. Sure, the police will get the bad guy, eventually. The police ALWAYS get the bad guy… eventually.

Now, does this make the U invincible? Not at all. A very determined killer will still take his chances on an armed campus, and yes, even a law-abiding Concealed Carry holder could go bonkers and use his legally purchased weapon to terrorize his school. But the likelihood of this happening is significantly reduced, and the chances of a killer meeting armed obstacles in the path of his spree are much higher, and more likely to spare the lives of the innocent. In short, it just makes the U safer.

I feel that those supporting campus gun-bans fail to grasp two simple axioms: life will have its tragedies, and criminals, by their definition, break laws. Ergo, what sense does it make to enact a law that tries to eliminate gun-related tragedy when criminals will just break them anyway? Why does it seem more quixotic to entrust the defense of the people to the people than to put strict gun-laws in place and then expect everyone to play nicely? How can it be morally correct to disarm a student body and leave the rescue to units who cannot respond until the carnage is well underway? If one can exert enough faith in his fellow-citizens to expect him to obey the law, then he can exert that same faith in that citizen to own and carry a firearm while obeying that law. Bad stuff will happen to good people. It just will. It is only fair and natural to give them a fighting chance to stop it themselves.

The Constitution has explicitly given us the right to defend ourselves, not having to rely on the grace of the State. Power comes from the people, not vice versa. The Utah state Supreme Court is one of the few in America that has understood this concept correctly. Sadly, as a private institution, BYU is able to ignore these rulings and arbitrarily remove certain of the Bill of Rights, an idea that would make the Founders roll in their graves. So again, I must reiterate that if you feel uncomfortable about your inability to defend yourself at the Y, make a b-line for the U.

The Methodenstreit, pt. II: the Rise of the Austrians

During the late 1880’s, an ideological war took place between two schools among the German-speaking nations known as the Methodenstreit (Strife over Methods). The Austrian School, led by Austria’s Carl Menger, advocated a logic-based free-market economy, while the Historical School, led by Prussia’s Gustav von Schmoller, proposed an epistemologically founded statist economy. As Menger was unable to sway national leaders for lack of empirical substance and econometric drivel, the Prussians won the battle and gained a strangle-hold over German and Austrian economic policy, which has remained in place ever since. The Austrians, ignored and mocked, took their philosophy and planted it where it might one day grow to confront statist economics again: the US of A.

Fast forward 120 years. A crisis is beginning to form on the horizon of the American economy. Stock market numbers are low, foreclosures are hitting record highs, the unemployment rate is beginning to look European, and people are having to skip a cup of Starbucks to be able to buy their gas! Pandemonium! And in an election year, too. The conditions are so ripe for an economic showdown of titanic proportions, and all the candidates are taking off their gloves, offering their unique solutions to the issue (yes, even John the-issue-of-economics-is-not-something-I've-understood-as-well-as-I-should McCain is talking about it). The problem is that all of the fixes being thrown out aren’t inherently any different. They are all part of the same kind of statist Keynesianism that got our economy here in the first place!

Here is a good picture of how the leading candidates and their “expert” advisors (Bernanke included) will get us out of this mess: inflate the money supply with more fiat currency; bail out homeowners with money Washington does not have; borrow money from China; give the borrowed money to Africa, the Middle East, and Latin American allies; enforce trade embargos on Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and possibly the Vatican; spend more money Washington does not have on welfare programs to protect Americans; GO TO WAR WITH IRAN (after all, Keynesian theory does say that war is beneficial to the economy…).

But these have been the suggested (and implemented) solutions for all economic woes since the Depression! Why hasn’t it fixed anything? Or better yet, why are politicians and the “experts” at the Federal Reserve perpetuating the same policies that have created this situation? It’s simple: the leaders of this nation have been following the same statist-based economic philosophy for the last 80 years, and, until now, they really haven’t been challenged. Enter the Austrians; the 2^nd round of the Methodenstreit has begun.

The Austrian Method in a Nutshell

So what’s the deal with Austrian economics anyway, and why is it quickly becoming a favored science for combating mainstream theory? Truth be told, there’s not much new with the Austrian Method. In fact, it reads very much like the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Simply put, Austrian Economics is one of the only true free-market philosophies out there, not like those pseudo- “free market” theories involving interventionist free trade agreements (an oxy-moron for sure), enforcement of “privatized” social security and other half-baked ideas the neo-cons have been pushing for so long. Whereas volumes can be written on the intricacies of the Austrian Method, there are four points of this style of economics that will give a basic outline to the Austrian neophyte.

Firstly, Austrians advocate a hard currency; the Gold Standard is a pillar to the stability of the dollar and essential to prosperity. Like many of the Founders’ writings, Austrian theory shows that without this standard, the value of money becomes volatile, and things that shouldn’t be artificially manipulated, like interest rates, will be at the whim of a few bureaucrats. Next, in relation to having a gold standard, Austrians believe in the decentralization of banks. Centralized banks not only lead to intervention into what should be a free market, but also always lead to the creation of fiat money. A quick look at the dollar’s current performance against other currencies will show just how deadly fiat money can be. Third, war is not seen as a vehicle to boost the economy, but rather one that kills it through the creation of even more fiat by the central bank to fund the war chest, and furthermore through the seizure of freedoms that are detrimental to the true free-market. Lastly, Austrians assert that economic theory can only be found through logic and the study of human action (or praxeology), not by exhaustive mathematical and statistical calculations. For this last reason, the Austrian school has been widely scoffed at by traditional economists who employ advanced formulas to predict and analyze the economy, viewing the Austrian Method as an easy shortcut around difficult but essential arithmetic.

Many of these ideas resonate well with those who study and believe in the Constitution and the philosophies behind its creation. Behind all the points above is the firm belief in a very limited government, one that will allow the market to make its own corrections, one that will protect the value of the currency, and one that will not squander hard earned taxpayer money either through large state welfare or imperialist warfare. These were the beliefs of Washington, Jefferson and Jackson. They were beliefs that had been shoved towards the back of American economic policy. But the blunders of the theories that replaced these ideals are causing the Austrian Method to resurface, and it’s not likely to go away so easily this time around.

(For a much, much, much more comprehensive explanation of Austrian Economic Theory, please visit mises.org)

Ron Paul’s Real Victory

The forthcoming of Austrian Economics in America as an actual force in the political, academic and business arenas can be mostly attributed to the aggressiveness of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Yes, Ron Paul, that annoying little voice you heard (just before it got cut off) at all those CNN and FoxNews debates; that idealistic know-it-all who takes his marching orders from that outdated Constitution; that old fool who won’t stop his constituents from spamming your Facebook group or from holding up big signs at your Clinton rally; that ignoramus who won’t drop out of the race despite McCain’s apparent victory. Dr. Paul left his successful career as an OB/GYN because of his conversion to the principles of Austrian economics, feeling that the only way for the US to truly maintain its liberty and prosperity was to stop the Keynesian machine at the policy-making level. This led to the Ron Paul Revolution. Despite claims by some of the more rabid Paulites, the Revolution and its associated bid for the presidency was never about a White House victory, but rather to spread a philosophy, an ideal, a vision. And in this, Revolution has been victorious.

Paul’s candidacy has forced voters to evaluate just what is happening with their money. The dollar is weakening as if it had terminal cancer, and deficit spending coupled with international borrowing is creating a doomsday for the future generation. No wonder the congressman has been so popular among younger voters; who in their right mind would be content with trading his future financial well-being to satisfy the over-indulgent needs of the current establishment? As youngsters watch Bernanke artificially cutting interest rates by creating money from nothing, and watch their tax money going to fund warfare and welfare that the US cannot afford in the least, they have been drawn towards the true conservatism and fiscal responsibility embodied in Austrian Economics.

Luckily for them, more and more opportunities to get an education in the Austrian method are popping up all over the nation. Mark Skousen, a well-respected investment advisor, economist, professor and writer, reports that many prominent schools, such as NYU (ranked in the top 20 in the nation for economics programs), George Mason, Auburn and UNLV, are adopting courses and graduate studies on Austrian Economics. A growing number of students, hobbyists and concerned voters alike are gaining more resources to prepare themselves for the inevitable battle of wits in the economic ring, a new Methodenstreit on American soil. And Ron Paul is leading them there.