Thursday, October 30, 2008

Philadelphia's School Choice Success

For several years, Philadelphia schools have been offering options for rising high schoolers to apply into district schools other than the one that services their neighborhood of residence. In a school district plagued with poorly-performing schools and a robustly-growing network of charter and magnet schools, this option is becoming much more popular for many of the city's ambitious students.

With the deadline for applications tomorrow, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports an expected 50,000 applications for 60 participating secondary schools. One of the highest-performing schools, Central High School, is expected to receive 4,000 applications for only 600 seats, translating to what will be a 15% acceptance rate. To provide some perspective, Harvard admits roughly 11% of its applicants, while MIT admits 16% and the University of Pennsylvania admits approximately 21%.

The competition has caused some unease amongst those who feel that under-performing students who most need a quality, high-performing school environment to motivate them will remain stuck in a vicious cycle of underachievement. But in the past five years alone, the network of participating secondary schools has more than doubled, from 27 in 2003 to 60 schools this year. And with such obvious demand for high quality high school in Philadelphia, we should expect the number of participating schools to continue to grow. As it does so, the number of qualified, well-prepared, and well-rounded high school graduates in Philadelphia will grow as well.

Monday, October 27, 2008

The Youth and Next Week's Turnout

It is said of nearly every election, but the question is always asked: will this be the year that young voters turn out in great numbers?

It’s been said that 2008 will see a significant rise over previous years in the youth turnout, even stacked up against the growth made in 2004. Student political participation this year could be highlighted in examples such as the (ultimately failed) student initiative to put the issue of public college tuition prices on the ballot in California. is tracking the growth of youth participation in various states for the Democratic primary as an indicator that they will continue to increase their presence in the 2008 election. The Democratic primaries indicated a 52.4% growth in the share of voters age 18-29. In addition, according to CBS News reports, more than 50 percent of young voters picked Obama on Super Tuesday, seemingly so long ago.

A Gallup poll commissioned by USA Today and MTV (of 903 respondents "weighted by demographic information) finds that "75% of young people are registered to vote" and that they favor Obama over McCain 2:1.

At the other end of the spectrum, according to a Pew Research poll, McCain broadened his lead among the "over 65" demographic, from 45%-40% to 48%-35% over Obama since September--at the same time losing ground on the slightly less old 50-64 demographic until his standing was tied with that of the 18-29 group with 39%.

Of course, this all compounds the ubiquitous quote, often misattributed to Churchill: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Philadelphia SFL Conference A Success

I'm sorry for not continuing to blog what was going on at the Philadelphia SFL Conference yesterday. The long story short is that the conference was a tremendous success. After lunch, Dr. Nigel Ashford from the Institute for Humane Studies talked about Changing the World for Liberty, followed by a talk from Matt Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation (a libertarian state-based think tank in Pennsylvania) on why the Pennsylvania highways should be privatized.

A student panel consisting of Anne Skuza (President of the Penn Libertarian Association), Andrew Loewer (President of the Cornell Libertarians), Aaron Moyer (President of the Philadelphia Forum for Freedom), and Alex Weller (President of the Penn State College Libertarians), covered best practices of student groups, ranging from mistakes they have made to how to get publicity for your group on campus.

Following dinner, Dr. Tom Palmer of the Cato Institute gave the Keynote Address titled "The Rhetoric of Freedom". It was an insightful analysis of the role that persuasion plays in libertarian ideology as an alternative to violence, and how to effectively utilize rhetoric in debates.

Overally, I think everyone had a great time and know that I personally loved it. Best of luck to all the students who attended in implementing what you learned.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Phila SFL Conference Update: Workshops and Activism

As we go into lunch here at the Philadelphia SFL Conference, there are many exciting things to go over.

From 10-11 three workshops were held. At the Training New Leadership workshop, we discussed what traits to identify in potential new leaders, suggestions for how to start transitioning potential leaders into leadership roles. The Student Recruitment session broke out into small groups with the best group receiving prizes from the Drexel Student Liberty Front. The How to Write a Strategic Action Plan workshop then helped student groups plan out the rest of their semester.

From 11-12, Pete Eyre, Crasher-in-Chief of Bureaucrash, spoke on "(A)ctivism for Liberty", with a strong focus on how to be a good messenger of liberty. Some important tips he gave:
  • Be Goal-Oriented
  • Know Potential Leverage Points
  • Get VIP Support (pictures of celebrities with your stuff)
  • Lower Transaction Costs (learn what others have done already)
  • If showing up is half the battle, following up is the other half
  • Be Positive
At the end of his talk, Pete gave away Bureaucrash shirts to people with the best activism stories from students. Stories ranged from carrying a pocket knife around just because one has the right to do so, to overhearing high school students talking about Ron Paul and the Fed in a coffee shop and subsequently bringing them to a college group meeting about liberty.

Philadelphia SFL Conference Begins

The Philadelphia SFL Conference has just begun. Alex Witkes, SFL's Northeast Director, gave an introductory speech highlighting the value of coming together as students for causes like this. Greg Lukianoff, President of FIRE, gave the opening speech, "Unlearning Liberty: How Campus Censorship Threatens our Democracy".

Greg has covered a number of issues, but here are some frightening limits of free speech that FIRE has dealt with:
  • A student janitor was nearly expelled for racial harrassment because he read a book on how Notre Dame students beat the Klan, simply because there were pictures of the KKK on the cover of the book.
  • Valdosta State University #1- A student was kicked out of school for making a collage protesting a parking garage for ecological reasons that the administration said presented a "clear and present danger". FIRE made a video about this case.
  • Valdosta State University #2- A second big problem at Valdosta was the presence of one of the worst free speech zones in the country, which was only open from noon to 1pm and 5pm to 6pm with 48 hour notice for 11,000 students.
  • University of Oklahoma- Students and faculty are not allowed to forward political satire emails through their school email accounts.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Speech Codes Expanding in the Steel City

This weekend is homecoming at the University of Pittsburgh, my alma mater. While I greatly enjoyed my time as a student at Pitt (I graduated in the spring of 2008), and found the school to exceed my expectations on many levels, I've been perplexed by recent changes in non-discrimination policies in Pitt's Residence Life Department.

Last month the ResLife Department added to the list of protected identity groups -- along with the traditional race, color, creed, etc -- those with gender identity issues. As a good libertarian, I can certainly agree with the sentiment expressed by this policy. Individuals can express themselves as they wish, and ought not to face violence for doing so. But Pitt's policy takes things a few steps further:
We will not tolerate any form of behavior pertaining to racism, sexism, bigotry, harassment, intimidation, threat, or abuse, whether verbal or written, physical or psychological, direct or implied.
No longer are students being protected from hazing and blatant harassment -- a protection that should be (and is) extended to all students, and not just the gender confused -- but there is also protection from...implied psychological bigotry? I'm not sure what exactly it would look like, but it sure seems to toe the line of Thought Police.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a watchdog group that fights for civil liberties in the university setting, has already given Pitt a "yellow light" warning for having "at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application." It appears as if a red light might soon be necessary.

Building the movement

An organization of individualists? It seems like a contradiction in terms. Those of us who are student leaders face the special challenge of leading a group of people who are, by definition, quite averse to being led. It’s like herding cats.

As libertarians, our target demographic is highly conscious of their self-interest, and young startup campus organizations often have very little to offer. I know plenty of people on campus who are sympathetic to our cause, share our values, but are not in any way involved with us, nor are they interested in doing so.

Fortunately, as libertarians we have the advantage of being highly conscious of other people’s interests, and are thus in a better position to cater to them. This consciousness should shape our recruitment strategy on campus.

It would be ideal if our organizations were full of highly skilled and motivated individuals, full-time students able and willing to volunteer their time and effort. But there's a big difference between the way the world should be and the way it really is. In my experience, talented individuals who manage their time effectively and are committed to a cause enough to volunteer their disposable time to it are very uncommon.

The reality for a startup campus organization is that basing our recruitment strategy on finding and keeping such individuals is not a sustainable one.

For one, they are low in supply: Most people lack that motivation and commitment, for various reasons, many of which are legitimate. Different people have different interests, values, and circumstances.

Two, they are high in demand: There are many competing demands on their time, and we have to ask ourselves how competitive we are compared to those other demands: Other causes, other organizations, other jobs, other things to do.

It may be better for us to think about ways that the average young person can join our cause, easy ways for less motivated and less committed people to get involved in a meaningful way. Certainly, full-time paid staff positions are neither necessary nor sufficient to do this, nor do we have the ability to offer them. But incentives matter, and we have to think hard about the costs and benefits that students will respond to. We have to think even harder if we are recruiting to fill leadership positions, which necessarily demand more commitment and competence.

These incentives will differ in all our different colleges, and a one-size-fits-all recruitment strategy is bound to fail. Fortunately, it’s not difficult to figure out what works. Look around you, ask your friends. What attracts students on your campus to volunteer for a cause or join an organization? What makes them stay on? Learning from the best practices of others is a good way to start, and the next is to implement and innovate on them. But that is a topic for another post.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

MIT Teach-In

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology held a quasi-teach-in a couple weeks ago on the financial crisis and the proposed bailout. You can listen to the panel here:

What's also noticeable is MIT's reaction to the bailout and financial crisis. On their website covering the U.S. Financial Crisis, they write:
Government interventions to directly inject liquidity into the market may actually decrease market efficiency, according to research by MIT Sloan School of Management Professor Jiang Wang.
This raises an issue I brought up in one of the first posts on this blog that few probably read about what are the best ways to bring awareness to problems we face today. Teach-ins, demonstrations that seek to educate people about the problems and work towards a sound, rational solution, may be the best solution. Does anyone else know of any other teach-ins going on?

Thanks to David Boaz for pointing this out to me.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Robert Nozick vs. The U.S. Congress

Maybe it's because I was a debater or just because I was a philosophy major and think that spending the rest of my life reading, writing, and speaking about philosophy would be a dream come true, but in any case, I found the following Forbes article, Robert Nozick Vs. The U.S. Congress, by Richard Epstein, enthralling. The article explains how the U.S. Congress adopted what Nozick called a patterned principle of justice concerning home ownership, and used state power to help reach the pattern they wanted. However, Epstein points out:
The grand objectives articulated by Congress--and to be fair, by Republicans who preach the virtues of the "ownership society"--are not freebies that can be satisfied at no real cost. Quite the contrary. Once Congress set in place a destructive lending policy
This article does a great job of illustrating the importance of philosophy for real-world political activities. Theory is not enough. Reality must be taken into account to determine what constitutes a good theory. At the same time, it raises an important question to consider: would we be in a better position if Congress adopted a historical or procedurally-based principle of justice rather than trying to pattern society?

Is Capitalism Really Dead?

A little over a week ago, the Washington Post wrote an article called "The End of American Capitalism?" The substance of the article is encompassed within the title. Yet a couple days ago the Post was willing to challenge the ideas it had earlier posted and included a new editorial "Is Capitalism Dead?", which points out many of the non-capitalist elements of the system that led to the current financial crisis.

The beginning of the editorial provides a concise summary:
The deregulation of U.S. financial markets did not reflect only the narrow ideology of a particular party or administration. And the problem with the U.S. economy, more than lack of regulation, has been government's failure to control systemic risks that government itself helped to create. We are not witnessing a crisis of the free market but a crisis of distorted markets.
Other nice parts include a comparison of the U.S. system to Canada:
Contrast U.S. experience with that of Canada, where there is no mortgage interest deduction and the law requires insurance on any mortgage over 80 percent of a home's purchase price. Delinquency rates at Canada's seven largest banks are near historic lows.
And a solid ending:
Government-sponsored, upside-only capitalism is the kind that's in crisis today, and we say: Good riddance.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Obama, McCain, and Public Education

As someone who works in the DC Public System, I am personally witnessing the lowest-performing education system in the country.  It is truly fascinating to watch how teachers deal with the restructuring and new leadership of Michelle Rhee (, the firing of principals, and the closing of underpopulated schools.   The teachers are struggling with a plethora of testing restrictions, many of which are imposed by No Child Left Behind (NCLB).  Of course, the problem is also that when you have kids from the murder capital of the US, it's difficult to explain why a good education is more valuable than street smarts or impressing your peers at school.  Fights constantly break out, and no matter what you threaten these kids with in terms of discipline, they've got it worse at home.   There's no doubt that public schools are failing to get through to these kids.

On the other hand, I know some people who work for a charter school.  They run a very tight ship, and it's night and day with our two schools.  Charter schools have the freedom to set more of their own rules, guidelines, and curricula.  They can be more picky in their administration, and the general consensus appears to be that charter schools are known for better preparing students.  Some of my 6th graders once attended charter schools, and they are the best in the class.  When teachers talk about charter schools, it's always with respect, though of course they resent the fact that charter school teachers have more freedom and better pay.  

There are roughly 23984 issues concerning public education in this country, and many involve the distribution of public funds.  How do we get schools that teach the kids who are statistically unlikely to survive past 25?  What, if any, social obligation do we have to educate the youth of families unable to afford better education?  Should it involve public funds?  How do we encourage and incentivize children to learn?  After all, how can we have an informed electorate and citizens capable of accepting individual responsibility in a culture that reinforces entitlements and violence?  Certainly these are not easy questions to answer, but each Sunday I hope to explore a new aspect of the public education debate.

Join us next week, on Sundays with Sloane.

To get more info on Obama v. McCain in this arena, check out this article.  

Racial Preference Referenda

This November, voters in Colorado and Nebraska will also be weighing in on whether to end racial and gender preferences in hiring and, importantly, education.

The Wall Street Journal reports that 71% of Nebraskans polled support the amendment, which reads "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group...", giving it a strong outlook of passing, despite some ironic "civil-rights based" groups that have been opposing the initiative.

Proposition 209 in California, which ended racial preferences in its public universities, passed in 1996. Since then, the state has seen "systemwide minority enrollment increased between 1997 and 2007 while graduation and retention rates improved," proving that a good student is a good student, regardless of their skin color.

Hopefully, in November, John F. Kennedy's words will hold true in Colorado and Nebraska when he said that, "Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races and national origins contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination."

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Amherst's Failed Attempt at Political Neutrality

The so-called Millennial Generation is the hot demographic this election cycle, and much to the joy of colleges across the country, this demographic is almost entirely located within what a political strategist might call their “media market.” One of the most left-leaning institutions in America is meeting the most left-leaning generation in forty years, and it’s a match made in heaven.

But it seems some universities have become a bit too comfortable with the ideological homogeneity on their campuses. The University of Massachusetts - Amherst has became embroiled in controversy last month when a chaplain offered credits to students who volunteered for Obama’s campaign (no similar credit was offered to students campaigning for other candidates). To quote the email sent out to students:

If you're scared about the prospects for this election, you're not alone. The most important way to make a difference in the outcome is to activate yourself. It would be just fine with McCain if Obama supporters just think about helping, then sleep in and stay home between now and Election Day.

In what might be the most revealing and disconcerting aspect of this whole debacle, the administration at Amherst roundly rejected this project, claiming that "There is no independent study for credit in the History Department that involves partisan political work, and no such activity has ever been approved."

To conservatives and libertarians, the knee-jerk reaction has been positive: the leftist student population is no longer being subsidized to campaign for a candidate of dubious liberty street cred. But this misses the full implications of the college’s decision: rather than offer credit to any student doing legitimate work on a campaign, whether it be Obama’s, McCain’s, Barr’s, or Nader’s, Amherst decided to deny credit to all partisan political activity. Rather than welcome and support open political debate, the administration decided to squash it.

Sure, students are not being prohibited from working on campaigns, and remain free to do so on their own time. But an institution of higher learning ought to encourage students to become involved politically, and if they’re offering credit for doing work at the Heritage Foundation or Center for American Progress, they ought to at least offer the same credit for students on a campaign. It might – that is, almost definitely will – advantage liberal candidates, but the greater victory will be for those who advocate for a free academy.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

FIRE Policy Statement on Political Activity on Campus

I just received an email from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education that I believe many of you will find valuable as well:

As we approach Election Day, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is concerned by the growing trend towards preemptive censorship of political expressive activity on our nation's college and university campuses.

At the University of Illinois, for instance, faculty and staff members were recently told that they could not participate in a wide variety of political activity on campus, even including wearing a pin or button in support of a political candidate or placing a partisan bumper sticker on one's car. At the University of Oklahoma, students and faculty were recently notified that they could not use their school e-mail accounts to disseminate any partisan or political speech, including political humor and commentary.

These and similar cases have demonstrated to FIRE the need to reiterate and emphasize the protections that apply to political speech on campus. In determining policy regarding political speech, colleges and universities must heed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, as well as state and federal law. However, we must remind university administrators that, correctly interpreted, none of these legal guidelines seriously conflict with the equally crucial duty to uphold the First Amendment and basic principles of free expression on campus.

Click here to read all of FIRE’s Policy Statement on Political Activity on Campus

Russia Versus South Park

If you have not already heard, the Russian government and various interest groups have attacked South Park and a TV station that airs the show. reason gives a nice summary of what's going on here.

The response to this government censorship has been overwhelming. I particularly like the slogans that people have been using:

“Kenny lived, Kenny lives, Kenny will live!"
“For your freedom and ours”
"Today they came for Kenny, tomorrow they'll come for you"
“Let’s ban banning!”

Monday, October 13, 2008

Paul Krugman and the Nobel Prize

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced earlier today that Paul Krugman will receive the Nobel Prize in Economics for "his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity." For many, this has come as a surprise, especially given the timing with the U.S. Presidential Election and the financial crisis. (Krugman is a vocal opponent of George W. Bush and conservatism and has done work in recent years on financial crises.)

Independent of the timing of the award, many pro-liberty organizations are recognizing that there is a distinction between Krugman's academic work and his political opinions. reason magazine highlights Krugman's academic work and appeal to the public:
Paul Krugman is motivated by real-world problems and he's an effective communicator with lay audiences, something that cannot always be said of most economists. His Nobel Prize reflects a breakthrough in the way we think about how trade and the location of economic activity are determined in the real world.
Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution points out from the start of his post that the surprise was that the award came this year:
I have to say I did not expect him to win until Bush left office, as I thought the Swedes wanted the resulting discussion to focus on Paul's academic work rather than on issues of politics. So I am surprised by the timing but not by the choice.
Last I'll highlight Cato at Liberty's post:
The Nobel is much deserved, even if Prof. Krugman’s rants have led him to stray far from his admirable trade-theory roots.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

If any of you guys are interested in economics, you should check out the Students for a Free Economy blog. They are a student group from Michigan who, as you may have guessed, advocate free market economics.

They have a great site set up and have many intelligently-written pieces. I particularly like their recent explanation of "business cycles" and an outlook on the upcoming election.

Also, they have some great merchandise if you ever run into them at a conference!

Friday, October 10, 2008

Amethyst Initiative Update

I blogged a couple of days ago about the Amethyst Initiative, a petition by over 100 college and university presidents and chancellors to re-open the debate over the 21 year old age limit on drinking alcohol. Recently, John M. McCardell Jr., founder of the Amethyst Initiative, visited the Cato Institute and recorded a podcast "Toward a More Rational Drinking Age". Check out his podcast below:

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Cato Debates on Knol

The Cato Institute is participating in a new Google debate feature: Google Knol. Google says "A knol is an authoritative article about a specific topic." The program is meant to be a comprehensive source of information. Knol Debates is an opportunity for experts to debate one another over the internet and have readers join in to provide commentary and ask questions.

According to Cato:
The debates on Knol are meant to offer a variety of in-depth opinions from experts, and afford visitors the opportunity to engage scholars on the ideas that are posted.

Cato Senior Fellow Daniel J. Mitchell is debating the aftermath of the financial bailout bill with John Irons, research and policy director for the Economic Policy Institute. You can log into Google and offer suggestions, edits and comments to each side of the discussion. Mitchell and Irons will both field your comments and may even add them to their arguments.

Check out the discussion and provide your own input. This is a great way for students to not only see a public policy debate, but engage the debate as well from the comfort of your dorm room.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

IHS Announces Spring Break Seminars

The Institute for Humane Studies (IHS), a nonprofit organization that "support[s] the achievement of a freer society by discovering and facilitating the development of talented, productive students, scholars, and other intellectuals who share an interest in liberty", has just announced its new Spring Seminars. These are week long seminars in March that are meant to provide an alternative spring break experience for students who want to continue their study of liberty. Two seminars will take place at UC Santa Cruz and Emory University. Applications are now being accepted.

IHS is a terrific organization that I highly encourage everyone to participate in. 4 of the founding members of SFL were members of IHS's Koch Summer Fellowship, and it was during that fellowship that the concept of SFL was first articulated. Just make sure to get lots of sleep before you go to a seminar, because you will doubtfully get much there.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Amethyst Initiative

You may or may not have already heard about the Amethyst Initiative, a project begun by chancellors and presidents of universities and colleges across the United States who have "signed their names to a public statement that the problem of irresponsible drinking by young people continues despite the minimum legal drinking age of 21, and there is a culture of dangerous binge drinking on many campuses."

The public statement is a truly brave and powerful message that includes three main points:
  1. It's time to rethink the drinking age
  2. Twenty-one is not working
  3. How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?
What is most amazing about this initiative, though, is the reaction against it. Some of the most prestigious and intelligent people in our society have come out calling for a national debate on the merits of prohibition and some people are angry! Perhaps most vocally, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have sought to counter the initiative. The subtitle of one MADD article reads: "University Presidents Misguided in Signing Initiative to Discuss Lowering the Drinking Age." Leading public intellectuals want a debate on whether the drinking age works? The audacity! How dare they propose a discussion! Check out this clip for additional background:

The fact that a group of over 100 highly respected academics can call for debate on a matter of public policy and hear in response not only that they are a minority, but that people are scared of their debate is amazing. To find out if your university president has signed on to this initiative, you can find the full list of signatories here. Considering how MADD is c
alling on the public "to send physical letters to [] governors or college presidents on the list asking them to remove their names from the initiative list and support the 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age", perhaps you should consider sending a letter to your university president thanking them for signing up or urging them to do so.

Friday, October 3, 2008

It's the Bailout, Stupid

Despite the urgent endorsement of both the sitting Republican president and the Democratic Speaker of the House, the so-called “bank bailout” legislation just barely failed to pass through the House of Representatives after going through the Senate this week.

The vote on Monday came 13 votes short of passing the bailout. Roughly a third of Democrats and two thirds of Republicans turned it down. The narrow vote against it has shown that the United States is not a spigot of capital, distributed at the taxpayer’s expense

…at least, until the House votes on the matter again today.

Many Republican congressmen and -women have unsheathed their free market rhetoric to justify voting against the bill:

It was also convenient that mail and phone calls were coming in “30 to 1” against the bailout. Now, thanks to the wild downturn on the stock market that occurred when the first bill failed to pass, perhaps the general public is starting to change their mind about the bill.

Since virtually all the Republicans who voted against the bill on Monday were in “vulnerable” election races, they may have been riding public opinion, and will continue to do so in their vote today.

If that is the case, then expect the bill to pass, with a bunch of other items tacked on.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

FIRE President Wins Playboy Freedom of Expression Award

Congratulations to Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), who recently was awarded the Playboy Foundation's inaugural Freedom of Expression Award. The new Freedom of Expression Award is given to support an individual "whose record of accomplishments indicates a promising future as an effective advocate for the First Amendment." Greg was chosen for his history of dedication to the cause of free speech and the first Amendment. The award is very much deserved and we are glad to see Greg and FIRE receive recognition for their tremendous work.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Bureaucrash Social

Our friends over at Bureaucrash, a non-profit whose mission is to "act as a catalyst to create a cultural shift toward freedom" by facilitating creative activism, guerrilla marketing and the use of new media, have launched a powerful platform called Bureaucrash Social. The site was developed to empower you to promote freedom and connect you to other freedom activists from around the world. Think of Bureaucrash Social as your online home for sharing ideas and collaborating with others to spread the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free markets. Become active today to bring about a freer world tomorrow.