Libertarians at the Pitt News?

The Pitt News, like most college newspapers, is know more for articles written by liberals and libertines than libertarians. Nevertheless, in the last few months I’ve noticed several editorials that present or at least hint at libertarian ideals. Here’s a sampling. Give me your impressions in the comments.

Social Security is a “Great Heist”

“As an industrial engineering major, I’ve been educated on how to identify when systems are failing. Such analytical tools have led to a few important conclusions. For example, when Democrats are elected to public office, it is obvious the American public education system has failed. And when Social Security pays out more in benefits than it takes in through taxes, it too will be a failing system. It also takes very little analysis to determine that Social Security has always been a catastrophe in any libertarian’s mind.”

Government and marriage, not a match made in heaven

“The notion of a federal amendment to define marriage seems unlike the typical conservative. The usurpation of power from the states doesn’t fit my definition of a ‘pro-states’ rights’ Republican.”

The American Left’s love affair with Tibet

“Every time Congress authorizes federal funding for the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt or the dictatorship of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, it abdicates its position as an arbiter of human rights.”

EDITORIAL – A slippery slope

“A student organization at Slippery Rock University is currently campaigning to make its campus a little greener by initiating a proposal that would require every student to pay an extra $5 each semester to support environmentally friendly projects and awareness programs…While it’s hard to deny the importance of enacting environmentally friendly policies and initiatives on college campuses, it should not be the responsibility of the students to fund these types of programs with a specific student fee. Environmental awareness is important, but AIDS awareness, cancer research and ending world hunger is important, too. Allowing a university to tack on a mandatory fee for one charity project only opens up opportunities for adding on more that are as equally deserving. There are countless charities that could use extra money (even on our own college campuses), and students shouldn’t be called upon to finance all of them.

I find this “slippery slope” editorial particularly interesting. The same argument used against compelling students to pay for environmental projects can be used against the federal government compelling citizens to pay for all sorts of programs and grants, including -->

Comments 1

  1. gbm3 wrote:

    It’s funny, but a lot of liberals I know (also people I knew at the Pitt News while writing there back around 2000) are really big-L Libertarians who want the environment to be immortal. They “respect” Libertarians (since they really are one). They want laissez-faire on every thing but a big governmental hand over the environment for its protection.

    Of course, I’m the opposite — being a heavy hander on social issues, the environment, and really everything. It’s just that I agree with FD that more should be done on the local level with big corporations out of the picture.


    Posted 05 Apr 2008 at 10:09 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *