July 26, 2010

Down with the NCAA…

Why?  Because it is a cartel that is selling a false message.  The NCAA claims to protect the integrity of college athletics.  I would argue that it treats its athletes as little more than sweatshop workers in order to enrich themselves and the universities.  OK, so I might be guilty of a little hyperbole but I still think some changes need to be made.

This post is inspired after coming across a couple stories, one in the New York Times and one in the local Greensboro News and Record.  These stories cite examples of the NCAA’s attempt to crack down on athlete’s contact with sports agents.  The New York Times article deals with the ramifications of a baseball players lawsuit with the NCAA that was settled before trial and the Greensboro News and Record deals with the recent announcement by NC Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, currently running for the US Senate, that her office will be investigating inappropriate contact between sports agents and some UNC athletes, an issue that the NCAA is also looking into.

I take special issue with the News and Record’s editorial page and the last sentence in a recent article, “but the law is meant to protect individuals. It should be enforced.”  The editors seem to think that it is the sports agents who are taking advantage of the athletes.  I think the athletes have more reason to worry about the pro sports leagues and the NCAA than agents.  The few athletes who desire to go pro should have nothing stopping them from getting counsel from an agent in order to sign the best contract possible.  As it stands, you are driving those players who desire to go pro underground, trying to avoid harsh penalties from a regime trying to sell a false integrity.

That last sentence also points to an idea that I find disturbing, that the law should protect me from myself.  The law is meant to protect me from other people, not from myself.  If I want to sign a contract then let me face the consequences of that contract.  So long as it is signed of my own free will then I have no one to blame but myself.

Greensboro’s News and Record editorial page would call me a cynic for saying that integrity within college athletics is hopelessly lost but so be it.  When you have coaches than can move around, leaving their athletes high and dry while they pursue some other job at another college or in the pros, the athletes are forced to sit out a year if they should choose to attend another university or play for another coach.  If a program is accused of violations then the coach can leave while the players are left to face the consequences of a couple of “bad” players and management, i.e. the Pete Carroll situation at USC or John Calipari at Memphis.

If the NCAA really wants to restore a measure of integrity then they should do a couple of things.  I can think of three:

One, press the pro leagues to either get rid of age requirements or start their own minor leagues.  Baseball has its own minor leagues, basketball should let go of the foolish age requirement that has created an epidemic of “one and done” players, and football should have some form of minor leagues instead of sponging off universities to train their players for them.  Those players that want to go pro can, those that want to honestly pursue a college education can do so without fear.

Two, instead of prosecuting players and agents let them arrange deals in the open.  Stop trying to create a false integrity that drives those players who are seeking to further their financial security underground.

Three, pay college athletes a portion of the revenue that they help to bring into the university and the NCAA.  Most athletic programs don’t earn accounting profits, those that do, i.e. the big-time football and basketball programs, should set some money aside for the athletes to access after graduation.

Do you disagree?  Any other ideas to improve the integrity of college sports?  Put them in the comments please…

17 Comments

Filed under Sports

Tags: , , , ,

July 23, 2010

Constitutional Amendments…

This will be the last post that is directly inspired by my trip to Washington D.C. last week.  Of the three types of lectures that were given I would say that the most basic were the constitutional history/law lectures.  There were quite a few international students who were there so I can understand the need to keep it basic and also it was building to an exercise on the last day of the conference.  The last lecture was devoted to giving us guidance in formulating new constitutional amendments.  We broke up into small groups and discussed amendments we would make, wrote them down, then came back together to discuss everyone’s amendments.  I wish we had more time to discuss in small groups but oh well.  What follows are amendments that I would like to see made, some of these ideas came from fellow participants at the conference, some are my own.

Proposed Amendment 1: Balanced Budget Amendment

Congress shall balance the federal budget over the course of three year intervals.  This amendment shall take effect within 5 years of ratification by 3/4 of the states.  Congress may only run a deficit when a formal declaration of war has been made against a foreign nation.  All surpluses shall be used to pay off the national debt.  Once the debt has been paid off all surpluses shall be put into a emergency fund that shall not be drawn from unless a formal declaration of war has been made.  This fund shall not exceed more than 50% of the total budget, once this limit has been reached taxes shall be cut to balance the budget.

Proposed Amendment 2: Congressional Term Limits

Members of the House of Representatives shall not exceed 3 two year terms and members of the Senate shall not exceed 2 six year terms.  Once a member of either house has reached the term limit he or she shall not be a member of that house again.  Also, once a member of either house has reached the limit of their respective house the member may not hold an elected or appointed federal position for a period of 5 years after they have left office.

Proposed Amendment 3: Regarding Declarations of War

Congress has the sole authority to authorize the use of the armed services against any foreign nation or people.  A formal declaration of war shall accompany each authorization and shall require the approval of 2/3 of each house.

Proposed Amendment 4: A Definition of the Commerce Clause

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 shall be amended such that Congress has the ability to regulate commerce only in as much to prevent trade wars among the several states and to prevent foreign nations and Native American tribes from signing exclusive trade treaties with select states.

Proposed Amendment 5: Repeal of the 17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment regarding the direct election of Senators shall be repealed.  Each state through its legislature shall appoint 2 qualified citizens of that state to represent them in the Senate.

Proposed Amendment 6: Repeal of the 16th Amendment

The 16th amendment authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration shall be repealed.

I think most of these amendments are self-explanatory except for maybe my proposed fifth amendment regarding the direct election of senators.  The 17th amendment was a result of a populist movement in the early 1900′s.  Appointment to the Senate had become tainted with accusations of deals made in “smokey rooms”.  I can understand why the amendment was made in the first place but I think a side effect was to reduce, if not completely eradicate, the power of the states to affect national policy; this amendment completed what began in the Civil War.  I am willing to risk back room deals, since a free press will likely expose such deals, in order to restore state power.

Three of these amendments reign in the excesses of Congress and one seeks to reign in the power of the executive.  Given the current political atmosphere I think all of these amendments, or something close to them, have a very real possibility of becoming law, except for maybe the one regarding direct election of senators.  I think I may be out on a limb on that one.  Otherwise we can only hope that some or all of these can reign in the size and scope of government and give back to the people a measure of liberty.

What Amendments would you like to see made?

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

July 22, 2010

A Review of Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law”

As I detailed in the post about my week spent in D.C. at an Institute for Humane Studies seminar I received quite a few books for free.  One of them was a copy of Frederic Bastiat’s The Law. Bastiat was a French economist, philosopher, and for a short time occupied a seat in France’s legislative body before tuberculosis cut his life short.  The Law is the culmination of a life’s work spent thinking and writing about economic issues.

As I was heading to bed I picked it up not expecting to make much progress as I often use books to help me nod off towards sleep.  Instead I was carried away by the forcefulness of his argument and the clarity of his prose.  At just over 70 pages with roughly 11 of those taken up by a brief biography and introduction I was able to finish it in one sitting.

He is one in a great line of thinkers that base their argument in natural law.  If you are unfamiliar with that term you have more than likely heard it before in the Declaration of Independence.  Man is endowed by his creator with certain rights, among these are life, liberty, and property (Jefferson unfortunately changed the last to pursuit of happiness).  Bastiat argues that the law’s sole purpose is to protect those rights.  If at any point the law is used to abridge any of those rights then it is a perversion and can be considered theft or plunder.  It takes him about two pages to lay this out, the rest is an account of all the consequences that arise from the perversion of the law.

I would like to quote just a few parts that I think are the best…

Under such an administration(one devoted to protecting the natural law and nothing else), everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence.  No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labour was free, and the fruits of his labour were protected against all unjust attack.  When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success.  And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation.  They oblige him only to abstain from harming others.  They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property.  They safeguard all of these.  They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.  These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

I could go on and on in quoting until the point where I just quoted the entire book, however, I will not.  He goes on to argue that the right to vote is ever expanding because those who desire the right to vote are often those who have been plundered from and wish to join in the process of theft through law.  Voting would be a dispassionate affair if all the government did was protect the natural rights.  Later on he derides socialism as a false philanthropy and I can’t help myself but quote once more:

Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement.  Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.  This is the seductive lure of socialism.  And I repeat again: these two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other.  We must choose between them.

Ok, I’m done with quoting.  Read this book, there are no excuses.  The prose is clear, it is short work in reading it, and it will cost you maybe $5 in buying a copy of your own.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Reviews

Tags: , , , , ,

Newer Entries

Older Entries