Who is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a self-described Democratic Socialist from New York. She recently won the Democratic primary in New York's 14th congressional district, and is currently running for Congress. Being a Democratic Socialist, Ocasio-Cortez's recent victory is gaining a lot of attention in the news cycle, as is expected. After all, it's unprecedented for a Democratic Socialist with such a polarizing platform to come close to a Congressional victory, and so quickly. Ocasio-Cortez's platform is as complex as it is bold, so this will not be an overly deep analysis of her platform, but rather will focus on its ethical shortfalls and touch down on its economic failures.

Medicare for All

Ocasio-Cortez introduces this concept as follows:

Improved and Expanded Medicare for All is the ethical, logical, and affordable path to ensuring no person goes without dignified healthcare. Medicare for All will reduce the existing costs of healthcare (and make Medicare cheaper, too!) by allowing all people in the US to buy into a universal healthcare system.

To be blunt: medicare for all is not ethical, logical, or affordable, especially if her goal is to achieve "dignified" healthcare.

Medicare for all is unethical

First of all, the phrase, "medicare for all" is akin to saying, "medicare is a human right." It's not that I'm trying to twist Alexandria's words around; I'm sure she'd agree that medicare is a human right. But by claiming that everyone has a right to medicare, she is therefore asserting a 'positive right'. A positive right is simply a right that requires the action of others. As opposed to a negative right, which is a right that requires the inaction of others. An example of a negative right is the right to not be aggressed against (attacked). A negative right, such as the right to self-ownership, is completely valid. However, all positive rights are invalid. This is because a positive right requires the labor of others. By claiming that medicare is a human right, Ocasio-Cortez is demanding one of two things:

Laborers be enslaved and forced to perform their labor for free

Thievery in the form of taxation to cover the costs owed to laborers (AKA partial enslavement)

Laborers, being those who are tasked with providing the "free" healthcare. Really, both are forms of enslavement, as paying taxes are akin to involuntarily working for the government for a certain amount of time every year. And obviously, both are ethically abhorrent. No-one, by any means, deserves the labor of others, nor do they deserve the funds to afford such labor; this is false entitlement at its worst. As self-owners, we are the owners of our labor and anything produced by our labor.

Medicare for all is illogical and expensive

Again, I don't wish to perform a complex evaluation of Alexandria's platform, but rather to provide an ethical critique. However, I will quickly touch down on why medicare for all isn't what it's economically cracked up to be. The only possible way medicare can be provided in a more cost-effective and cheaper way than what the free market can provide is through government intervention and subsidization, which is precisely what Alexandria is calling for. Through this process, medicare can only be cost-effective for a limited time, then the inevitable effects of nationalizing a good will kick in. The quality of care will drop dramatically. For an example of what this looks like, look no further than Canada. Long wait times and huge drops in the quality of care has become a serious problem throughout the nation. Furthermore, a sort of "death panel" has emerged, which is essentially a group of officials that decide whether or not patients with major health concerns will receive treatment or not. For example, if a patient is very old and found to have progressed cancer, the death panel will be tasked with deciding whether or not said patient will receive an expensive treatment, or if they're not worth saving. Such a system doesn't seem "dignified" to me.

Housing as a Human Right

Another bold claim by Ocasio-Cortez, who apparently thinks that any product is a human right if the glorious legislator decides it as such, is that every individual has an inalienable right to a home.

"Housing as a human right" is unethical

We find ourselves running into the "positive right vs negative right" debacle once again. Ethically, housing for all is equally as unethical as medicare for all, as it requires that we either enslave housing developers or partially enslave the taxpayer who is subsidizing the development of "free" homes. I don't see the point in going over this once more.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Historically and economically speaking, whenever the government has subsidized projects for cheaper/free housing, an increase in the homeless population always occurs. Perhaps if Alexandria had picked up a copy of Economics in One Lesson at some point in her life, she'd be aware of this. In fact, Henry Hazlitt touched down on this topic when describing how people tend to look at the seen , but not the unseen . Again, I wish to stay within the scope of ethics, but I'm willing to touch down on the economics. When money is stolen from the taxpayer to subsidize the construction of "free" homes for the homeless, we immediately see what appear to be benefits; we see homes and the impoverished people who now occupy them. This is the seen . What we don't see is the jobs that would have been created, the opportunities that would have propagated among poorer communities, and ultimately the greater creation of wealth, had the taxpayer been allowed to spend his funds how he saw fit. This is the unseen . Ultimately, by allowing the taxpayer the freedom to spend his money as his wishes in a free market, the homeless population is decreased as they find themselves swimming in opportunity. Conversely, when the taxpayer subsidizes the construction of homes, the homeless population is made larger than it otherwise would be.

A Peace Economy

Ocasio-Cortez is very adamant on her idea of a "peace economy", which she introduces as follows:

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis.

So by "peace economy", Alexandria is suggesting an end be put to US interventionism/globalism. I found myself to be very surprised that I strongly agreed with something that a Democratic Socialist had to say; I guess that's a testament to why we shouldn't obsess over identity politics.The wars that the United States has engaged in are ethically bankrupt. They are acts of aggression which destabilize entire regions and impoverish large populations. I especially liked what Alexandria said about radicalization:

This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity.

She is very much correct: war tarnishes America's reputation, radicalizes future generations in destabilized regions, and steal the taxpayer's dollars in order to fund ongoing conflict, which could have otherwise been spent in industry. Ocasio-Cortez also demands that an end be put to the drug war, in order to achieve a peaceful economy. She is once again correct, but lacks explanation. She expressed her support in legalizing marijuana, which is good (as preventing the sale of drugs infringes on one's right to conduct voluntary contracts). However, she expresses no intent to legalize any other drug, and only legalizing marijuana is not going to end the drug war (not even close). Again, I agree with the sentiment of ending the drug war, but I don't think Alexandria is willing to go far enough to actually end it.

A Federal Jobs Guarantee

The next plank on Ocasio-Cortez's platform is a federal job guarantee, promising a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage, more federal workers for public services, healthcare, and other benefits. Alexandria introduces her federal jobs guarantee as follows:

A Federal Jobs Guarantee would create a baseline standard for employment that includes a $15 minimum wage (pegged to inflation), full healthcare, and child and sick leave for all. This proposal would dramatically upgrade the quality of employment in the United States, by providing training and experience to workers while bringing much-needed public services to our communities in areas such as parks service, childcare and environmental conservation.

The ethics of this plan are quite simple: an increase in federal jobs requires the government to steal more property from people at the direct threat of imprisonment. Not to mention that jobs guaranteeing a $15.00/hr minimum wage, healthcare, and other benefits is going to be expensive; it'll cost between $200 billion - $400 billion to bankroll, or 2% of the nation's GDP.

With such an insane amount being stolen from the taxpayer, we must enter into the seen and the unseen once again. What is seen are the jobs created by the federal jobs guarantee, and the people working them. We see these people getting by very well, as they work simple, public jobs in their communities for more than their services are probably worth (at $15.00/hr). What is unseen are the myriad of actual productive jobs that would've sprouted as a result of the taxpayer utilizing his funds as he sees fit, which would provide more prosperity to the impoverished than a bankrupt federal jobs guarantee that only stands to take up resources that would have otherwise been put to better use.

This is a classic case of the government prioritizing full-employment over full-productivity. Politicians like Alexandria forget that the entire point of full-employment is to achieve full-productivity. Instead, Alexandria is only interested in making things as inefficient as possible, so more jobs to complete the same tasks are required. In other words, she wishes to sacrifice productivity for employment. This is very bad for the long term, although short term benefits will be recognized. After all, the short term is all Alexandria is concerned with.

Gun Control/Assault Weapons Ban

Any form of gun control is unethical, given that such legislation would infringe on the people's right to freely conduct voluntary contracts and to defend themselves. And with 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually, the right to defend oneself is not something to be scoffed at. While there's no credible data suggesting that citizens are safer under a gun ban, there is clear evidence that they will be at a higher risk of being attacked without the possibility of defending themselves.

I find it incredibly concerning that Alexandria wishes to disarm the populace and grant a monopoly on violence to the State.

Of courses, she'll capitalize on mass shootings to scare people into supporting her arguments, while conveniently forgetting about mass shootings, such as Sutherland Springs, in which the assailant was stopped by an NRA certified instructor with an AR-15.

Without getting into gun control too much, as I've already made my ethical standpoint clear, I will give my opinion: poverty is the real cause for mass shootings, not guns. The best way to prevent mass shootings and violent crime is to raise the standard of living of your populace and therefore displace violent gun culture. Taking away their guns will not make them any less unhappy and violent.

Criminal Justice Reform, End Private Prisons

Ocasio-Cortez introduces the idea of criminal justice reform and the end to private prisons as follows:

It is time to reform our criminal justice system to be safer for everyone. Alexandria believes in ending mass incarceration and the war on drugs, and closing the school-to-prison pipeline.

Alexandria supports the federal legalization of marijuana, ending for-profit prisons and detention centers, the release of individuals incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses, the end of cash bail, and automatic, independent investigations each & every time an individual is killed by law enforcement.

Once again, I find myself shocked to say that I agree, at least mostly, with another plank that makes up Alexandria's platform.

The United States has become the home of the incarcerated, with far more people arrested for nonviolent crimes than any other nation. Marijuana should definitely be legalized, as the current ban infringes on one's right to conduct voluntary contracts, and it would result in less people being imprisoned for the nonviolent crime of selling and buying marijuana. Decriminalizing all nonviolent drug offenses would also be a huge step in the right direction of ending the drug war, and would cut down on the amount of non-dangerous people being imprisoned for conducting voluntary contracts.

For-profit prisons should also be made illegal, as they introduce perverse incentives to incarcerate more people, and create a cronyist relationship with the State.

Cash bail has serious flaws, as this results in only wealthier individuals being able to avoid imprisonment until a fair trial can be conducted. As a result, I am open to discussion for alternative systems. However, I am reluctant to support any system that imprisons someone before they are found guilty of a crime.

Independent investigations should be conducted on law enforcement accused of unjust killings. For too long, police have not been held accountable for the abuse they've inflicted on the public.

However, Alexandria has demanded that public defenders be fully funded. Not only would this result in more theft in the form of taxation, but it would result in the degradation of public defense, as public lawyers aren't subject to the same profit/loss system as private lawyers. I don't support this aspect of justice reform.

Immigration Justice/Abolish ICE

I agree with Alexandria on this topic as well; immigration restrictions are a violation of peoples' right to free movement. I welcome any steps taken to the abolishing of all immigration restrictions. The abolishing of ICE is an especially large step, as this agency has operated outside the scope of the justice system for far too long, getting away with a myriad of abuses against non-citizens. ICE is just another federal agency manifested by the desperate reaction of the populace post-9/11.

However, now Alexandria's platform is starting to conflict with itself. Alexandria wishes to allow more immigration, but to also bolster the welfare state. The welfare state may very well crash under the threat of mass immigration, resulting in economic turmoil. For more on this conflict, check out my article on open borders .

Conclusion