Drop Shipping: The Future of the Online Economy

Episode #724 of the “Planet Money” podcast tells the story of Fred and Natasha Ruckel, a couple who invented the Ripple Rug, a toy for cats, and began selling it on the Amazon Prime marketplace. After their business experienced rapid growth and success, they began to notice that their product was frequently being listed and sold on eBay—for twenty dollars more than the original price. Though Fred sent cease and desist letters to these resellers, nothing came of them because this practice, known as drop-shipping, is not illegal (Smith). Drop-shipping is the rapidly-growing business of seeking out products online, listing them on resale sites such as eBay for a higher price, marketing the products, taking orders from consumers, and shipping them the products directly from the sources (Cheong et al.; “Drop Shipping System”). The podcast also includes an interview with professional drop-shippers Nicki and Parish Witherspoon, who have made millions from their online store. According to Michael Monger, economist at Duke University, drop-shipping is “the most competitive industry the world has ever known” (Smith). Though it is profitable and hugely successful, drop-shipping has raised serious ethical questions and has created issues for manufacturers.

To drop-shippers, the best part of their industry is that there is virtually no risk. They can test consumer reactions to products simply by listing them online, and they will not lose any money even if the products never sell (“4 Reasons”). There is no investment or stock purchasing required—all of the work is in the marketing and customer service (“4 Reasons”). Drop-shipping can also benefit manufacturers, because these middle men advertise their products and help them reach a wider audience (Smith). Some businesses have even decided to partner with drop-shippers, delegating certain tasks to them in order to focus more on other aspects of their companies (“Namaste Signs”). This relationship can be symbiotic—profitable for both the manufacturer and drop-shipper.

Unfortunately, when drop-shipping occurs unbeknownst to a business, it can negatively affect their profits and demand. One major issue is that consumers are often unaware that they are not purchasing directly from the manufacturer; they are deceived and scammed out of a better price. When their package arrives, they may notice that the box has come from Amazon when they have actually ordered from eBay. This can prompt them to search for and find the product on Amazon for the lower price, return the eBay purchase, and re-order from Amazon. The manufacturers are the ones who bear the cost of return, delivery, and other fees, and this type of incident can result in huge losses. Just two months after Fred Ruckel began to notice his product on eBay, he received over two hundred returns—in many cases, returns of already used or damaged products—which cost him over ten thousand dollars (Smith). Many argue that drop-shipping is a scam, since it does not add any value to a product. Former drop-shipper Thomas Despin agrees, saying that he “basically marked up a product anyone could find…[and] called it a business” (Despin). Drop-shippers themselves can face issues with inventory data mismatch and inaccuracies, which can upset customers and ultimately affect public perception of the manufacturer (Cheong et al.). Many drop-shippers also add logos of well-regarded or popular companies to the products they resell in order to artificially add value, out of which brand infringement issues can arise. Mark Bearfoot, Brand Protection Manager at Harley-Davidson, explained that on any one resale site, ten to fifteen different brands could be facing blatant infringement (“Spring Conference”). All of these issues not only impact the manufacturers, but the drop-shippers, too, resulting in a scenario in which both sides lose profits.

“The internet,” the podcast hosts argued, “was supposed to get riddle of the middle man” (Smith). However, online resale platforms have only increased the popularity of arbitrage. How is it successful—why are consumers purchasing products for a much higher price than they need to, especially when the information is readily available with a quick Google search? Economists have always based theories and hypotheses on the idea that humans are rational and frugal, never willing to spend more money than absolutely necessary. Consumers can be flawed, however, and choose convenience over lower prices. If something appears in an advertisement on their Facebook homepage, they may choose to purchase it without researching other options. Drop-shipping has taken advantage of this fact, and it has the potential to take over our future economy.

* * * * *

Works Cited:

“#724: Cat Scam.” Planet Money. NPR, 13 Mar. 2019.

“4 Reasons to Consider Using Drop-Shipping for Your E-Commerce Store.” Bizcommunity.com,12 Sept. 2018. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com.massasoit.idm.oclc.org/apps/ doc/A553962498/ITOF? u=mlin_s_masscomm&sid=ITOF&xid=1bdfc303.

Cheong, Taesu, et al. “Effect of Inventory Information Discrepancy in a Drop-Shipping Supply Chain.” Decision Sciences, vol. 46, no. 1, Decision Sciences Institute, 26 Feb. 2015.

Despin, Thomas. “11 Months and $750k Later, I Closed My Drop Shipping Business. Here’s Why.” Tech In Asia, Tech In Asia, 12 Oct. 2017. https://www.techinasia.com/talk/11-
months-750k-closed-drop-shipping-business.

“‘Drop Shipping System System’ in Patent Application Approval Process (USPTO
20190057349).” Politics & Government Week, 14 Mar. 2019, p. 1682. Academic OneFile,http://link.galegroup.com.massasoit.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A577827347/AONE? u=mlin_s_masscomm&sid=AONE&xid=e95fc1b3.

“Namaste Signs Exclusive Drop-Shipping Agreement with Ample Organics Enabling Ample’s Licensed Producer Customers to Sell Vaporizers and Accessories.” Plus Company Updates, 11 May 2018. General OneFile, http:// link.galegroup.com.massasoit.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A538212167/ITOF? u=mlin_s_masscomm&sid=ITOF&xid=46c42af0.

“Spring Conference: Drop Shipping.” European Union News, 28 Mar. 2018. General OneFile,http://link.galegroup.com.massasoit.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A532617292/ITOF? u=mlin_s_masscomm&sid=ITOF&xid=1dc25d7c.

Are Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter Publishers or Platforms?

Many social media websites have identified themselves as both “platforms” and “publishers” simultaneously, which has resulted in lawsuits, rule-bending, unfair treatment of their users, and general confusion. These issues could be resolved by requiring social media websites to label themselves as either a “publisher” or a “platform,” not both at once. This distinction is necessary because websites have a history of demonstrating unfair bias when banning users and deleting content alongside a record of unaccountability when it comes to libel, direct calls to violence, and other illegal activity occurring online.

Some social media websites claim to be neutral platforms while also making obviously biased censorship decisions. YouTube, for example, has had an infamous history of restricting and sometimes deleting videos its users upload. Steven Crowder, a conservative comedian, uploaded a video in November 2017 during which he went undercover at an event and filmed himself speaking with others (Crowder). This video was deleted from the website within hours; YouTube claimed it violated their terms of service due to the fact that he videotaped others without their permission (Crowder). However, Vermont, the location of the filming, is a single-party consent state, so YouTube’s terms do not coincide with the law. Since they could not have been held legally liable for anything in the video, there was no reason for YouTube to take it down other than a political agenda. This incident stands out even more sorely when compared with the Logan Paul “suicide forest” scandal. On December 31, 2017, YouTube celebrity Logan Paul uploaded a video to his channel that involved him visiting a Japanese forest and filming a man who had hanged himself on a tree—under the guise of raising suicide awareness (Palladino). An image of the dead body was featured in the thumbnail of the video, which was unrestricted (visible to all users) and sat atop the “trending” page for hours. YouTube itself did not delete the video; the removal in this case was performed by Paul himself after he faced online backlash. Surely Paul’s is a worse offense, so why did YouTube only feel a need to censor in Crowder’s case? If YouTube is to be regarded as a publisher, it must be held responsible and legally liable for all of its content—not just the content with which its higher-ups do not agree. On the other hand, if it wants to yield this responsibility, it must step back and allow free expression from every one of its users.

In a similar instance, on August 7, 2018, YouTube—along with Facebook, Apple, and Spotify—removed all the content of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his company, Infowars, and barred him from further uploading to their websites (Madrigal). Twitter, the only prominent website used by Jones that did not participate in this ban, stated that “the public conversation” is best served when “journalists document, validate, and refute” wild claims and conspiracies—not when media platforms strictly regulate them (Jarvis). However, Twitter has been accused of the censorship of other prominent political commentators, such as the permanent ban of Breitbart reporter Milo Yiannopoulos in 2016 (Moreno).

Facebook has received heavy criticism on this front, and the question of whether it is a publisher or platform has come up in both its congressional hearings and current lawsuits. Sonal Mehta, one of Facebook’s attorneys, claimed that “publisher” is the correct identification, and that it is “a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used” (Breland; Levin). Its other lawyers have also argued that it is “a company that makes editorial decisions…about ‘what not to publish’” (Levin). 

There is nothing inherently wrong with removing content from a website that is a clear violation of the law or its own terms of service—but if the website has the power to remove content, it must take on the responsibility of removing all such content, and when that responsibility is acquired, the website becomes responsible for ensuring that each and every post uploaded by each and every user follows the rules. It becomes a publisher, like Scholastic or The New York Times. The problem lies in the fact that many social media companies believe they can cherry-pick which pieces of the “publisher” outfit they wear and escape liability. In previous court filings, Facebook claimed to be simply a “computer service” that should not be “treated as the publisher” of users’ content (Levin). Eric Goldman, law professor at Santa Clara University, stated that it is “politically expedient [for Facebook] to deflect responsibility for making editorial judgements by claiming to be a platform…But it makes editorial decisions all the time” (Levin). Researchers have uncovered that Facebook “is actively campaigning to promote ‘better speech’ over hate speech in a coordinated international campaign…to combat the rhetoric of the far right,” proving likely that they are trying to push a political agenda while claiming neutrality (Bell). Weeks before the Alex Jones ban, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that his website will allow users to upload any content they wish, “even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive,” as long as they are “not trying to organize harm against someone” (Madrigal). This statement directly contradicts both his company’s attorneys and his own actions against Jones.

One of the reasons these companies believe they can escape repercussions is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a piece of legislation that asserted that online platforms cannot be held responsible for content uploaded by users, even that which is “defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful” (Candeub and Epstein; Levin). Senator Ted Cruz, among others, reasoned in Zuckerberg’s congressional hearing that “in order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be ‘neutral public forums,’” and if they choose to censor or delete content, they should be identified as a “publisher or speaker” (Candeub and Epstein). While the legislation did state that social media platforms could remove content they determined to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,” it also clarifies that said content “‘must, at a minimum, involve or be similar’ to obscenity, violence, or harassment” (Candeub and Epstein). Unfortunately, this aspect has been abused and used to “justify censorship” (Candeub and Epstein). Jane Kirtley, a University of Minnesota law professor, articulated this when she said that these websites are arguing they are “publisher[s] making editorial judgements,” only to later “turn around and claim that they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers” (Levin). Section 230 cannot be used to protect free speech while also being weaponized as a justification for controlling and censoring the speech of social media users.

It is not surprising that Facebook wants to take on a “publisher” role considering that its forums are riddled with propaganda, fake news, and illegal content (Levin). Retaining the label of “platform,” however, has allowed this website and many others to get away with unfair treatment of users. Zuckerberg himself believes that “holocaust deniers, for example, shouldn’t be kicked off the platform” because it’s not “Facebook’s job to moderate their comments,” (Wood) but he has also stated that Facebook “feel[s] responsibility for the content on [its] platform” (Kelly). This blatant hypocrisy cannot be allowed to continue any longer. Social media companies are arguably the “world’s largest distributer[s] of news” and should, therefore, be held to the same standards as CNN or FOX (Kelly). If these websites truly do wish to remain neutral platforms, they will not be “subject to any laws requiring that they monitor illegal activity,” but they must not regulate the content of their users (Kelly). If they are not going to take responsibility for illegal activity, they cannot claim to be responsible for taking down so-called “hate speech” and unfavorable ideas—they cannot take the best of both worlds and ignore the consequences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

Bell, Emily. “Facebook Is Being Taken Somewhere It Never Wanted to Go.” Columbia 

Journalism Review, Columbia Journalism Review, 26 Sept. 2016, www.cjr.org/

tow_center/facebook_zuckerberg_napalm_video_palestine.php.

Breland, Ali. “Facebook Claims It Is ‘Publisher’ In Court Case.” The Hill, Capitol Hill 

Publishing Corp., 3 July 2018, https://thehill.com/policy/technology/395424-facebook-

claims-it-is-a-publisher-in-court-case

Candeub, Adam and Mark Epstein. “Platform, Or Publisher?” City Journal, Manhattan Institute 

for Policy Research, Inc., 7 May 2018, https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-

publisher-15888.html

Crowder, Steven. “Undercover: Transgenders Actively Targeting Children and 

Medicaid!” YouTube, 21 Nov. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJLGZMsCipk.

Jarvis, Jeff. “Platforms Are Not Publishers.” The Atlantic, The Atlantic Monthly Group, 10 Aug. 

2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-messy-democratizing-

beauty-of-the-internet/567194/

Kelly, Mary Louise. “Media Or Tech Company? Facebook’s Profile Is Blurry.” NPR, NPR, 11 

April 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/04/11/601560213/media-or-tech-company-

facebooks-profile-is-blurry

Levin, Sam. “Is Facebook A Publisher? In Public It Says No, But In Court It Says Yes.” The 

Guardian, Guardian News and Media Limited, 3 July 2018, https://

www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-

publisher-lawsuit

Madrigal, Alexis C. “What Does It Mean To Ban Alex Jones?” The Atlantic, The Atlantic 

Monthly Group, 7 Aug. 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/

what-does-it-mean-to-ban-alex-jones/566960/

Moreno, Matt. “Breitbart Reporter Milo Yiannopoulos Is Banned From Twitter Forever.” Fox 47 

News, The E.W. Scripps Co., https://www.fox47news.com/newsy/breitbart-reporter-milo-

yiannopoulos-is-banned-from-twitter-forever

Palladino, Valentina. “YouTube Finally Hands Down Punishment To Creator For Posting Dead 

Body Video.” Ars Technica, Condé Nast, 11 Jan. 2018, https://arstechnica.com/gaming/

2018/01/youtube-waits-a-little-too-long-to-punish-logan-paul-for-dead-body-video/

Wood, Molly. “Facebook, It Might Be Time To Face Facts. You’re A Publisher.” Marketplace, 

Minnesota Public Radio, 20 July 2018, https://www.marketplace.org/2018/07/19/tech/

facebook-it-might-be-time-face-facts-youre-publisher

Important Election Results from Southeastern Massachusetts

Senate Race — Incumbent senator Elizabeth Warren (D) faced Geoff Diehl (R) and Shiva Ayyadurai (I) and won with 61% of the vote. Hanson was the reddest town in the state, Cambridge the bluest. Diehl won Plymouth County; Warren won all the others. Ayyadurai managed to earn 3.4% of the total vote.

Gubernatorial Race — Governor Charlie Baker (R), who was challenged by Jay Gonzalez (D), won every county in the state and earned 67% of the total vote. The only towns in the eastern half of the state won by Gonzalez were Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Provincetown, Aquinnah, Chilmark, and West Tisbury.

House Races — In District 9, which includes much of the South Shore, the Cape, and the Islands, incumbent representative Bill Keating (D) won against challenger Peter Tedeschi (R), collecting 60% of the vote. Incumbent Stephen Lynch (D) of District 8 and Joseph P. Kennedy, III (D) of District 4 ran unopposed.

Ballot Questions — Question 1, asked to decide whether or not the state can mandate nurse-patient ratios, did not pass. 70% of voters chose “No.” Question 2, a campaign to create a citizens commission that will work to end corporation sponsorship of political candidates, passed with 72% of the vote. Question 3, a measure to uphold gender identity discrimination laws, passed with 68%.

Attorney General Race — Incumbent Maura Healey (D), who earned 70% of the vote, beat challenger James McMahon (R). In Eastern MA, McMahon only won Berkley, Lakeville, Rochester, and Halifax.

State Senate — The Democrats won 30 seats, including Norfolk & Plymouth and Cape & Islands, both of which were contested. Feeney (D) is currently leading with 61% in Bristol & Norfolk. The Republicans won 4 seats, including Plymouth & Barnstable and are currently leading in Norfolk, Bristol, & Middlesex and Plymouth & Norfolk.

State House — Plymouth County has voted in 4 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Three races are still undecided: 2 Democrats are leading; 1 Republican is leading. Bristol County has elected 5 Republicans and 9 Democrats.

Contested House Races in Massachusetts (2018)

There are contested seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in Districts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9 in Massachusetts. Candidates include five Republicans, five Democrats, and three Independents.

District 9 — Incumbent congressman Bill Keating (D) of Norwood is facing off against challenger Peter Tedeschi (R) of Norwell. 

Keating has served in office since 2011. According to his website, he has received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood for his pro-choice values, and he “supports Cape Wind, the first commercial-scale wind facility in the country,” which would provide electricity to Cape Cod and Island residents and “create over 1000 regional jobs.” 

Tedeschi is the former CEO of Tedeschi Food Shops and currently is an executive director of Friendship Home, which supports young adults with developmental disabilities. He is focused on “building a highly educated and competitive workforce,” “investing in infrastructure,” “overcoming the opioid crisis,” and providing “staff, equipment, and training” to first responders according to his website.

District 9 includes the South Shore, Cape Cod, and the Islands.

District 5 — John Hugo (R) of Woburn is challenging incumbent congresswoman Katherine Clark (D) of Melrose, who has served in office since 2013. According to his website, Hugo supports social security reform, privacy rights in relation to modern technology, and the legalization of marijuana. District 5 contains many northern and western suburbs of Boston.

District 6 — Incumbent representative Seth Moulton (D) of Salem, a former Marine Corps officer, faces challengers Joseph Schneider (R) of Beverly and Mary Jean Charbonneau (I) of Rockport. 

Schneider, who grew up in communist Romania and served in the U.S. Army, claimed his “social views are in line with the libertarian party” in an interview with Wicked Local Beverly.

Charbonneau, a former real estate broker, has ran many unsuccessful campaigns for local, state, and federal offices. She is a self-described Trump supporter, according to Metro West Daily News, and her House campaign has raised only $128—as opposed to Schneider’s $95,000 and Moulton’s $2 million.

District 6 includes most of Essex County.

District 3 — Rick Green (R) of Pepperell, Mike Mullen (I) of Maynard, and Lori Trahan (D) of Lowell are vying for congresswoman Niki Tsongas’ house seat. Trahan’s goals are to “stand up for working class families, seniors, and women and root out the corruptive influence of corporate money” according to her website. Green, the co-founder and CEO of 1A Auto, is focused on creating jobs and tackling the opioid crisis according to his website. Mullen is an IT director for a managed care company and believes in “comprehensive immigration reform,” “environmental stewardship,” and “common sense gun safety laws” according to his website. District 3 is made up of the Merrimack Valley, including Lowell and Lawrence.

District 2 — Tracy Lovvorn (R) of Grafton and Paul V. Grady (I) of Holden are challenging incumbent congressman Jim McGovern (D) of Worcester, who has held office since 2013. Lovvorn is an operational manager of a healthcare provider and small business owner. Grady holds centrist views and is a supporter of the working class according to his website. District 2 consists of much of midwestern Massachusetts, including Worcester.

Nurses Debate Ballot Question 1: Patient Limits

Massachusetts nurses are currently debating Ballot Question 1—whether or not the state should establish patient limits in hospitals. The debate has divided the nursing community in half and could result in a narrow vote..

If passed, the limits will vary between different types of nurses and care facilities. According to the full text of the referendum (available on the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s website), the law will require facilities to adhere to the limits without cutting staff. The law will also mandate the creation of “written patient acuity tool[s],” which will allow nurses to decide whether or not patient limits should be lower at any point.

“It is not fair to the nurse to be expected to…safely care for 8-10 patients,” said Kerri Nixon, a labor and delivery nurse from Bridgewater. She believes that heavy workloads negatively affect nurses’ mental and physical health.

“I’ve worked in situations where there’s too many patients,” hospice nurse Kristen Vu of Easton described. “Nursing homes are understaffed. It’s not safe.” Other nurses like Nixon and Vu agree with the “Nurses Say Yes on 1” campaign, which is paid for and authorized by the Committee to Ensure Safe Patient Care according to their website.

Many nurses, however, oppose the bill.

“I believe that the bill will drastically negatively affect patient safety,” claimed Catherine Eaton, a neurosciences ICU nurse from Wellesley. “Nursing is a very delicate science and we are highly trained to triage, delegate, and provide care to our patients. This bill proposes an extremely rigid and inflexible mandate, and anyone who works in healthcare knows that it is in no way rigid.” According to their website, the “Nurses Say No on 1” campaign is funded by the Coalition to Protect Patient Safety.

Massachusetts is one of fourteen states to enact some form of patient limits. California was the first to do so, and Vu stated that California has since experienced “decreased mortality and [increased] nurse retention rates.” A study conducted by Health Services Research validates her claim. Eaton argued, however, that California’s patient safety and overall hospital ratings are lower than Massachusetts’. According to the Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade, Massachusetts ranks fourth in the nation while California sits at twenty-fifth.

Nurse retention is a concern for supporters of a yes vote. “When nurses feel they’re overworked and in unsafe conditions, they leave,” Vu explained. “[They] have to have malpractice insurance, because the hospital will blame them [for mistakes].” She believes that the passage of this law will lead to “fewer medical errors and lawsuits.”

Cost is an issue for many opposers. “Small community hospitals will be unable to afford the specified number of staff and will be forced to close,” Eaton stated. “Above and beyond taking nursing judgement out of our hands, this bill will negatively impact citizens across the state and be extremely detrimental financially.” Nixon argued that the paychecks of upper management, such as CEOs and CFOs, could be cut to help fund the change.

Limits include three patients per nurse in intermediate care units, one patient under anesthesia and two post-anesthesia, one critical or intensive care patient, one mother and baby per nurse for up to two hours after birth, five psychiatric or rehabilitation patients, and more.

Eaton described how she would incur a 25,000-dollar fine for taking on another nurse’s patient if she had to leave in an emergency. Without patient limits, she said, “What would happen is [the other nurse] would discharge her patient and I would happily absorb her transfer patient so she could leave…Patient safety is in no way compromised and we used our nursing judgement to fill a unit need.”

Question 1 will appear on the ballot this November alongside Question 2, regarding campaign spending, and Question 3, which addresses gender identity discrimination in places of public accommodation.

The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand: Why It's Still Relevant

On Goodreads.com, I noticed that this book is shelved under "Books I Have No Intention Of Reading," "1001 Books I'd Rather Die Than Read," "Dealbreakers: If You Like This Book, We Won't Get Along," and "Books I Wish I Had Never Read"—but also "Best Non-Fiction," "Books That Everyone Should Read At Least Once," "Best Books Ever," and "Best Books Of The 20th Century." I think the shelf that best sums this all up is "Controversial Books," which also includes titles such as Lolita, 1984, The Communist Manifesto, and—you guessed it—The Constitution of the United States of America.

But "controversial" means "fascinating," "enjoyable," and "thought-provoking" in my dictionary (Rand wouldn't like that statement because it goes against the idea of one objective truth), so I highly enjoyed The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.

This book isn't just about selfishness; its core idea is rooted in the concept that putting one's own interests above all else allows a society to thrive, but it discusses this in relation to human rights, laizzez-faire capitalism, identity politics, religion, and ethics. It is an incredibly eye-opening read and provides a factual, detailed description of the often-misrepresented concepts of individualism, objectivism, secularism, and libertarianism (though she doesn't use that particular term).

But all of this has little relevance in today's world, right? Because this book is almost sixty years old? While reading, I discovered the answer is exactly the opposite. Despite being penned in 1961, the real-life examples and "current events" issues discussed share a shocking, eery resemblance to many of 2018's hot-button topics. Rand speaks on socialism during the time of Soviet Russia (where she was born):

"What had once been an alleged ideal is now a ragged skeleton rattling like a scarecrow in the wind over the whole world...Fifty years ago, there might have been some excuse (though not justification) for the widespread belief that socialism is a political theory motivated by benevolence and aimed at the achievement of men's well-being. Today, that belief can no longer be regarded as an innocent error. Socialism has been tried on every continent of the globe. In light of its results, it is time to question the motives of socialism's advocates" (Rand 112).

Today, we face a similar situation. There are candidates running for office—even that of the President—who call themselves "Democratic Socialists." Socialism has swept the millennial generation up like a tsunami, and while some young people are managing to swim away, the majority are hypocritical ideologues whose role models are people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. History is being forgotten as we speak; statistics from socialist-leaning nations are being swept under the rug; college classrooms are being led by professors who claim that "real socialism has yet to be tried." Rand sums up the truth quite eloquently in one brief statement:

"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights...No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life" (Rand 113).

 Most disturbingly similar to the present day is her thoughts on college professors:

"Many professors use the Argument from Intimidation to stifle independent thinking among the students, to evade questions they cannot answer, to discourage any critical analysis of their arbitrary assumptions or any departure from the intellectual status quo" (Rand 192).

She then provides a list of common phrases used by "intellectuals" who believe themselves to be superior to all others of a different ideology—phrases such as "only EVIL people would think that..." and "if you believe X, I don't even want to TRY to explain Y"—you know, the everyday stuff you read from blue-checked Buzzfeed journalists on Twitter.

Rand also discusses racism, which—while it was obviously far more prevalent in her time period—is still a hugely touchy subject today. She condemns racism in ALL of its forms—even taking pride in one's race, because it is an immutable characteristic that does not determine anything in regards to one's achievements, talents, or intelligence. She speaks out against the harsh disadvantages faced by minorities in the 60s while also warning her readers of the detriments of the Civil Rights bill, which forces private business owners to not discriminate against customers based on race. This reminded me immediately of the Colorado wedding cake case—if Rand lived in 2018, I'm confident she would side with the Supreme Court on that one. She would agree with those who say that of course the couple has the right to purchase a cake offered to them, and of course it is rather irrational of that baker to deny customers a service that would benefit him financially, but he has a right as an individual to choose to not offer that service.

"The 'civil rights' bill...is another example of a gross infringement of individual rights. It is proper to forbid all discrimination in government-owned facilities and establishments: the government has no right to discriminate against any citizens. And by the very same principle, the government has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others. It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments...Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine—but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law." (Rand 184).

That's how the free market works—you find another baker.

Rand also deeply opposes what is now dubbed "identity politics"—the mentality that places people in groups by their immutable characteristics and assumes unrelated characteristics based on a collectivist mentality. She quotes the New York Times, which states:

"The question must not be whether a group recognizable in color, features or culture has its rights as a group. No, the question is whether any American individual, regardless of color, features or culture, is deprived of his rights as an American. If the individual has all the rights and privileges due him under the laws and the Constitution, we need not worry about groups and masses—those do not, in fact, exist, except as figures of speech" (New York Times).

Additionally, she defends freedom of speech, a concept currently under attack by the left, who have devised the idea of "hate speech." While it is just a moral principle to some, an increasing number of people (again, young people in particular, and I say this as a young person) are beginning to believe that certain speech should be criminalized. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me?" Oh, I guess that's probably considered "racist" or something nowadays. Rand, while still condemning hateful, irrational discrimination, consistently supports the First Amendment:

"Just as we have to protect a communist's freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist's right to the use and disposal of his own property. Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue—and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism" (Rand 184).

Whether you label yourself liberal or conservative (Rand criticizes both sides), religious or atheist (Rand uses neither to describe herself directly, but she is critical of those she calls "mystics" while still defending freedom of religion)—The Virtue of Selfishness is certainly worth reading. Personally, I found myself agreeing with much of her ideas while disagreeing with some as well, but I could still understand her reasoning and arguments for those topics and found them even more fascinating. Her secular, culturally progressive (for her time, at least), economically right-wing, viewpoint is one that is often missing from our present-day dialogue.

The Australian Gun Buyback: A Necessary Evil or Just...Evil?

The concept of placing limitations on the availability of guns versus the civil right to bear arms is one of the most intensely debated topics in the modern world. Everyday citizens and lawmakers alike constantly point fingers at countries other than their own, citing examples of gun laws in these places in order to make a case for their own. Australia is a nation frequently discussed, and one of the most prominent arguments revolves around its infamous “gun buyback.” The facts of this event are often muddled with false claims, emotional responses, and deceitful statistics, however; the true effects of Australia’s gun control laws appear positive on the surface but have actually created issues surpassing the ones that incited their institution.

After a mass shooting in 1996, the Australian government “banned and confiscated guns” (Bader). The program, which is often called a “buyback,” was not voluntary but rather a “mandatory confiscation of firearms, for which citizens were given compensation by the government” (Bader). In other words, gun-owning citizens had no legal choice but to turn over their property, though they did receive monetary recompense. This was finished by 1998, at which time approximately 700,000 weapons had been surrendered (Sarre 4). Accompanying this buyback were new laws regarding gun licensing, registration, storage, and training (Sarre 4). Following the end of the confiscation period, however, over one million new firearms were legally imported (Vendelago et al.).

The 1996 laws were not the last. In November of 2002, the National Handgun Control Agreement was passed, which “limit[ed] the classes of handguns that [could] be imported or possessed for sporting purposes, chang[ed] licensing requirements, and explor[ed] options for a buyback program for those guns now deemed illegal” (Sarre 4). Only months later, the National Handgun Buyback Act of 2003 was ratified by Australia’s federal Parliament (Sarre 4). This law was similar to the 1996 buyback in that it provided financial benefit to those who turned in handguns that had recently become illegal under the Control Agreement (Sarre 4). Approximately 70,000 handguns along with nearly 300,000 parts and accessories were surrendered as a result (Sarre 4).

Eleven years later, a 2014 terrorist attack in Sydney, during which the terrorist “used an illegally held shotgun,” prompted a “gun amnesty” that caused “normal penalties for holding an unlicensed weapon…[to be] waived, as part of an effort to reduce the pool of weapons available to criminals” (“Why Australians”). This program was not a buyback as it did not provide compensation, but it allowed Australian citizens in possession of unregistered, illegal guns to surrender them without criminal punishment. It resulted in Australians “hand[ing] over more than 26,000 illegally held firearms to police” (“Why Australians”). Today, Australian citizens are allowed certain weapons, but the carriers must be licensed, the guns must be registered, and the storage must be approved by the police.

The Prime Minister at the time of the 2003 buyback, John Howard, made choices based on the idea that he could “send a decisive message about the place of guns in a modern civilized society” (Sarre 4). Australians as a whole were mostly supportive of the 2002 and 2003 laws; the main exceptions were a few protesting sport shooters (Sarre 4). In modern Australia, citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of strong gun control, and the majority of politicians have achieved “bipartisan…consensus” (Sarre 4). Most Australians believe that these laws are of the utmost benefit to their country—and with good reason. Researchers have found “reductions in both gun homicide and gun suicide rates that are statistically significant” in correlation with the most recent buyback (Neill and Leigh). Some estimate that the buyback “has saved between 128 and 282 lives per year” (Neill and Leigh). Gun death rates have been falling regularly in Australia for about twenty years; this matches the timeline that began with the initial buyback (Sarre 5). Though the consistent annual decline in total homicide rates, which began before this legislation, has appeared seemingly unaffected by gun control laws, “the share of murders committed with firearms has dropped sharply” (Sarre 5). Australia claims that, unlike other nations, it is “fortunate that the numbers of legal guns in the community [are] manageable, and that authorities have implemented many policies that guard against the risk posed by illegal guns” (Sarre 10). What, then, is the issue?

The statistics not shown by most mainstream media are the numbers that clearly demonstrate that while gun-specific violence has decreased, violence “of every other variety” has escalated (Kirchoff). Critics of Australia’s gun laws believe that this is because “tak[ing] away people’s means of self-defense” means “they can’t defend themselves” (Kirchoff). Reporters, again, state that gun homicide rates have decreased sharply since the changes. However, total homicide rates have declined slowly in the same way they have been for decades (Sarre 5). With basic logic, it is not hard to conclude that because there has been no statistically significant decrease in total homicide rates, some other forms of homicide must be replacing what gun homicides have been lost. As one percentage drops, another percentage grows to fill the gap. 

While it is difficult to find precise data to substantiate what these other causes of homicide might be, it can be assumed that they are occurring because former gun owners now have little to no means of self-protection while criminals still find other ways to attack. Also, “despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since…[the] buyback scheme” of 1996—many of them with guns, because they, oppositions argue, “have always been available to criminals determined to get them” (Vedelago et al.). This is why Australia has made a grave mistake in disarming its law-abiding citizens.

While homicide has continued to decline normally despite these gun control policies, violent crime has been on the rise. According to data published in 2001 by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, Australia’s contact crime victimization rate in 1999 was 4.1%; this number is higher than the sixteen other “industrialized” countries included in the data, including England, Canada, France, the U.S., and others (Kirchoff). The U.S. sat at only 1.9%—the fourth-lowest on the list, despite the claims of many that it ranks much higher (Kirchoff). Robbery rates in particular spiked after both the 1996 and 2003 buybacks, and interestingly, sexual assault rates also saw a sharp increase after 1996 (Kirchoff). Both numbers have steadily declined since the slow reintroduction of legal firearms into the country (Kirchoff). The rates still remain higher than they should be, however, and this could be due in part to the fact that most types of guns are still illegal. Women in particular might find self-defense in cases of sexual assault much easier if they were simply allowed to carry a handgun in public. Non-fatal shootings, despite the guns’ illegality, “have become almost a weekly occurrence,” and “more than 125 people, mostly young men” were wounded by gunshot during a span of just five years (Vedelago et al.). Violent crime “associated with firearm possession” has increased to more than double its previous rates and has been “driven by the easy availability of [guns] that are smuggled into the country or stolen” (Vedelago et al.). These guns “have been used in dozens of…drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping cent[er]s, and roads” (Vedelago et al.). From January 2015 to August 2016, there were ninety-nine shootings, and most of the weapons used in these crimes were “illicit guns that were not turned over during the 1996 gun buyback—a source known as the ‘gray market’” (Vedelago et al.). As of 2017, “police believe there may be as many as 260,000 more unregistered weapons still at large in the country,” despite the efforts by lawmakers to control them (“Why Australians”). These illicit guns are “fueling a wave of violent crime” particularly in the city of Melbourne, which has seen an influx of robberies and drive-by shootings (Vedelago et al.). In the state of New South Wales, on the other hand, legal gun ownership, which requires license and a tedious registry process, has recently increased by 10%, and this has not resulted in any increase in gun-related crime in the region (Kirchoff). All of these statistics stand to prove the argument that the 1996, 2002, 2003, and 2014 gun control laws have done little but harm to Australia.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama and many other American politicians have recently used Australia’s “buyback”—in reality, confiscation—programs as an example for legislation they could implement in their own country (Bader). However, these men and women “almost never mention that the program was compulsory,” which is one of the main reasons that this would not work in a country that honors its citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms (Bader). Today, there is still an enormous amount of firearms in the hands of criminals, but there are also more legally-owned guns in Australia than there were before the 1996 shooting that catalyzed the first buyback—and homicide rates are still on a steady decline (Vedelago et al.; Kirchoff). Australian citizens and lawmakers alike “tout gun control as an achievement,” but the statistics prove otherwise (“New Report”). Strict gun control, these numbers expose, does not “make people safer” but instead, “in most instances…makes people less safe” (“New Report”). Without a doubt, any amount of gun violence, no matter how large or small the number, is a serious issue anywhere. It is clear, however, that the potential “solution” most frequently campaigned by Australians, Americans, and others alike do not and will not create positive change.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

Bader, Jerry. "Debunking the Australia Gun 'Buyback' Narrative, Again." MediaTrackers, Media Trackers, 5 Oct. 2017.

Kirchoff, Courtney. "Australia's Gun Ban Results in More Guns Than Ever...New Findings." Louder With Crowder, Louder With Crowder, 9 Sept. 2015.

Neill, Christine and Andrew Leigh. "Weak Tests and Strong Conclusions: A Re-Analysis of Gun Deaths and the Australian Firearms Buyback." Australian National University Open Research Library, Australian National University, 2007.

"New Report Reveals Just How Badly Australia's Gun Ban Failed." Louder With Crowder, Louder With Crowder, 16 Sept. 2016.

Sarre, Rick. "Gun Control in Australia: A Criminological Perspective." Sales Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, 2015.

Vedelago, Chris, et al. "Gun City: Young, Dumb and Armed." Edited by Patrick O'Neil and Mex Cooper, The Age, Fairfax Media, 2016.

"Why Australians Handed in 26,000 Guns to the Government." PRI's The World, 12 Sept. 2017.