In his inauguration speech two weeks ago, President Obama mentioned that “our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it,” echoing the view of many liberals that income inequality is problematic and unfair in our society.

In the midst of the clamor for wealth redistribution and yet more progressive taxation, almost no one has stood up to defend the wealthy and the enormous productivity it often takes to achieve their status.

Actually, income inequality is among the noblest aspects of a free society: It reflects the fact that productive geniuses, who enhance our standard of living, are not robbed of their effort and are allowed to rise to their highest potential. In short, income inequality is chiefly the result of justice.

I do not care to speculate on the motives of those who would penalize the successful in the name of “fairness.” Let me just say this: No one is harmed by the mere fact of her neighbor having more income or wealth.

Income inequality does not create social instability — except perhaps in a statist or feudal regime where wealth disparities might arise due to corruption. In the laissez-faire society I advocate, where the government does nothing but protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, it is impossible to legally acquire wealth via the use of force.

Others claim that income inequality undermines the “American Dream.” A recent study by the Congressional Research Service is often cited as having shown that income inequality undermines social mobility, since it makes it unlikely that people are able to improve their position in the distribution of income. For instance, the 5 percent lowest income group is likely to stay in the 5 percent lowest income group.

This argument is misleading for two reasons. Firstly, it relies upon the erroneous view of wealth as being a fixed “pie” that is distributed among the population. Secondly, the focus on social mobility in the distribution of income, i.e. relative social mobility, is a red herring. What matters is absolute social mobility, which refers to the ability to improve one’s standard of living.

The view of wealth as a fixed sum that is divided among citizens is so short-sighted that it is difficult to believe it persists in 21st century society. Such a view drops the context of wealth creation and looks solely at the product — the wealth that currently exists.

But wealth arises out of the free, independent effort and thought of men and women pursuing their values — such as by scientists doing research to discover better medicines, software engineers developing more efficient programs, and farmers figuring out how to provide ever greater quantities of higher-quality food. As Ayn Rand once said, “wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think.” (For the New Intellectual)
It is clear, then, that wealth is not a zero-sum game. Everyone can benefit from the wealth creation of others, as it raises the standard of living in society. So the greater wealth production of others, and resulting income inequality, does not imply that the rich are taking away opportunities for the poor to create or receive wealth. In fact, the opposite is often true, such as when entrepreneurship creates employment opportunities.

Similarly, the focus on relative vs. absolute social mobility amounts to an attempt to transform productiveness and value-creation into a twisted competition; in other words, it does not matter whether you are better off than you were before (or better off than your parents) — it matters only if you succeeded in being wealthier than others.

This was never the American Dream. People fled the poverty, oppression and stagnation of the Old World because of the political freedom that the United States offered: the freedom from coercion by the government. This meant, with a few unfortunate exceptions, that no coercive mechanisms existed that could prevent a person from reaping the full rewards of her skill and effort — not for the sake of the monarch, or the Church or the “common good.” Because of this, wealth-creation was able to flourish.

The American Dream does not mean a guarantee of economic welfare (which could only be provided at the expense of others), and it does not mean attempting to be richer than others for its own sake. It means that people are politically free to search for opportunities to improve their lives, and create them.

This is the noble ideal that President Obama assaulted in his speech. This is what we must defend to establish a truly free society.

TRISTAN DE LIEGE can be reached at tflenaerts@ucdavis.edu.

Here at the University of California, students are living in interesting times.
After nearly a billion dollars in state funding cuts and a doubling of tuition in just five years, 2013 looks to deliver at least a moment of relief for students and their families. The
Governor has proposed a moderate funding increase to the UC, and as a result, for the first
time in years, tuition will be frozen in 2013-14.

We didn’t get here overnight. The Occupy Movement, the huge student response to
police brutality at UC Davis and UC Berkeley, a 10,000 student march in March 2012, and
hundreds of lobby visits and rallies all brought us to this moment. And most recently, with
the assistance of online voter registration, students turned out to vote in higher numbers in
2012 than ever before, helping provide the margin of victory for Proposition 30.

Yet it is clear that our work has only just begun. This brief moment of relief has not brought with it a long-term solution to the crisis in higher education. The reality on our campuses is still unacceptable: skyrocketing student debt, unaffordable tuition especially for middle class
families, inadequate student support services, overcrowded classes and cuts to courses,
departments, faculty and staff.

While Gov. Brown has pledged regular 5 percent funding increases over the next four years, this isn’t nearly enough to keep up with rising costs or backfill years of deep cuts. The
UC system receives roughly a billion dollars less than we did in 2006, and costs continue
to shoot up rapidly every year. If nothing changes, it is only a matter of time before the
crushing reality of annual tuition increases returns.

For this reason, students welcome the Governor’s newfound interest in the UC system with great hope and excitement. We also know that funding cuts are only part of the problem.

Similar to the Governor’s recent call for greater “modesty” and “elegance” at the UC,
students have long raised questions and concerns about internal UC operations.

At a time when students are being asked to give more and more, Californians expect the UC to take a hard look at executive compensation, sharing profits across the system, and more
cost effective ways to accomplish our core goals of instruction and research. UC executives
should be paid less, and in some cases, faculty may need to teach more.

Unfortunately, the Governor’s actions on the UC have not yet matched his rhetoric. The
two areas of “reform” that he has touted as solutions are a “unit cap,” which is based on
the misguided view that many UC students are staying too long by choice, and a $10
million earmark for “online education.” While experimenting with online education may be
worthwhile, it is dubious that it will bring either significant cost savings or a new instructional
model that meets long held quality standards.

We would expect more from a Governor who is clearly interested in making waves. Unit
caps and online education seem like mostly hype, and disconnected from the challenges
and barriers we face on a daily basis.

If the Governor wants true transformation of the UC, he will find willing partners in UC
students, as long as this transformation enhances quality, access and affordability rather
than further degrades it.

And if the Governor truly wants to protect the greatness of our public university system, he must talk not just about reform, but also about the need for enhanced long-term funding.

There is no other way to ensure access and affordability for every qualified California
student in the coming decades.

The UC remains drastically underfunded, and we need the Governor to advocate for new
revenue devoted to public higher education, including exploring an oil severance tax,
Prop. 13 reform and shifting funds from our still overcrowded prison system. Without new
revenue, we can be sure that students will continue to be asked to foot the bill.

With President Yudof stepping down and five openings for new appointees to the Board of Regents, the time is now. After years of playing defense, students hope to join the Governor
in going on the offensive, including ensuring that students have a major role in selecting a
new UC President and new Regental appointments that bring the experience needed to lead
the UC in the 21st century.

Students may have received a moment of relief in 2013, but we know from experience that without real action, it will be short. Our future, quite literally, depends on it.

RAQUEL MORALES is the UC Student Association president and a senior at UC San Diego. She can be reached at UCSA.org.

Today, we return to one of my favorite topics: sex toys. And no, they’re not my favorite for the reason you’re thinking (and people say my mind is in the gutter). I love researching and reading about sex toys because to me, they highlight just how diverse and creative human sexual desire can be. Scrolling through pages filled with all manner of objects designed to tease and titillate, you realise that each one was created because someone, somewhere, found it pleasing.

Now, I covered sex toys in a column last year, and I don’t want this article to be a rehash of the same info. However, I do want to re-visit two myths commonly associated with sex toys. First, they are not restricted only to women. Regardless of your anatomy or your gender identity, there is a sex toy out there that you can use if you so desire. Second, they are not only for the frustrated, the lonely or the perverse. There is nothing deviant or “sad” in experimenting with new ways to please yourself or enhance the sex you have with a partner.

Depending on who you talk to, a sex toy can be anything from a “bullet” vibrator to a flogger made of recycled bike tires. So, I’m going to get academic on you for a moment and define my terms. For today, a sex toy is any object manufactured to provide erotic pleasure that is primarily used in the genital region. With that out of the way, we can focus on two dimensions to consider when picking out a sex toy: what it’s made of and its shape/size.

Most sex toys you encounter are going to be made of either a soft, “jelly” material, hard plastic or silicone. Jelly-like materials are more elastic, and therefore good if you’re not sure what size you need. However, the fact that they’re porous means that they’re difficult to clean effectively (it’s highly recommended that you use a condom every time on jelly toys), and they break down faster than other materials do. The other “soft” toy options are those made from elastomer, which is still inexpensive but more durable than jelly (many masturbation “sleeves” are made from this).

Plastic toys are what you’re likely to encounter when looking at relatively inexpensive vibrators. Harder plastics tend to create more intense sensations when they vibrate, which some people find thrilling but others find overwhelming.

Silicone toys are generally the most popular for several reasons. They’re hypoallergenic and non-porous, meaning that they can be easily cleaned with soap and water. Silicone is also very durable and adapts to body temperature quickly, making it more comfortable to use and a better investment (particularly if it’s an expensive/fancy toy). And, silicone toys tend to exhibit the most variety in terms of texture, with varying degrees of curves, bumps and ridges.

Speaking of curves and bumps, the next detail to consider when picking out your toy is the shape. Now, to make an educated choice, you’ll want to be at least a little bit familiar with your own body. Which areas of your anatomy generate the most pleasure when touched? Is there anywhere you find sensations too intense to be comfortable? If the toy’s being inserted or you’re inserting something into it, is there a size that feels just right?

If you don’t know the answers to these questions, I recommend getting in (ahem) touch with yourself to figure them out. Feel free to get a helping hand from that certain someone, if you’re so inclined. Once you’ve got a sense of what you like, you can pick out a toy whose shape/size hits all your good spots.

If I’ve piqued your interest in sex toys, I want to recommend a few places to start your search. If you prefer to buy online, both Babeland.com and Goodvibes.com have a huge selection and provide information and how-to guides. If you feel like a field trip, Good Vibrations also has several locations in San Francisco and the East Bay Area (the staff is very friendly and knowledgeable).

Regardless of where you go, if you’re at all interested in sex toys I suggest you check out these resources. Because no matter how you get off, and what you and those you sleep with like to do to each other, there is a toy out there that fits your needs.

SAM WALL would rather not say how many puns she avoided writing this column, but you can email her at sewall@ucdavis.edu if you have other questions. Her earlier column can be found at theaggie.org/2012/01/31/column-good-vibrations.

“I’ve never really been one for the preservation of money/ Nah, I much rather spend it all while I’m breathing.”

I culled this little gem from a brilliant Drake song that popped up in my music player’s shuffle today.

I’ve probably mentioned Drake a handful of times in past columns, so let me set the record straight: I am in no way a Drake fan. Or at least, I can never admit to being one. I guess I only bring him up because I’m familiar with his lyrics and persona to a better degree than most other mainstream artists. Or whatever the kids are into these days.

I guess you can think of it as an ironic “Hey I listen to Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, but I also listen to Drake so I must be pretty diverse in my music tastes” sort of air.

Back on topic, Drake brings up a rather interesting point: Which is the better stance to take in regard to handling your money? Is it better to save up for a rainy day? Or to spend it all right here, right now?

Looking it at from a pessimist’s view, it’s probably better to just spend it while you’re still alive and kickin’. After all, you could feasibly die at any moment, and then where would all your earnings go? Certainly not to you! All those hours slaved behind the coffee press at Starbucks will go straight down the drain.

On the other hand, living paycheck to paycheck sucks. Going out to the bars after payday may seem like a good idea at first, but without a little restraint, your two weeks of work can be blown in an entire night.

I think most of us have felt the crippling effects of having a bank account in which you don’t even have enough money to make the bare minimum withdrawal from the ATM machine ($20). I know I have. In a sense, it’s the college lifestyle that is expected of us. But the real world is at our doorstep. Practicing intelligent and sensible money management early on could prove to be incredibly useful for the future.

Again, it all boils down to moderation and striking the right balance. Live a little bit some days, but always be sure to have a bit tucked away in your back pocket.

Saving your money in a sock stuffed into a suitcase is a novel start, but isn’t exactly the brightest of ideas. With inflation, the value of those miserable Lincolns (all rolled up uncomfortably together in that fetid gym sock) will slowly but surely shrink. Inflation is the reason why you can’t buy six pieces of Chicken McNuggets for a dollar any more.

A more viable option is to keep your money in the form of stocks, though they aren’t as liquid as currency (paper money/coins). A well-researched stock pick will keep its value better in the long run as you’ll receive dividends or earnings over time.

Another option is a Certificate of Deposit (CD), if you have larger amounts of money to store. The yields may not be as high as stocks, but stocks do run the risk of losing value. At least with a CD, you’ll earn a steady interest rate, which should offset the effects of inflation.

Of course, these are just ideas that I’m spitballing and I’m in no way the local expert when it comes to these matters. I took a “Banking and Financial Institutions” course and got a B in it. I also own a couple of stocks that I purchased with money set aside from work. I should therefore retain a smidgen of credibility.

When life comes a-knockin’, you don’t want to be caught with your pants down. If you get a ticket or get into an accident, you’re probably going to regret leading the YOLO lifestyle for the past couple of months. Get one less Wicky a week or one less coffee, and instead pool those dollars that you saved into a safer, spend-free spot.

Even if it is just in a sock.

But it’d be better if it were in a stock.

Just please no, not on rock (cocaine).

ANDREW POH actually just took a pretty big hit in the stock market. If you have any good ideas for safe, low-risk companies to invest in, let him know at apoh@ucdavis.edu.

On top of paying tens of thousands of dollars to study at this school, reside in this city and actively live in this college town, students are unfairly charged for on-campus amenities that they already subscribe to.

Take, for example, parking on campus. Yes, we obviously have the complaints about unwarranted tickets and ridiculous fines issued by Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS). Yes, we’ve been told that the high fee of $130 for a quarter-long parking pass is to discourage the use of motor vehicles. Yes, we purposely wait until 10 p.m. to drive to the ARC to avoid paying $7 to park. Being able to park free on the weekends is a blessing.

But when there are special events held on the weekends at venues like the ARC Pavillion or the Mondavi Center, all of a sudden no one is exempt from paying $7 to park on campus, even when it’s to attempt to use the elliptical for a measly 25 minutes or pay for an official transcript.

As students, we’re already technically paying for the facilities we use or plan to use or acknowledge and never step foot in. Sure, we may complain that we can’t go to the gym during the day because we’re too lazy to bike and parking isn’t free until 10 p.m., but on the weekends, we have no excuse. Until all of a sudden being a starving student who has no intention of watching a cheer competition isn’t enough of a reason to avoid the fee.

Rarely we’ll come across an understanding parking monitor who lets us park for free just to get to work at a building next to where the special event takes place. Let us avoid giving each other evil glares as we reverse our car out of the lot, because we have a solution.

Now that the majority of us don’t have the privilege of swiping into a dining commons, our student ID cards have little use, until now. The flash of a UC Davis student ID card should be reason enough to be exempt from paying to park on the weekends. Let the cheer moms fork over the cash and return home to a home-cooked meal while we spend the money we would’ve had to use on paying for a week’s worth of cereal.