Editor’s note: This is the second in a two-part series about the Government of the Student Body.

I’m going to make you an offer you can’t refuse.

Give me $10, and I’ll give you a $9 pizza you can eat at 7:30 p.m. tonight only. If you can’t make it or if you don’t like my choice of toppings, you’re out of luck, and I’m keeping your other dollar for myself regardless.

Sounds like a great deal, right?

If you don’t think so, and if you’d rather keep your money, let’s talk about abolishing the Government of the Student Body. The offer I just made defines what GSB is doing – taking your money and giving a portion back indirectly and with restrictions.

The only political theory advocating GSB’s existence is self-defeatism. Economic liberals justify government-run programs on the premise that taxes are extracted progressively – that is, the bigger one’s bank account, the more one pays. In practice, it amounts to paying $5 for that $9 pizza with the rest of your portion paid by rich people. I don’t advocate this position, but it must be noted as the only commonly-held, applicable justification for taxation. And with GSB it isn’t even the case, as everyone pays in an equal amount and all the wasteful bureaucracy happens anyway.

With no justification for its existence, problems in GSB quickly emerge. Of its $1.46 million budget, over $143,000 is skimmed off the top for bureaucratic purposes. That’s about 10 percent down the drain before any money is returned to students.

A close inspection of allocated funds shows much of it is poorly distributed, going to individuals for out-of-state conference trips, for example. Why should our money be pooled to give a few people a big experience?

That’s not for the “collective good,” but rather a benefit for people who know how to work the system at everyone else’s expense.

Furthermore, GSB has internal power struggles. One senator asked me last semester to write a column about alleged abuse of the executive branch. The senator felt I was more qualified to represent a GSB voice on a GSB-created problem than any mechanism within GSB. Talk about irony.

If GSB members can’t represent themselves, how can they represent us? Only one action fulfills representation of an issue: speaking one’s mind. If that’s too difficult, one would have to explain a position to a GSB senator anyway. And that senator may misinterpret the concern, be busy, forget or poorly represent a stance contrary to his or her own. This strategy of channeling one’s voice through an intermediary is ineffective by design.

GSB’s existence isn’t justified by economic argument nor by the need for “student representation.” To the contrary, it is stifling to both. Still, there are those who point to GSB’s good projects, such as a recycling program. If such programs were removed, they say, it would be a bad thing. I agree. But such programs could be replaced and would be stronger as a result.

Consider how students already recycle. Many dorm floors have collection bins for this purpose.

My floor at Towers did, and it had nothing to do with GSB. Student groups such as Protectors of the Planet recycle cans and bottles from the Hub and donate the money to the Emergency Residence Project. With GSB out of the way, people and organizations would fill in the gaps and complete projects more efficiently.

Among 25,000 students, there are bound to be many environmentalists, and if we are to believe GSB members aren’t involved to pad their resumes, wouldn’t they be participating anyway? Otherwise they’re just getting in the way of people who genuinely care.

GSB cannot be reformed. It’s built on a flawed platform that prevents students from fully realizing their own capabilities.

Let us have the courage to eliminate GSB.

Let us trust in student ingenuity and, above all, be confident in ourselves.

– Nicolai Brown is a senior in linguistics from Okoboji.