Sep
10
On Rights
Filed Under Civil Liberties | 2 Comments
In a recent column about Western governments’ treatment of terrorists, the incomparable Thomas Sowell writes:
So many “rights” have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don’t meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn’t protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.
First of all, let me say that Dr. Sowell is someone who I greatly admire and with whom I agree a great deal. However, the argument above, while in the context of rightly argued condemnation of the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, is misguided when explaining the nature of rights.
The beauty of the American Revolution and the genius of our founding as a nation was the concept of natural, inalienable rights. These rights exist independent of government and its laws. We institute the government to protect these rights against those who would violate them. Therefore, government exists because of our rights, not the other way around.
To say that rights “derive from explicit laws” is to confirm the worst fears of those who opposed the bill of rights when the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was being debated. Many were worried that if amendments were added guaranteeing our right to free spech or due process, that the bill of rights would be viewed as an exhaustive list, and that rights that were not included on such a list could only be granted at the whim of politicians. To assuage such fears, the 9th Amendment was added, which reads:
The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If we are to concede to the viewpoint that rights can only be valid if endorsed by written laws, then the statists will have the authority to trample individual liberty in countless forms. Constitutions like those of the United States were meant to give explicit rights only to governments; that is governments may only do what is permitted to them by the constitution written by free individuals. Individuals (and state and local governments) hold all other rights.
My right to freedom of speech and worship does not come from the 1st Amendment - it is only codified by it. Likewise for my right to bear arms. However, if we are to operate on the assumption that my rights are only derived from what is explicitly stated in the constitution or by statute, then where is my right to trade and commerce with my fellow citizens? My right to donate to the charity of my choosing? My right to have children? My right to freedom of association and movement?
Nonsense. My right to these things are inherent by virtue of my existent. They are “self-evident.” No law can erase them.
Battles over the right to bear arms have largely focused on the wording and intent of the 2nd Amendment. This too is misguided. The right to personal protection is a natural right given by our creator, and exists regardless of what some law or circuit court says.
That is not to say that Dr. Sowell is incorrect in his assertion that Megrahi’s release was a gross miscariage of justice and an offense to the innocent. Nor that enemy combatants should pay, in many cases harshly and swiftly, for their attacks on our country. However, this is because such individuals, like any petty criminal down the street, did indeed have rights, but that by virtue of their actions they lost them. This is the argument conservatives should use that not only keeps Americans safe and our system of justice intact, but preserves our freedom.
If we fall into the trap that the statist has set that government may do whatever it wants, but that the rights of individuals are restricted to what is spelled out by law, then we have already lost the battle against a leviathan government. Where is the explicit right to property? To dissent? There is none. Nor do we need it to know these rights exist.
Apr
8
Sort of the Right Way…
Filed Under Civil Liberties | Leave a Comment
This week, the state legislature in Vermont overrode a veto to legalize gay marriage through law, as opposed to through a court decision. As a libertarian, I support legalizing gay marriage, and touched on it here. Gay Patriot hailed the veto override as being the “right way” to legalize gay marriage, writing:
While some silly gay marriage advocates see a popular groundswell for gay marriage in court decisions, the vote today of Vermont’s legislature to override Governor Douglas’s veto of legislation providing for state recognition of same-sex unions is the first indication we have that popular opinion could be turning in favor of gay marriage.
Instead of turning to courts, we should be going through legislatures. I believe that is the better way to build a consensus for same-sex marriage as this process may well have shown.
While I believe that legislation is a better means of achieving this end, I still don’t think its the best. The point that needs to be made is that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Like it or not, when you believe that government should prohibit or allow certain types of marriage, you are basically saying that you are only married because the government approved. That is b.s., and I hope everyone realizes it. Nowhere in a charter of government should the use of force be used to regulate voluntary, private associations. If government is no longer sanctioning marriages, then there is not duty to impose certain beliefs on others with whom we disagree.
Feb
16
Gay Mexicans Should Vote Republican
Filed Under Civil Liberties | 3 Comments
Group identity politics seem to be all the rage now, especially with the Democrat Party in charge in Washington. No longer viewed as individuals, people are now seen as members of large, homogeneous groups, rife with societal grievances and ripe for political exploitation. The American population can be split along any lines imaginable in regards to race, skin color, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, geographical distribution, income, occupation, etc.
Many affiliated with the Republican Party see the last two elections as the party’s “failure” to “reach out” to groups in this manner. Much has been made about the impact of the Hispanic vote given recent demographic changes. Immigration and social welfare issues are seen as very important to these groups, and those who espouse collectivist ideals want to tailor the conservative movement to accommodate such groups.
Another growing political trend has been the rise of the gay rights debate. Many have likened the movement to legalize gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
For reasons that are beyond my understanding, the Democrat party has been seen as the allies to immigrant and homosexual rights proponents, while the evil Republicans are seen as the enemies of liberty to these disadvantaged groups.
Regarding the issues of gay rights and immigration, I am a strict libertarian. Regarding the former, I cannot see how being homosexual is harming anyone else, and therefore do not support laws discriminating against it. As for marriage, I don’t believe it is any of the government’s business.
When it comes to immigration, I believe that it is not government’s job to manage demographics over a given geographical area (in other words, immigration quotas), nor is it a function of the state to manage our ‘culture’. As long as you are not a criminal, terrorist, or have an extremely dangerous communicable disease, come on in. Just don’t live off of my dime (which will be the idea of this post). Coyoteblog has a very good piece concerning immigration here.
Arguing my side of these two points would be more than this post is intended for. What this post is meant to do is illustrate that both the Democrat and Republican parties are enemies to the freedoms of gays and immigrants, and that people who already agree with me should vote for the lesser of two evils and for what will realistically bring about the reforms we support. So, if I grouped people into political identities instead of free-thinking individuals, I would, as my (I think rather catchy) title says, urge that gay Mexicans should vote Republican.
It’s easy to say the Republican party is against gay rights and immigration. Democrats are generally for relaxing immigration standards, while Republicans are generally for strict immigration enforcement and sometimes reducing immigration altogether. Proponents of legalizing gay marriage tend to be Democrats or liberals, whereas Republicans oppose gay marriage and support a constitutional ban.
The first thing I can’t stand is why Democrats seem to have the default support of immigrant and gay-rights groups when they differ very little from Republicans. For instance, as this article points out, all of the major 2008 Democrat presidential candidates opposed gay marriage, although they supported civil unions. Then-candidate Barack Obama:
“When you’re a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it’s like to be on the outside,” said the Illinois senator at the nationally televised forum in Hollywood. “And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.”
The love may have been flowing at a forum specifically for gay rights, but political realities bogged down Obama when he actually became president. Homosexual blogger Perez Hilton lamented Obama’s decision to cut out of an HBO broadcast a prayer by a gay bishop and also to invite Rick Warren to attend the inauguration. Over a picture of Obama, the blogger scribbled “He’ll let u down too.”
While such politically-motivated moves may shock gays who are liberals like Perez Hilton, it doesn’t shock conservatives or libertarians like me. We realize that statists like the Democrat party employ a strategy of lumping people into groups, promising them things in order to gain power, and rob freedom from everyone, including the groups they claim they’re helping.
Another dark side of statism is that it gives legitimacy to government control of things like marriage and immigration, because costly social welfare programs give the federal government a vested interest in restricting such things. Case in point, the rise of welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security have only strengthened the argument to limit the amount of people eligible for American citizenship and equal recognition under the law.
I understand that xenophobia has always and will always exist. However, as civilization progresses, we begin to become more tolerant and see people as individuals, not as members of stereotypical groups whose needs and qualities are all alike. Then how are issues like immigration and gay marriage still significant in modern political discourse?
Take immigration, for example. In a completely free country with a government as the constitution intended, citizenship would mean little more than where you lived. The only argument against open immigration would be that some ethnic groups are undesirable. As I said, such a xenophobic stance has become less and less popular. But what legitimizes an argument towards limiting immigration? Massive (and massively expensive) government entitlement programs like welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security, all programs supported by the statist Democrat party. We cannot expect citizens who have been paying into such programs for decades to accept immigrants taking benefits after being here for a fraction of the time. Not only is it not right morally, it is not fiscally feasible. Libertarians like me cannot accept open immigration, as it would bankrupt taxpayers. The Republicans are completely right when they say that immigration restriction and reform are top priorities. Without governmental largess created by Democrats, there would be no need to restrict these freedoms, and xenophobic policies would begin to politically ring hollow in a nation of immigrants. LBJ and FDR did more to restrict immigration than Tom Tancredo could ever hope to.
The argument that Democrat big-government programs are an enemy to civil rights causes is even more blunt when dealing with gay marriage. The error of gay-marriage proponents, with whom I agree, is that their strategy is to make gay marriage acceptable in society. Unfortunately, not only do we have no right to force our viewpoints on others, such a task is not plausible. A Quinnipiac University poll gave the following three choices:
1. Same-sex couples should be allowed legally to marry
2. Same-sex couples should be allowed legally to form civil unions but not marry
3. Same-sex couples should not be allowed to obtain legal recognition of their relationships
The results of the poll show that 62% opposed legalizing gay marriage. The respondents had varying degrees of support for a either a constitutional ban on gay marriage or allowing some civil rights to gay couples. However, these are all the wrong questions. The question should be why the hell the government has a vested interest in who the hell gets married anyway. That answer is simple - Social Security.
Social security not only pays disability, unemployment, and a contributor’s own retirement benefits, it will also pay spousal benefits. In the event of a spouse’s death, the survivor will receive either their own benefit amount, or half that of their deceased spouse’s, whichever is greater. Because of government control of retirement, the feds have a vested interest in what kinds of relationships are recognized as marriage.
Take the following example: There are two relationships, one homosexual, the other heterosexual. In each, one member makes a very good living at their job, so that the other one has no need to work and devotes their time to a local charity and has no reported earnings. After 30 years of marriage, the high-earning member dies in a car accident. The difference between the two relationships? Well, under the current system that the Democrats favor, while the heterosexual survivor would receive half of their spouse’s benefit to live on, the homosexual survivor would be out of luck and the government would pocket their partner’s sizable contributions. If the government would get out of the business of running people’s retirements and left it to private accounts, similar to what Republican George W. Bush tried to implement, the homosexual earner could have designated their partner as the beneficiary in case of death. In a 401(k), you can designate whomever you wish as a payee if you kick off, including your mother, brother, dog, live-in girlfriend, or even a charity. With Social Security? No dice.
But wait, wail the “progressives,” if we legalized gay marriage, wouldn’t that get rid of the problem? Yes, but as that poll cited earlier, its going to be a bit of a stretch politically. The truth of the matter is that that which you give the government control of will also be under the control of whoever is in power and the political whims of the day. It’s all well and good when your guy is in power, but it won’t always be that way. A much wiser policy is to give others, government included, as little control over your own life and earnings as possible.
In the cases of both immigration and gay rights, Republicans are the party of less government control. The knee jerk reaction of freedom advocates, from libertarians like myself and progressives, may be to try to change the view of the world. But that is not a prudent course. It is best to allow a system where people are allowed control over themselves, and themselves alone. While Republicans may be doing things for reasons we disagree, they may be the right course of action after all.
Postscript: Pajamas Media had a great piece explaining why Dick Cheney was the most pro-gay VP in history. In the article, he is quoted as saying:
We live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We shouldn’t be able to choose and say you get to live free and you don’t. That means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s no one’s business in terms of regulating behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction of the relationships or if they should be treated the same as a traditional marriage. … I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. … We ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.
I guess those evil Republicans (even Cheney!) aren’t so bad, are they?
Jan
19
Over the weekend I saw Gran Torino starring libertarian Clint Eastwood. I went in with high expectations and must say they were met. It had everything a good movie should - drama, comedy, good characters, and creative profanity. But what was best was how the movie soundly repudiated the liberal themes that permeate a lot of mainstream cinema today. Gran Torino is chock full of pro-American, pro-military, pro-gun messages, all centering around a politically-incorrect protagonist who regularly throws out racial epithets.
The short version of the film is the story of Walt, an older, white Korean War veteran whose neighborhood is becoming increasingly populated by younger and poorer Asian immigrants. Originally hostile towards his new neighbors (the term ‘gook’ is used frequently throughout), he befriends a young teenage boy named Thao who lives next door. Walt becomes a good influence on Thao and shows him how to work, find a job, and curse with the best of ‘em. However, some of Thao’s family are members of a gang and want him to join, trying to take him by force if necesarry. The movie follows Walt’s attempts to protect Thao from the gang, using scorching profanity, violence, and his constitutionally-protected right to bear arms.
The most obvious anti-liberal theme in Gran Torino is its depiction of gun ownership. The film accurately portrays the reality of the gun situation in the real world. Both Walt and the gang bangers use, store, and own guns in ways many liberals would love to outlaw. But who would benefit from this? The criminals, of course, who would never follow such a law in the first place. As pro-gun advocates have maintained, gun laws only harm the innocent by disarming law-abiding citizens.
Secondly, the movie puts to rest the absurd liberal argument that gun ownership breeds violence. The mantra guns don’t kill people, people kill people rings true. Violent people will be violent whether they use guns, knives, sticks, or stones. Remember, the most heinous murder in modern American history was committed with box cutters and airplanes. We’re not going to outlaw those, are we? It is the gun that makes equal the physical disparity between a muscular twenty something gang member and a frail, 68 year old retiree. If left unchecked, barbarians will steal and assault at will. It is consequences that prevent thugs from committing violence, and there are few things like an armed and self-defensive populace to bring about consequences.
A theme in Gran Torino I also liked was the method by which two cultures meshed, that being the culture of the Hmong immigrants and the native Michigander, Walt. While liberals would prefer legislation, banking regulations, and demonizing western culture as the source of all evil as a method of cultural reconciliation, the film shows how even the most stubborn people can mesh over common values like family, hard work, accountability, and good food. Thao doesn’t earn Walt’s trust by berating him on the evils of the white race or American exceptionalism. No, he does this by showing his respect for elders and his work ethic. Likewise, Walt does not come to be accepted among Thao’s family by apologizing for his patriotism, military service, or political-incorrect vernacular. He does this by standing in solidarity against violent thugs, of any race, and by partaking in the delicious Hmong cuisine that the family leaves at his doorstep.
Finally, it’s worth noting a little jab that Gran Torino takes at those who would antagonize our military and glorify collectivist dictators abroad. Begrudging the escalating racial tension in his community, Walt asks Thao’s sister, Sue, how the Hmong people ended up in suburban Detroit. She explains that when in Southeast Asia, the Hmong were anti-communist and supported the Americans. When the U.S. withdrew, the communists began slaughtering the Hmong people. She then explains that the Lutherans were instrumental in bringing many Hmong people to the U.S.
So let’s get this right, communism: bad, religious-right types: good? Definitely not your typical Hollywood mantra.
Political dissection aside, Gran Torino is an awesome flick. Its a lot of fun, and it makes you think. It also gives me hope that I’ll be as spry as Clint Eastwood when I’m 78. Get out and see it, and take your liberal friends!
