Nov
4
Moving Forward
Filed Under Conservatism | Leave a Comment
Last night’s elections were good news for recovering conservatives: Christie in NJ, McDonnell in VA, and Hoffman barely loses on a third party ticket to the Democrat endorsed by the party-money-taking RINO Scozzafava. The races, especially in the case of NY-23, have brought about a lot of chatter about how the GOP should move forward, how it can remain viable and principled, and what level of moderation we should be willing to accept in places where conservatives are typically not found.
AOSHQ had some thoughts on the future of the Republican party and the supposed conflict between conservatives and moderates:
I do not think these two camps are as far apart as their proponents seem to think. It is often the case that maximalists accuse, or suggest, that pragmatists aren’t interested in electing more conservative candidates, or of supporting more conservative primary challengers to confirmed RINOs. And it often the case that pragmatists (including myself) seem to talk as if the maximalists are unaware that a Tom Coburn type candidate wouldn’t fare so well in liberal New Jersey or arch-Democratic Maryland.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Mike Flynn at Big Government that fiscal, and not social conservatism will be the real divining rod in the politics of the future (emphasis mine):
This year, the Washington Post—the most effective arm of the Virginia Democrat Party—thought it found the silver bullet to kill the gubernatorial campaign of republican Bob McDonnell. They unearthed a 20-year old thesis McDonnell wrote in college that contained some pretty embarrassing statements–at least by today’s standards—about whether, for example, families are better off if the wife doesn’t work outside the home. The Democrats based almost their entire campaign, and the Post based most of its coverage, on McDonnell’s thesis. It must chill them to the bone that McDonnell is set to win by one of the larger margins in state history. It isn’t that the public, or even McDonnell today, agrees with what’s in the thesis; they just don’t care.
Conservatives, independents, and libertarian-leaning Republicans like myself will often be determining their support on fiscal issues, and I think that fiscal conservatism is something that can win nearly everywhere. I will not, however, join the chorus of bashing the “religious right” and looking to cast out a very important segment of the party. Nor will I, as Ace warned in his post, push my unorthodox positions (pro drug legalization and pro gay rights) as electoral winners. They are my positions, and I can try to persuade others to agree with me to the full extent of my ability, but I will not claim that they are viable political tools. As the Maine results showed, support for traditional marriage is still popular, even in liberal leaning states. And many who take an individualist or libertarian view on the issues are pro-life, which is where I stand.
I understand that there will need to be varying degrees of political positions for Republicans throughout the country. However, there must be a brand that voters can identify and count on in our party. We must stand for something, but we cannot stand for anything. Arlen Specterand Dede Scozzafava have no place on our side.
So where do we draw the line? We needn’t be open to everything, essentially political whores who see our next John in every voting block. Nor must we be the extremist caricature that the media paints conservatives to be. I think there are certain principles that every Republican in the country can and should support, which give voters a clear and consistent choice in contrast with the socialist Democrats, while still inclusive enough to win elections and, ya know, actually do something. Every Republican candidate in the country should believe that:
- The size of government should not be increased - We may disagree with what the ideal size of government should be. Some believe it is a hedge that needs trimming. I think it is a pit viper that should be strangled. However, we can agree that the whole thing is too damn big as it is, and no more should be added. That means no to Obamacare and the stimulus. Republicans can disagree to a lot of things while still holding to this maxim.
- All things being equal, the people who earn the money should be the ones to spend it and will do so better than the government can.
- Whatever path society follows in the future, government should be neutral. Government should be reffing the game, not calling the plays.
- The three branches of government should stick to their roles prescribed by the founders, especially in regards to the judiciary.
- The United States should have the most powerful military in the world, as deterrence through strength is the surest path to peace. Liberal democracies have a natural bond that should not be shunned in international relations. The United States is not perfect, but overall has played a positive and liberating role in history. The United States was a victim on September 11, 2001, not a perpetrator. There is NO excuse for terrorism, nor any apology necessary for our self defense. The 9/11 attacks were not meant to be a solitary event - they were not the beginning of Al-Quaeda’s war on the United States, and they were not the end (can you hear me Ron Paul?).
In addition, with Obama’s clowns in office, this period will present a great oppurtunity to the GOP to pick off the low hanging fruit - things like transparency, honesty, ethics, and competence. All around winners.
To borrow from our Dear Leader, let me be clear. The stakes of losing elections, even for the sake of purity, are very high. However, we can not elect RINO candidates whose only accomplishment is to put GOP fingerprints on legislative clusterfucks like Medicare Part D, NCLB, TARP and Obamacare, allowing us to be indicted when these things inevitably blow up in America’s face. There can be room for dissent on issues, but we must offer a choice, not an echo.
Jun
15
Waves of Freedom
Filed Under Libertarianism | 10 Comments
This article at Reason discussed the efforts of Patri Friedman (Dad: David, Grandad: Milton) to establish anarcho-capitalist/libertarian societies at sea. The idea is to finally establish a place where libertarians and/or anarchists can live without the constrains of big government, without the hassle of political revolution or armed confrontation with standing armies over land already under government jurisdiction. The societies would most likely be made on platforms installed in international waters, and possibly mobile so as to allow competition among sea states. Friedman argues for “I’m taking my ball and going home” solutions to traditional political activism:
Libertarians, he says, expend precious time and energy on truly and self-evidently impossible paths toward political change. “Like the Ron Paul movement,” he says. “Lots of libertarians’ effort and millions and millions directed in a way that’s hopeless! For real change [electoral politics is] totally hopeless. Think how much more likely to succeed [libertarians would be] if that amount of resources were put into something that could actually work.” By which he means seasteading. And you have to admit: When you compare it to the likelihood of creating a libertarian world through American politics, seasteading starts to look more and more sensible.
The article listed a few examples of “Seasteading” that have been tried in the past, but with one glaring omission: The Principality of Sealand. I came upon Sealand’s wikipedia entry a while ago, and the whole idea seemed like something I would do when I finally achieve my goal of being a wealthy and eccentric old man. While hardly a libertarian endeavour (Sealand had a hereditary monarch and all laws were by decree), it did manage to coin its own currency and print some stamps. From the article, the most interesting part of Sealand’s colorful history is the 1978 ‘forcible takeover’:
In 1978, while Bates was away, Alexander Achenbach, who describes himself as the Prime Minister of Sealand, and several German and Dutch citizens staged a forcible takeover of Roughs Tower,[9] holding Bates’ son Michael captive, before releasing him several days later in the Netherlands.[citation needed] Bates thereupon enlisted armed assistance and, in a helicopter assault, retook the fort. He then held the invaders captive, claiming them as prisoners of war.[10] Most participants in the invasion were repatriatedat the cessation of the “war”, but Achenbach, a German lawyer who held a Sealand passport, was charged with treasonagainst Sealand,[9] and was held unless he paid DM 75,000 (more than US$ 35,000).[11] The governments of the Netherlands and Germany petitioned the British government for his release, but the United Kingdom disavowed all responsibility, citing the 1968 court decision.[citation needed]Germany then sent a diplomat from its London embassy to Roughs Tower to negotiate for Achenbach’s release. Roy Bates relented after several weeks of negotiations and subsequently claimed that the diplomat’s visit constituted de factorecognition of Sealand by Germany.[9]Following his repatriation, Achenbach established a “government in exile” in Germany,[9]in opposition to Roy Bates, assuming the name “Chairman of the Privy Council”. He handed the position to Johannes Seiger in 1989 because of illness. Seiger continues to claim—via his website—that he is Sealand’s legitimate ruling authority.[12]
The whole thing is kind of a mess, but I would love to meet the people who participated in all of this. Here is the nation in all its glory:
While the entire concept of seasteading is an interesting one, there are a few things that I would want to point out. First, I did not like how libertarianism and anarchism are used interchangeably in the Reason article. They are not synonymous, and I am not an anarchist, and not even a true-blue libertarian (I think of myself more as libertarian-leaning, a fellow traveller if you will). I also think that if such a colony were to be established to the extent that Friedman wishes, some government somewhere would find a way to oppress it sooner or later.
However, I have no doubt that the unrestrained innovation a marine colony would allow could overcome many of the logistical problems posed by such a venture. Also, I like the idea of a mobile citizenry, effectively able to “shop” for the government that best suits their needs.
Most importantly, the fact that advocates of freedom would be willing and able to move elsewhere to establish their type of society, I think, shows the moral authority inherent in libertarianism and capitalism over statism and socialism. Folks like myself are simply advocating for an order where individualism, commerce, and private property are not forcibly infringed on by government. If such a society were to exist, there would not be any obstacles for people to live communally and share property and resources if they wish. I have no doubt such places would develop. All we want is the abolition of force. A libertarian country could easily tolerate a socialist community within its borders. However, there is no room for a libertarian sect within socialism and communism. The state has implemented collective practices, like the Social Security Administration, and I am not able to opt out if that is my choice. I am forced to contribute my property to it. There is no choice. Any time a system is threatened by the availability of choice, it is morally deficient.
Mar
6
Government = Force
Filed Under Libertarianism | 3 Comments
This story on CNN highlights the largest knowledge gap about government that is so dangerously prevalent today:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Obama will ask wealthy Americans to deal with a tax increase and pay higher Medicare premiums to help fund a $634 billion health care “reserve fund” aimed at reforming the system, according to senior administration officials familiar with the budget being unveiled Thursday.
President Obama will not “ask” anyone about higher taxes. He will force them to pay it. The founding fathers understood this concept very well when designing our government, yet we have seem to thrown it aside. Every action undertaken by government is through the use of force. No exceptions. Even if the action is good, even if it is just, even if it benefits literally every single human being, it is still a mechanism of force.
Force is the very reason free people decide to institute a legitimate government. In an anarchist society, there are people that would use force and fraud against their fellow humans. We use government to use force against them. If someone is trying to rob me, the government’s duty is to force that person to stop. If I sign a contract with someone and they violate the terms, it is the government’s duty to force them to comply with the agreed-upon terms.
If people were doing things by their own free will, force (and therefore government) would not be necessary. However, this is not the case in the real world, and the government must be present to force some people to do things. People exchange goods voluntarily through business. People help each other voluntarily through charity. People spread values voluntarily through families and community. People force others to do things involuntarily through government.
Every time action is proposed by the government, it is an act of force and should be treated as such. That is why it bothers me so much when, like the story above, it is suggested that the government is “asking” something. Nonsense. They are telling us what to do. As I illustrated in the paragraph before last, this force can be justified when someone is also using force against me. But to do anything other than this on the part of the government is a clear violation of one’s rights and against the charter of government decided upon when free men instituted the organization. This charter is the constitution.
I also hate it when politicians express a “vision” they have for America. Republican visions often include Judeo-Christian values and a strong America abroad. Communist … ahem, Democrat visions involve mass charity and communal values. In and of themselves, these points may have merit. Western culture (of which Judeo-Christian religion is a large component) is CLEARLY superior to most other cultures. Western culture values property, the rule of law, and individuality. These tenants, as history has shown, lead to increased prosperity and human rights, unlike other parts of the world where forced abortions, beheadings, and female circumcision are the norm. Conversely, charity is a value that is and should be encouraged in society. People are largely a product of their own decisions, however everyone at some point needs a helping hand, including your humble blogger. I have been on the giving and receiving end of kindness towards others regardless of compensation, and it is something I believe America excels at.
But can we, let alone should we, use the force of government to achieve these ends? Are we winning hearts and minds for Western culture by dispersing our military all over the world? Can we legislate morality? Is it really “charity” when we force someone to redistribute their earnings to those who didn’t create the wealth? No. The difference between taxes and charity is the difference between rape and making love. The ends are similar, but he means are in no way congruent.
The only “vision” a politician should have is a list of things which they will force people to do. After all, a politician is essentially auditioning for a job as the operator of the force machine. What should they use this machine for? All of the government’s funding comes from taxes taken by force (I sure don’t know anyone who just writes checks to the Treasury out of the goodness of their own heart). Every action and regulation perpetrated by the government is forcing someone to do something they would not otherwise do (if they would, the government would then not be necessary). Therefore, in true libertarian form, I suggest the government should only use this force to prevent other, illegitimate force.
The “vision” of a politician may involve spreading a religion, or cultural values, or having the wealthy help pay for the expenses of the poor, but these actions should all be voluntary. If these are the ends the person wants to achieve, then perhaps they should join the clergy or the Red Cross. There is a line between thinking something should be accomplished, and using force to make it so. Once we allow a segment of our lives to be under the jurisdiction of force, it will be up to whoever is in power at the particular moment to decide the standards by which force will be implemented.
I would like to finish with a quote from one of our founding fathers:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
-George Washington
Mar
4
Guilty As Charged
Filed Under Libertarianism | 5 Comments
| You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an… You are best described as a: Libertarian
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Found on Nobrainer.
Feb
25
Is Libertarianism The Answer For Mexico?
Filed Under Crime | 2 Comments
This Wall Street Journal article chronicled the worsening situation in Mexico where drug-funded gangs are more powerful than the local authorities in 200 counties. Our southern neighbor was listed in a U.S. report as being a possible ‘failed state’ in the coming years (along with nuclear-armed Pakistan).
Much as Pakistan is fighting for survival against Islamic radicals, Mexico is waging a do-or-die battle with the world’s most powerful drug cartels. Last year, some 6,000 people died in drug-related violence here, more than twice the number killed the previous year. The dead included several dozen who were beheaded, a chilling echo of the scare tactics used by Islamic radicals. Mexican drug gangs even have an unofficial religion: They worship La Santa Muerte, a Mexican version of the Grim Reaper.
In growing parts of the country, drug gangs now extort businesses, setting up a parallel tax system that threatens the government monopoly on raising tax money. In Ciudad Juarez, just across the border from El Paso, Texas, handwritten signs pasted on schools warned teachers to hand over their Christmas bonuses or die. A General Motors distributorship at a midsize Mexican city was extorted for months at a time, according to a high-ranking Mexican official. A GM spokeswoman in Mexico had no comment.
“We are at war,” says Aldo Fasci, a good-looking lawyer who is the top police official for Nuevo Leon state, where Monterrey is the capital. “The gangs have taken over the border, our highways and our cops. And now, with these protests, they are trying to take over our cities
The parallels between Pakistan and Mexico are strong enough that the U.S. military singled them out recently as the two countries where there is a risk the government could suffer a swift and catastrophic collapse, becoming a failed state.
The rapidly deteriorating situation has led to the Mexican federal government using the military to supplant local police forces in the war on the drug cartels and gangs, as many local police forces have become either hopelessly corrupt or dangerously out manned. For instance:
A few weeks ago, a recently retired army general hired to help the resort city of Cancun crack down on drug gangs was tortured and killed. His wrists and ankles were broken during the torture. Federal officials’ main suspect: the Cancun police chief, who has been stripped of his duties and put under house arrest during the investigation.
And to highlight the vast disparity of resources:
The drugs trade in Mexico generates at least $10 billion in yearly revenues, Mexican officials say. The government’s annual budget for federal law enforcement, not including the army: roughly $1.2 billion.
Thus the use of the federal military in Mexico’s own territory. Harsh enforcement and confrontation of the drug trafficers increased when the PAN party took control of the government and took a sharp turn from former Mexican president Vicente Fox’s drug policy. What have been the results?
Officials in both Washington and Mexico City also say the rising violence has a silver lining: It means that after decades of complicity or ignoring the problem, the Mexican government is finally cracking down on the drug cartels and forcing them to fight back or fight with one another for turf. One telling statistic: In the first three years of President Felipe Calderon’s six-year term, Mexico’s army has had 153 clashes with drug gangs. In the six years of his predecessor Vicente Fox’s term, there were only 16.
I would submit that the government officials have their causality a bit confused. Is the violence triggering the crackdown, or is the crackdown triggering the violence?
As described above, this crackdown is not only already extremely expensive, but is not even sufficient. Nearly all local control of law enforcement is absent via corruption and usurpation by the military. Violence and unrest are increasing by the day. People are kidnapped, shot, beheaded, and dissolved in “vats of acid”. Even with all of this, the control policy is not working.
What is the answer to this problem? If Mexico wants to avoid failing as a nation as drug gangs assume regional control, or devolving into a police state, the libertarian policy of decriminalization is the way out.
I have long been a supporter of legalizing drugs, especially marijuana. Mexico is providing the perfect example of what can happen when a government, especially in a poor country, pursues a policy of criminalization of drugs and harsh enforcement.
The first question you need to ask when dealing with a question is this: Is the purpose of law to protect us from force and fraud, or from our own bad decisions? When government begins focusing on the latter, it inevitably loses focus on the former. If someone tries to inject heroin into my arm against my will, then government has a duty to step in and prevent such an act. But if I make the decision to take my money and buy heroin and inject it in my arm, then it is not the job of the state to intervene.
Many people, especially conservatives who support limited regulation in other areas, object to this reasoning. Drugs are so dangerous and harmful that they are outside of the scope of conventional individual responsibility, they say. The way I see it, the arguments against drug use (from which criminalization logically comes) are:
- Drugs impair your judgement
- Drugs harm your body
- Drugs can, and often do, ruin your life in general
These three arguments are completely correct, but I counter them by saying:
- Alcohol and a developing brain (like that in teenagers) impair your judgement
- Cholestarol, fat, sugar, and sodium harm your body, and contribute to the deaths of millions of Americans each year
- I can ruin my life with credit cards, bad relationships, and payday loans
I have never used illegal drugs in my life, and I never will (hopefully the same goes for payday loans!). They are not in my best interest (or anybody’s in my opinion) to use them. But there is a big difference between thinking people shouldn’t do something and having the state use my earnings and lethal force to stop them from doing it. Using my arguments above, if you support outlawing drugs, shouldn’t you then support outlawing Heineken, McDonald’s, and Mastercard?
The litmus test for authorizing the use of government force should not be whether it is bad for people - it should be whether or not people are being forced to do something. It is no suprise that when government takes responsibility for making the right decisions for us, the people then begin to stop doing so at an individual level. This is the case with providing our own healthcare, assessing credit risk, or putting harmful substances in our body.
Before I get to the practical arguments for decriminalizing drugs, I want to make a note about the effects of drugs. By and large, illegal drugs are extremely harmful, but I must take exception with marijuana. I would venture a guess that a majority of the adult population has smoked cannabis at some point in thier lives, and they are fine. And there is also the case of Michael Phelps, whose marijuana smoking didn’t seem to hamper his becoming the most dominant athlete in the history of mankind. Again, I have never personally smoked marijuana (I don’t even like taking Tylenol), but this business about the evils of chronic just doesn’t hold up.
Those who would still support criminalizing drugs counter that the drug trade is dominated by immoral, violent thugs who kill for their turf. This is only the case because of criminalization! The key point that needs to be understood, is that criminals, by default, do not sell drugs. Criminals are in the business of selling whatever it is the government is banning at a particular time. When freedom for blacks was illegal, Harriet Tubman and her criminal gangs used the Underground Railroad to sell it. When alcohol was illegal during the early 20th century, the criminals sold alcohol. In the Soviet Union, the criminals sold bibles and books by Milton Friedman. Criminalization of a product in high demand gives violent thugs a monopoly over it. Case in point, the WSJ article mentions how a criminal organization named “Zeta” not only sells pirated CD’s, but sells them under their own label and with their originally designed logo.
Another point is the exorbitant price of drugs, such as a relatively easy to produce crop like cannabis, is inherently raised when the production process involves evading authorities. Criminalization of a product that has a very high demand from voluntary consumers will not allow the market to work. Imagine if drugs were legalized and Wal-Mart started selling pot in the produce section. It would be 68 cents a pound! Violent thugs can have their way with an ineffective government like that of Mexico, but when up against the Rollback kings? They wouldn’t stand a chance.
There is another serious issue with the war on drugs, be it north or south of the Rio Grande. When we lock people up in large numbers for engaging in a process where all parties involved were participating voluntarilly, we seriously distort and handicap the justice system. First of all, the war on drugs might as well be called the war on the poor. Human beings love to run away from their problems and get high. The poor use crack, the rich just doctor shop for prescription medicine to abuse, such as painkillers. Think Rush Limbaugh (whose show, for the record, I enjoy a great deal).
More important however, is the strain on the corrections system. Here in central Florida, we had a gruesome story that made national headlines about an evil piece of shit named John Evander Couey who did things to an innocent little girl that I won’t describe. He had been arrested 24 times in his pathetic excuse for a life, for everything from breaking into homes, to whipping his thing out, to fondling children. But the thing about this scumbag is that he behaved exceptionally well once he got into prison, and was able to be paroled and released early many, many times. In 2005, his freedom cost Jessica Lunsford her life.
Why was this moster who isn’t worth the dingles on my berries released into the general public? Was it because the state who gave a name to its electric chair (Old Sparky) was too generous? Or was it because said state could not afford to throw away the key ten years ago because its jails and prisons were full of drug users?
Whether it be running healthcare, funding art, or controlling drugs, any time the government focuses on something besides preventing the use of force, its fundamental duties suffer.
Can Mexico use libertarianism to create a legal drug market and foster a safe and productive nation? It will be needed, I think. However, they can’t do it alone. Without the U.S. in tow, such efforts would probably do more harm than good, as corporate drug producers in Mexico would probably force the American DEA to take action, and Mexico can’t afford to alienate the U.S. in such fashion. But if one thing is certain, it is that criminalization of drugs only leads to empowering violence on behalf of criminals and the state, and letting real monsters go free.
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!
