Now that the least important election in the past century is finished, the big question is what does this mean to the liberty movement. Clearly President Obama is no friend to individual liberty, and has no intention on helping the movement in any way. Democrats theoretically support civil liberties, but President Obama has only ever been decent in this area when forced to by his own party.
But given that there was no substantive differences between the two leading candidates, then who won that election scarcely matters to liberty. The only things that matter then are peripheral matters connected to who won and who lost.
According to Austrian Economics, the next four years are going to be rough for the United States. In exactly what way it will be rough is difficult to determine, but that it will be, and that it will be within the next four years.
So what matters is the implications of who will be in office when the collapse occurs. As it turns out this matter is rather critical.
Had Mitt Romney been elected then he would be the one blamed when the collapse occurs. Had he been in office then, because he is a Republican, his free market beliefs would have gotten the blame. That he doesn’t have any free market beliefs won’t matter, Republicans get credit for having free market beliefs even though they don’t. It would be quite parallel to how Herbert Hoover’s non-existent free market beliefs received the blame for the crash of 1929 and George W. Bush’s non-existent free market beliefs received the blame for the crash of 2008.
Because Barack Obama was elected, his free market beliefs will not be blamed. He is perceived as more socialist, even though he is nothing more than a left Keynesian. The mainstream view is that Barack Obama is at best hostile to the free market.
Also given that the Ryan Plan, which was unrealistic at best, was criticized for having deep cuts when all it did was have is smaller increases, would mean that the budget slashing that would allegedly go on under Republicans would get the blame. Never mind that there would be no budget slashing no matter which one won, the Republican budget slashing would get the blame.
Given that free market beliefs and slashing the budget are two positions that libertarians strongly support, and that Republicans say they support when they do not, the last thing that libertarians would want is those to positions getting the blame for a problem they did not create. Given all of that, as bad as Barack Obama winning is, perhaps there is a silver lining that there would not be had Mitt Romney won.
Showing posts with label accusations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label accusations. Show all posts
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
Paul Ryan is no Objectivist
As soon as Paul Ryan was chosen to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate, there was dialogue in both parties about how he was supposedly quite libertarian, to the point where he was inspired by Ayn Rand. If Paul Ryan was inspired by Ayn Rand, it is likely that upon finishing the reading of Atlas Shrugged he said "I want to grow up to be just like Wesley Mouch."
The weaker version of this argument comes from Republicans. They act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to convince Ron Paul voters to abandon all principle and support the Romney/Ryan ticket, even though it is far from sufficient and Ron Paul supporters are not buying it. Then there are those who should know better. The Ayn Rand institute has an article on various statements made by Paul Ryan that would indicate that he leans that way, ignoring the rich history of conservatives saying one thing and doing another. Objectivism does not advocate ignoring reality, and the reality of Paul Ryan's voting record is something that should not be ignored.
There is a slightly stronger version of this argument from Democrats. Many of them also act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to tar him as libertarian. But there are a few who are making a very interesting argument to try to support that accusation.
Their argument is based on the principle of rational self interest. They argue that, even though Paul Ryan’s voting record is antithetical to Objectivist principles, that same voting record is exactly the series of choices a person would make if he had the goal to rise through the ranks of his party.
It is true that, given a particular goal certain choices become inevitable if one actually wishes to achieve that goal. But there is a problem with that interpretation. Objectivism does not allow for seeking power over others as a rationally chosen goal. Nor would it advocate any goal that would lead to the choice to violate the rights of others as a means to achieve that goal.
Assuming the best about Paul Ryan, an assumption he does not deserve, the character then to compare him to would be Doctor Robert Stadler. In the novel, Dr. Stadler decided that the use of ignoble means was appropriate to achieve noble ends; specifically, to use politics to advance the quest for knowledge. It was that contradiction that eventually led to Dr. Stadler's downfall. But since Paul Ryan isn't up to the level of a Dr. Stadler, he has more in common with the Eugene Lawson, Chick Morrison, Wesley Mouch, and Mr. Thompson characters. One could say that Wesley Mouch made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to become "economic dictator of the economy." But becoming "economic dictator of the economy" is not a rational choice.
Also, by that same logic, one could argue that Barack Obama made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to rise through the ranks of a political party. He made all the right choices given his situation for one desiring to become president. But yet the argument is not made that Barack Obama is an Objectivist for that reason, and is in fact refused. The fact that the argument does not work both ways is proof that there is no genuine substance behind it, and that it is only a rationalization instead of a proof.
The weaker version of this argument comes from Republicans. They act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to convince Ron Paul voters to abandon all principle and support the Romney/Ryan ticket, even though it is far from sufficient and Ron Paul supporters are not buying it. Then there are those who should know better. The Ayn Rand institute has an article on various statements made by Paul Ryan that would indicate that he leans that way, ignoring the rich history of conservatives saying one thing and doing another. Objectivism does not advocate ignoring reality, and the reality of Paul Ryan's voting record is something that should not be ignored.
There is a slightly stronger version of this argument from Democrats. Many of them also act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to tar him as libertarian. But there are a few who are making a very interesting argument to try to support that accusation.
Their argument is based on the principle of rational self interest. They argue that, even though Paul Ryan’s voting record is antithetical to Objectivist principles, that same voting record is exactly the series of choices a person would make if he had the goal to rise through the ranks of his party.
It is true that, given a particular goal certain choices become inevitable if one actually wishes to achieve that goal. But there is a problem with that interpretation. Objectivism does not allow for seeking power over others as a rationally chosen goal. Nor would it advocate any goal that would lead to the choice to violate the rights of others as a means to achieve that goal.
Assuming the best about Paul Ryan, an assumption he does not deserve, the character then to compare him to would be Doctor Robert Stadler. In the novel, Dr. Stadler decided that the use of ignoble means was appropriate to achieve noble ends; specifically, to use politics to advance the quest for knowledge. It was that contradiction that eventually led to Dr. Stadler's downfall. But since Paul Ryan isn't up to the level of a Dr. Stadler, he has more in common with the Eugene Lawson, Chick Morrison, Wesley Mouch, and Mr. Thompson characters. One could say that Wesley Mouch made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to become "economic dictator of the economy." But becoming "economic dictator of the economy" is not a rational choice.
Also, by that same logic, one could argue that Barack Obama made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to rise through the ranks of a political party. He made all the right choices given his situation for one desiring to become president. But yet the argument is not made that Barack Obama is an Objectivist for that reason, and is in fact refused. The fact that the argument does not work both ways is proof that there is no genuine substance behind it, and that it is only a rationalization instead of a proof.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
The Hidden Premise of Collectivism
At the Library of Economics and Liberty, another argument was made to see if a justification for aggressive force could be made in certain limited circumstances. The situation is pretty simple, an island with ten people. Eight of them can produce enough food for one person each, one of them named Able Abel can produce enough food for all ten people, and one of them named Hapless Harry cannot produce any food at all.
The goal is to prove that under certain conditions it is justified to take from Able Abel and give to Hapless Harry, and for the other eight people to engage in the use of force in order to do so. In fact, there are some who already agree that use of force against Able Abel is justified.
There is one major problem with the scenario. It conflates a political obligation to help Hapless Harry with a moral obligation to do so, and that conflation is exactly the trap that Progressives hope people will fall in to. If Abel Able helps because it is the right thing to do, he is not a slave unless one is to call him a slave to his conscience. But according to progressives, unless Able Abel is forced to help then he will refuse to help. That hidden premise, that Able Abel would not help unless forced to, is actually quite monstrous, and says far more about progressives than libertarians.
Of course, the progressive response would be to say that libertarians are of course selfish. This is asserted without support, as if it is somehow self-evident that a desire to not steal from others is selfish.
Contrast this to the way the heroes of Ayn Rand’s novels behaved. The Classically Liberal Student described the scene from Atlas Shrugged where Dagny Taggart saw a beggar on a train.
He goes on to describe how Ayn Rand herself reflected the generosity of the characters that are heroes in her novels. And yet it is still asserted that libertarians are greedy, objectivists are greedy, that those who advocate liberty and the free market would never help Hapless Harry without being forced to do so.
The goal is to prove that under certain conditions it is justified to take from Able Abel and give to Hapless Harry, and for the other eight people to engage in the use of force in order to do so. In fact, there are some who already agree that use of force against Able Abel is justified.
There is one major problem with the scenario. It conflates a political obligation to help Hapless Harry with a moral obligation to do so, and that conflation is exactly the trap that Progressives hope people will fall in to. If Abel Able helps because it is the right thing to do, he is not a slave unless one is to call him a slave to his conscience. But according to progressives, unless Able Abel is forced to help then he will refuse to help. That hidden premise, that Able Abel would not help unless forced to, is actually quite monstrous, and says far more about progressives than libertarians.
Of course, the progressive response would be to say that libertarians are of course selfish. This is asserted without support, as if it is somehow self-evident that a desire to not steal from others is selfish.
Contrast this to the way the heroes of Ayn Rand’s novels behaved. The Classically Liberal Student described the scene from Atlas Shrugged where Dagny Taggart saw a beggar on a train.
Dagny actually looks at both men and sees that neither views the other properly: "The two men were not human beings to each other any longer." The tramp gets up, ready to jump, grabbing the small bundle of his belongings. Dagny yells out: "Wait." Rand wrote, "'Let him be my guest,' she said to the conductor, and held her door open for the tramp, ordering, 'Come in.'"
She offers the man a seat and asks him when he last ate. He responds, it might have been the day before. "She rang for the porter and ordered dinner for two, to be brought to her car from the diner." Damn, Rand, she missed a chance to prove that her critics aren't liars!
The tramp and Dagny talk. He tells her he doesn't want her to get in trouble. She wonders why she would, and he says because she must be traveling with a tycoon to be in her own car. She says she isn't. He assumes she must a tycoon's wife then. She says she isn't. He responds with a knowing, "Oh," implying her purpose was that of a prostitute or mistress. Was this where she sends him flying to his demise? Damn, not again! Instead, she laughed and told him she ran the railroad. They share dinner and conversation for several more pages. What a monster!
He goes on to describe how Ayn Rand herself reflected the generosity of the characters that are heroes in her novels. And yet it is still asserted that libertarians are greedy, objectivists are greedy, that those who advocate liberty and the free market would never help Hapless Harry without being forced to do so.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Southern Strategy?
Whenever the Republicans lose an election, they blame it on "RINOs", since no person would actually cast an informed vote against a Republican. Whenever the Democrats lose an election, they blame it on the stupidity of the voting public, since no person would actually cast an informed vote against a Democrat. It's a very old pattern that found expression during the Bush election with the famous "Jesusland" map, as well as maps comparing the red versus blue states to the maps of the War Between the States. Since the current electoral results show Democrats losing, it is worthwhile to rebut one of the claims of how they unfairly lost.
The most insidious explanation for Democrat losses is "the Southern Strategy", which is a severe insult against all Southerners as ignorant racists. It is one of the most hyped theories around, but it is not a given that it even exists. It traces to the musings of one Republican who was a racist, but doesn't trace to any actual proof that any actual strategy even exists in the first place. All evidence for it is circumstantial - that since the late 60s the Solid South stopped voting Solid Democrat and started voting Republican a lot more often.
The Southern Strategy is allegedly based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the fact that it was signed by a Democrat president, even though it was put on his desk because Congressional Republicans pushed it through. Key votes are examined such as when Goldwater voted for every Civil Rights Act before the 1964 one, and key votes are ignored such as when Goldwater's opponents voted against every Civil Rights Act before the 1964 one.
The theory states that because a Democrat president signed the Civil Rights Act, the ignorant and racist South turned Republican. The facts do not support that assertion.
Democrat Jimmy Carter's won victories in every Southern state except for Virginia and Oklahoma in the 1976 Presidential election, years after the alleged emergence of the Southern Strategy.
Democrat Bill Clinton was able to win five southern states twice (Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia) and two states once (Georgia in 1992 and Florida in 1996). Virginia, Texas and North Carolina were won by the Republican candidates by significantly smaller margins than usual.
The first Southern state to give the GOP control of both its governorship and its legislature was Florida. It did not do this until 1998. Florida has an atypical population for a Southern state, with a large retiree population from northern states and also a large Cuban population that leans Republican due to a shared opposition to Fidel Castro.
Georgia did not elect its first post-Reconstruction GOP governor until 2002. Until 2005, Louisiana had been represented since Reconstruction only by Democratic Senators. Arkansas has two Democratic Senators, a Democratic governor, three out of four of their U.S. representatives are Democrats, every statewide office is held by a Democrat, and their state legislature is Democratic. Tennessee and North Carolina have a majority Democratic delegation in the U.S. House of representatives. Mississippi has a house delegation that is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
It seems that the "Southern Strategy" which is quoted so often is more the musings of one particular racist Republican and not a Republican Party policy. Nixon is supposed to be the epitome of the evil American politician, but he is still just one person.
What caused the South to shift from Solid Democrat to mixed?
In the 1970s the Moral Majority was actually a factor. Its leaders endorsed the Republican Party, and it morphed into the modern phenomenon of the Religious Right. The South, being the home of Southern Baptist fundamentalism (a whole different creature from Puritan fundamentalism), was wooed into the Republican Party that way.
Another factor is Air Conditioning. One of the reasons heavy development didn't occur in the South is the fact that it gets hotter there in the summer than it does in the Rust Belt. It's easy to heat a building; it's harder to cool it. Couple the widespread use of Air Conditioning with the fact of overly-strong pro-union legislation in Northern States, and the result is that many businesses become willing to relocate to the South, and people moving there along with the businesses. The South has experienced population growth above and beyond that of other areas in the country - and that is not due to a birth rate but immigration from other states.
Plus the Republican Party has done a better job of appealing to the "common man." The Democrats appeal to the lower classes is more to the "down and out". The "common man" works for a living, the Democrats campaign towards those who live off of government handouts. When Reagan played "Born in the USA" at the 1984 Republican Convention, it was a strategic coup, because it identified the GOP with those who work hard all day then kick back with a beer to relax while watching a game on television. The Democrats, when not identified with the lowest class, identify with New England wine drinking elitists.
New England is one more reason that the Solid South fractured. The elitism of New England has never gone away, and the disdain New England feels for the South is matched only by the resentment the South feels for New England. One side still resents the abuses of reconstruction. The other side still resents that an entire region of the country dared question the doctrine of central authority. When the Democrats embraced New England, they sundered themselves from the South. Even as late as 1996 Georgians were worried that during the Olympics that the liberal elitist journalists would come down from the North, look for the absolute worst and most backwards parts of Georgia, and send back images saying "This is Georgia today." It's like going to a mansion and only photographing the angst-ridden teenager's bedroom.
Puritan Fundamentalism no longer exists in the form it did back then. It still exists, but in a secularized way. Instead of trying to create God's Kingdom on Earth, ruled over by pious Elites, the modern Democrats try to create a Socialist Utopia on Earth, ruled over by Elites. One look at the Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign shows this tendency. There wasn't a single position that she took in her entire campaign that wasn't "I know best about everything in your life and if you give me absolute power I will create a secular God's Kingdom on Earth."
Religion, industry, air conditioning, elitism, the difference between the common man and the downtrodden masses, many things went into the fracturing of the Solid South. Blaming it all on the words of one racist Republican is terminally short sighted to a degree that it can only make sense if someone desperately wants it to be true, but not in any actual analysis. What that really proves is that the south is not solid in either direction. Any remarks about how the Civil Rights Act did this are little more than sour grapes, saying "how dare those ignorant racist southern rednecks not deliver the vote for us like they should."
The most insidious explanation for Democrat losses is "the Southern Strategy", which is a severe insult against all Southerners as ignorant racists. It is one of the most hyped theories around, but it is not a given that it even exists. It traces to the musings of one Republican who was a racist, but doesn't trace to any actual proof that any actual strategy even exists in the first place. All evidence for it is circumstantial - that since the late 60s the Solid South stopped voting Solid Democrat and started voting Republican a lot more often.
The Southern Strategy is allegedly based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the fact that it was signed by a Democrat president, even though it was put on his desk because Congressional Republicans pushed it through. Key votes are examined such as when Goldwater voted for every Civil Rights Act before the 1964 one, and key votes are ignored such as when Goldwater's opponents voted against every Civil Rights Act before the 1964 one.
The theory states that because a Democrat president signed the Civil Rights Act, the ignorant and racist South turned Republican. The facts do not support that assertion.
Democrat Jimmy Carter's won victories in every Southern state except for Virginia and Oklahoma in the 1976 Presidential election, years after the alleged emergence of the Southern Strategy.
Democrat Bill Clinton was able to win five southern states twice (Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia) and two states once (Georgia in 1992 and Florida in 1996). Virginia, Texas and North Carolina were won by the Republican candidates by significantly smaller margins than usual.
The first Southern state to give the GOP control of both its governorship and its legislature was Florida. It did not do this until 1998. Florida has an atypical population for a Southern state, with a large retiree population from northern states and also a large Cuban population that leans Republican due to a shared opposition to Fidel Castro.
Georgia did not elect its first post-Reconstruction GOP governor until 2002. Until 2005, Louisiana had been represented since Reconstruction only by Democratic Senators. Arkansas has two Democratic Senators, a Democratic governor, three out of four of their U.S. representatives are Democrats, every statewide office is held by a Democrat, and their state legislature is Democratic. Tennessee and North Carolina have a majority Democratic delegation in the U.S. House of representatives. Mississippi has a house delegation that is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
It seems that the "Southern Strategy" which is quoted so often is more the musings of one particular racist Republican and not a Republican Party policy. Nixon is supposed to be the epitome of the evil American politician, but he is still just one person.
What caused the South to shift from Solid Democrat to mixed?
In the 1970s the Moral Majority was actually a factor. Its leaders endorsed the Republican Party, and it morphed into the modern phenomenon of the Religious Right. The South, being the home of Southern Baptist fundamentalism (a whole different creature from Puritan fundamentalism), was wooed into the Republican Party that way.
Another factor is Air Conditioning. One of the reasons heavy development didn't occur in the South is the fact that it gets hotter there in the summer than it does in the Rust Belt. It's easy to heat a building; it's harder to cool it. Couple the widespread use of Air Conditioning with the fact of overly-strong pro-union legislation in Northern States, and the result is that many businesses become willing to relocate to the South, and people moving there along with the businesses. The South has experienced population growth above and beyond that of other areas in the country - and that is not due to a birth rate but immigration from other states.
Plus the Republican Party has done a better job of appealing to the "common man." The Democrats appeal to the lower classes is more to the "down and out". The "common man" works for a living, the Democrats campaign towards those who live off of government handouts. When Reagan played "Born in the USA" at the 1984 Republican Convention, it was a strategic coup, because it identified the GOP with those who work hard all day then kick back with a beer to relax while watching a game on television. The Democrats, when not identified with the lowest class, identify with New England wine drinking elitists.
New England is one more reason that the Solid South fractured. The elitism of New England has never gone away, and the disdain New England feels for the South is matched only by the resentment the South feels for New England. One side still resents the abuses of reconstruction. The other side still resents that an entire region of the country dared question the doctrine of central authority. When the Democrats embraced New England, they sundered themselves from the South. Even as late as 1996 Georgians were worried that during the Olympics that the liberal elitist journalists would come down from the North, look for the absolute worst and most backwards parts of Georgia, and send back images saying "This is Georgia today." It's like going to a mansion and only photographing the angst-ridden teenager's bedroom.
Puritan Fundamentalism no longer exists in the form it did back then. It still exists, but in a secularized way. Instead of trying to create God's Kingdom on Earth, ruled over by pious Elites, the modern Democrats try to create a Socialist Utopia on Earth, ruled over by Elites. One look at the Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign shows this tendency. There wasn't a single position that she took in her entire campaign that wasn't "I know best about everything in your life and if you give me absolute power I will create a secular God's Kingdom on Earth."
Religion, industry, air conditioning, elitism, the difference between the common man and the downtrodden masses, many things went into the fracturing of the Solid South. Blaming it all on the words of one racist Republican is terminally short sighted to a degree that it can only make sense if someone desperately wants it to be true, but not in any actual analysis. What that really proves is that the south is not solid in either direction. Any remarks about how the Civil Rights Act did this are little more than sour grapes, saying "how dare those ignorant racist southern rednecks not deliver the vote for us like they should."
Thursday, July 22, 2010
An Overused Tactic
If an average American were accused of being a Tory, he’d probably shrug his shoulders and consider it a silly thing to say. During the American Revolution, however, it was a potent insult. Call him a Papist and he’ll understand that it refers to Catholicism, but will find it an odd way of putting it. If called a Communist most would find it funny, although that does still retain some sting.
The truth is that labels meant to be insults do lose their power over time. Sometimes the issue ages out, such as when calling someone a Tory. Sometimes the label looses effect due to overuse, such as when calling someone a Racist.
It has come to the point where the term "racist" has become so completely overused that it is losing its impact. There was a time when a person so accused would take great offense and spend much time demonstrating a lack of racist tendencies. The typical response now is to sigh and accuse the other person of making the accusation due to having run out of actual arguments.
The reason it was overused is because the person making the accusation typically did resort to it due to having run out of actual arguments. Now an outside observer, hearing a progressive refer to someone else as a racist, hears "he's saying that guy isn't a progressive."
That is what happened when the president of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, called out the Tea Party movement as racist. It was such an obviously cynical and transparent ploy that it takes a determined effort to believe that there is any legitimacy to the claim.
He was called out on it a cynical and sarcastic response by Mark Williams of Tea Party Express. While the Tea Party Express is one of the groups trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement with false promises of "enemy of my enemy" and "lesser of two evils", in this instance Mr. Williams was right. He compared the NAACP to slaves rejecting an offer of freedom.
For that he was pilloried in the media as racist. While the National Tea Party Federation did expel him, the wider reaction was interesting. Most progressives worked hard to convince themselves that the letter was itself racist. Everyone else yawned.
While it is good that those who dare to oppose progressive are no longer afraid of the charge, the unfortunate effect about the diminished meaning of the word "racism" is that it enables the few real racists to defend themselves with "he called me that because I’m not progressive enough."
Once again, a useful word has been destroyed by progressives. First the word "liberal" was taken to mean the reverse of what it originally meant and now "racist" has come to mean nothing at all.
The truth is that labels meant to be insults do lose their power over time. Sometimes the issue ages out, such as when calling someone a Tory. Sometimes the label looses effect due to overuse, such as when calling someone a Racist.
It has come to the point where the term "racist" has become so completely overused that it is losing its impact. There was a time when a person so accused would take great offense and spend much time demonstrating a lack of racist tendencies. The typical response now is to sigh and accuse the other person of making the accusation due to having run out of actual arguments.
The reason it was overused is because the person making the accusation typically did resort to it due to having run out of actual arguments. Now an outside observer, hearing a progressive refer to someone else as a racist, hears "he's saying that guy isn't a progressive."
That is what happened when the president of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, called out the Tea Party movement as racist. It was such an obviously cynical and transparent ploy that it takes a determined effort to believe that there is any legitimacy to the claim.
He was called out on it a cynical and sarcastic response by Mark Williams of Tea Party Express. While the Tea Party Express is one of the groups trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement with false promises of "enemy of my enemy" and "lesser of two evils", in this instance Mr. Williams was right. He compared the NAACP to slaves rejecting an offer of freedom.
For that he was pilloried in the media as racist. While the National Tea Party Federation did expel him, the wider reaction was interesting. Most progressives worked hard to convince themselves that the letter was itself racist. Everyone else yawned.
While it is good that those who dare to oppose progressive are no longer afraid of the charge, the unfortunate effect about the diminished meaning of the word "racism" is that it enables the few real racists to defend themselves with "he called me that because I’m not progressive enough."
Once again, a useful word has been destroyed by progressives. First the word "liberal" was taken to mean the reverse of what it originally meant and now "racist" has come to mean nothing at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)