It does not seem that it should be the case, but the Ron Paul candidacy is actually causing more than a little dissent within libertarian circles. There are more than a few who are not only displeased, but actually oppose his candidacy.
Some, like Classically Liberal Student over at the Classically Liberal Blog do not care for Representative Paul because of an opinion that he is not libertarian enough to warrant support. Although one can disagree with his analysis, it is still a consistent and supportable position to take. And CLS backs up his opinion with very well thought out arguments. This does not mean to say that CLS is a purist, and he has said he is not, it is just that his arguments are that Representative Paul is not sufficiently libertarian on enough issues, and he has taken the time to highlight those issues to present a compelling argument.
But in general it appears that the more radical libertarians are more eager to support Representative Paul, while those in the so-called "reform caucus" seem to be the most opposed to his candidacy. The Facebook group "Stop Ron Paul 2012" which recently became famous for a proposed false flag attack involving members dressing in Klan robes, was founded by a member of the Libertarian Party.
And outside the Libertarian Party, there are others who claim allegiance to the ideas of liberty in a much less radical fashion than the Libertarian Party’s version, such as the Republican Liberty Caucus; after that caucus endorsed Ron Paul the Vice Chair Aaron Bitterman resigned in protest. The Republican Liberty Caucus had been doing nothing for years, but then Ron Paul's 2008 campaign led to an infusion of new and energetic people that revitalized the caucus in spite of the leadership. Then, of course, there is former staffer Eric Dondero who has spent years opposing Ron Paul and claims to be libertarian.
If an argument can be made that Paul isn't libertarian enough for purists, the Reform Caucus should be the most welcoming of Representative Paul. But it seems the radicals are more likely to be friendly to Paul and instead it seems that for more than a few on the reform side he causes them problems. So what about his campaign causes reformers problems? Taking them at their word, he is supposedly an opponent of Israel and isn’t eager enough to use the military to attack Iran.
He takes the most consistently libertarian position possible on foreign affairs; peaceful relations with all, entangling alliances with none. While he doesn't blame the United States for everything, he does blame the United States for the things that the United States is responsible for. He doesn't believe it is the job of the American Tax Payer to pay for the defense of other countries.
Some on the less pure side of the libertarian spectrum have convinced themselves that the job of the United States military is to force people in other countries to be free. The most well known politician with genuine libertarian leanings is, leaving aside any question on purity on other issues, taking the purist radical libertarian position on foreign affairs. He is putting to lie their arguments, exposing their own departures from libertarian thought.
Since he would not give foreign aid to any country, that means he would not give foreign aid to one country in particular. His statements are then taken out of context to show opposition to that one country in particular, and he is called an anti-Semite as a result. His refusal to help any country is portrayed as a hostility to that one country, and then reinterpreted as a support for that country’s enemies.
The arguments used are identical to the arguments these same people oppose when progressives try to accuse libertarians of racism. Exactly like how a progressive starts with "that person disagrees with me" and ends with "that person must be a racist" these anti-Paul libertarians start with "I don't like Ron Paul" and end with "he must be an anti-Semite" or "he must be a racist." The evidence simply doesn't support such a conclusion.
It is pretty obvious what causes progressives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to have to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. It is also pretty obvious what causes conservatives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. The same is true about these libertarians against Ron Paul.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ron Paul and the Conservative Dilemma
If conservatives mean what they say, then Ron Paul would be the ideal candidate for them. He is the only candidate in the Republican presidential race that actually means it when he talks about reducing the reach and scope of government.
According to the Nolan Chart, it is expected that conservatives and libertarians will be divided on social issues, but in this campaign social issues are not at the forefront. The most pressing issues of the day are the ongoing wars and the Greater Depression
The war is big in the Republican Party, of course, and that will make Representative Paul stand out. But when asked about that issue at a recent debate he could have answered "I don't think I’m outside the mainstream. Sixty to seventy percent of this country is tired of these wars. The Republican Party lost control of the congress and the presidency because of support of these wars, and only regained the House because of how bad Obamacare is." It would have used his stand on the wars to good effect.
The economic issue is actually the critical issue to examine. As is demonstrated but not commonly known, conservatives are not interested in laissez faire, in spite of their reputation otherwise. From the first predecessor party, the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton, to today under the Republican Party, the one constant has been an economic ideology of government intervention on behalf of large businesses.
President Bush and Senator McCain both supported the bailouts, while Representative Paul opposed them. The bailouts weren't welfare programs for the poor, as is generally favored by the Democrats, they were welfare programs for the rich as has always been favored by Republicans.
This is the real reason why Republicans dislike his position on other issues, such as the foreign wars and the drug wars. Foreign wars mean lush, lucrative government contracts for munitions manufacture. The drug war means even more lush, lucrative government contracts for police enforcement activities. It isn't about winning either war, it is about the same mercantilism that started under Hamilton but carried to a degree even he would have been appalled at.
If Representative Paul were to become president, the practice of the politically connected becoming wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer would be severely curtailed.
In spite of all the “small government” rhetoric, conservatives never meant a single word of it. Representative Paul does mean it. That presents a dilemma to conservatives, similar to the one presented to progressives - he makes them confront what they really believe, and they do not like finding out what it is they really believe. They blame him for being forced to find out. If a ray of light shines on a pigsty, is it the fault of the ray of light that what we see is so bad? The guilty conscience of a conservative causes them to give the say answer of "yes" that the progressives give as well.
According to the Nolan Chart, it is expected that conservatives and libertarians will be divided on social issues, but in this campaign social issues are not at the forefront. The most pressing issues of the day are the ongoing wars and the Greater Depression
The war is big in the Republican Party, of course, and that will make Representative Paul stand out. But when asked about that issue at a recent debate he could have answered "I don't think I’m outside the mainstream. Sixty to seventy percent of this country is tired of these wars. The Republican Party lost control of the congress and the presidency because of support of these wars, and only regained the House because of how bad Obamacare is." It would have used his stand on the wars to good effect.
The economic issue is actually the critical issue to examine. As is demonstrated but not commonly known, conservatives are not interested in laissez faire, in spite of their reputation otherwise. From the first predecessor party, the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton, to today under the Republican Party, the one constant has been an economic ideology of government intervention on behalf of large businesses.
President Bush and Senator McCain both supported the bailouts, while Representative Paul opposed them. The bailouts weren't welfare programs for the poor, as is generally favored by the Democrats, they were welfare programs for the rich as has always been favored by Republicans.
This is the real reason why Republicans dislike his position on other issues, such as the foreign wars and the drug wars. Foreign wars mean lush, lucrative government contracts for munitions manufacture. The drug war means even more lush, lucrative government contracts for police enforcement activities. It isn't about winning either war, it is about the same mercantilism that started under Hamilton but carried to a degree even he would have been appalled at.
If Representative Paul were to become president, the practice of the politically connected becoming wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer would be severely curtailed.
In spite of all the “small government” rhetoric, conservatives never meant a single word of it. Representative Paul does mean it. That presents a dilemma to conservatives, similar to the one presented to progressives - he makes them confront what they really believe, and they do not like finding out what it is they really believe. They blame him for being forced to find out. If a ray of light shines on a pigsty, is it the fault of the ray of light that what we see is so bad? The guilty conscience of a conservative causes them to give the say answer of "yes" that the progressives give as well.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Occupy Campaign Finance Reform
For tactical reasons, the Occupy Wall Street movement is disorganized. That has made it difficult for them to come up with goals that can be agreed to by a majority of those involved in the movement. One issue, though, is gaining wide acceptance across the Occupy movement. Opposition to "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" and an advocacy of Campaign Finance Reform in general is increasingly advocated by the Occupy movement.
The ire is understandable given the focus of the Occupy movement. In the corporatist collusion between big business and big government, they focus on the business half of the partnership. The goal, as it is forming, is to prohibit all third party campaign activities. The target is Super PACs as well as corporations, and when pressed on the issue there is grudging agreement that unions are covered as well. The only form of donation that would be considered acceptable would be directly to the campaign.
Although the intent is good this will achieve the exact opposite of the desired goal, making it quite the same as every preceding campaign finance reform law. Those pushing this particular change are not well versed in economics, especially the law of unintended consequences, in spite of how the history of campaign finance law is a glaring example of it in action. Ever preceding law was put in place to reduce the importance of money in politics, and money is now more important than ever in politics. The Super PACs are the end result of a long line of those laws.
The basic campaign finance reform law is a limit on how much an individual can donate. This would prohibit the wealthy from bankrolling a candidate at the expense of the masses. What actually happens is that it shuts out competing views. Suppose there are two parties, one fifty times larger than the other. While both would benefit from a few big contributions, only one would benefit from many small contributions because it has the donor base to do so.
One might think that this would therefore encourage those who want actual change to work within the party to tap into that fundraising machine, but the party leadership controls who the party helps. The leadership will then share mailing lists and donor lists with candidates the leadership likes. This has the effect of binding candidates tightly to the party.
A way around the tight control of party leadership was developed, the PAC and then the Super PAC. And the solution to the problem of money in politics is to eliminate the only way left that actual advocates of change might use to get elected? The end result of this is something else that is also suggested often, full public financing of campaigns. When pressed on how someone would qualify for that financing, the suggestion was made of petitions, which would be recruited by the party binding the candidates even more closely to the party.
The way to eliminate the Super PACs and to reduce the influence of money in politics is to eliminate the cause. That means removing all the campaign finance laws that led up to the point where the only way outside of the tightly controlled system is by people pooling their money in PACs. People forget that a campaign donation is indeed a form of political speech, and it was political speech in particular that was supposed to be protected by the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment (the freedom of religion clause covered religious speech).
That does not mean that only the rich would have a voice, contrary to the claims of those who cannot imagine another way of doing things. Just as attempts to limit money have increased its importance, removing the limits would decrease its importance giving more people a greater voice in the political system.
The ire is understandable given the focus of the Occupy movement. In the corporatist collusion between big business and big government, they focus on the business half of the partnership. The goal, as it is forming, is to prohibit all third party campaign activities. The target is Super PACs as well as corporations, and when pressed on the issue there is grudging agreement that unions are covered as well. The only form of donation that would be considered acceptable would be directly to the campaign.
Although the intent is good this will achieve the exact opposite of the desired goal, making it quite the same as every preceding campaign finance reform law. Those pushing this particular change are not well versed in economics, especially the law of unintended consequences, in spite of how the history of campaign finance law is a glaring example of it in action. Ever preceding law was put in place to reduce the importance of money in politics, and money is now more important than ever in politics. The Super PACs are the end result of a long line of those laws.
The basic campaign finance reform law is a limit on how much an individual can donate. This would prohibit the wealthy from bankrolling a candidate at the expense of the masses. What actually happens is that it shuts out competing views. Suppose there are two parties, one fifty times larger than the other. While both would benefit from a few big contributions, only one would benefit from many small contributions because it has the donor base to do so.
One might think that this would therefore encourage those who want actual change to work within the party to tap into that fundraising machine, but the party leadership controls who the party helps. The leadership will then share mailing lists and donor lists with candidates the leadership likes. This has the effect of binding candidates tightly to the party.
A way around the tight control of party leadership was developed, the PAC and then the Super PAC. And the solution to the problem of money in politics is to eliminate the only way left that actual advocates of change might use to get elected? The end result of this is something else that is also suggested often, full public financing of campaigns. When pressed on how someone would qualify for that financing, the suggestion was made of petitions, which would be recruited by the party binding the candidates even more closely to the party.
The way to eliminate the Super PACs and to reduce the influence of money in politics is to eliminate the cause. That means removing all the campaign finance laws that led up to the point where the only way outside of the tightly controlled system is by people pooling their money in PACs. People forget that a campaign donation is indeed a form of political speech, and it was political speech in particular that was supposed to be protected by the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment (the freedom of religion clause covered religious speech).
That does not mean that only the rich would have a voice, contrary to the claims of those who cannot imagine another way of doing things. Just as attempts to limit money have increased its importance, removing the limits would decrease its importance giving more people a greater voice in the political system.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
California High Speed Rail
The California High Speed Rail project is, even by government standards, a disaster. After the rail had been approved, costs quadrupled. It appears that their ridership estimates had the entire population of some of the town riding it ever day. The first stretch of it is in the middle of nowhere instead of somewhere that might start paying dividends from the start such as a line between San Diego and Los Angeles.
Although finding wasteful government agencies is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, there’s something particularly odious about the California High Speed Rail project. One libertarian blogger compared it to buying a car, and as soon as the contract is signed the car dealer says "Oh, by the way, we’re changing the contract to quadruple the price."
In California people apparently like to approve of any and all public transit initiatives. This isn't because they imagine themselves using the public transit, but because they imagine everyone else using public transit. The reason they have to involve the government is because they don't imagine themselves using it so there actually is no true market for the service.
The original plan would involve some money from government and also some from private investors. No private investors were interested, even with government guarantees. So far there has been more money spent on advertising than anything else, although that has been scaled back because the public has been criticizing the amount spent on advertising.
It has even been noted by some that since the plans changed after the project was initially approved, the bond that the public voted for could technically be considered null and void. Meanwhile part of the alleged profit from this rail line was supposed to come from other train services, most notably Amtrak, sharking the line and paying for the rails they use. The other rail lines then replied they had no interest in using the lines.
Although this is normal for a government boondoggle project, it is a bit of an extreme example of a government boondoggle. So what is to be done by the State of California? And how can this be remedied without costing the taxpayer a fortune?
Well, there is one way, and that is to enforce the contract that the state made with the High Speed Rail Agency. That goes against the spirit of corporatist corruption that established this boondoggle in the first place, but it fits pretty well within the letter of the law. The State of California should say to the High Speed Rail Agency "You will deliver to us the rail you promised, at the price you promised, or we will jail your leadership for fraud."
It might be just the thing to scare the many other corrupt corporatist endeavors that have been bleeding California dry with their promises of many bountiful returns but instead only receive government grants. Putting a few of their directors in jail for never giving any returns might force them to actually create business plans that go farther than the next government grant.
Although finding wasteful government agencies is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, there’s something particularly odious about the California High Speed Rail project. One libertarian blogger compared it to buying a car, and as soon as the contract is signed the car dealer says "Oh, by the way, we’re changing the contract to quadruple the price."
In California people apparently like to approve of any and all public transit initiatives. This isn't because they imagine themselves using the public transit, but because they imagine everyone else using public transit. The reason they have to involve the government is because they don't imagine themselves using it so there actually is no true market for the service.
The original plan would involve some money from government and also some from private investors. No private investors were interested, even with government guarantees. So far there has been more money spent on advertising than anything else, although that has been scaled back because the public has been criticizing the amount spent on advertising.
It has even been noted by some that since the plans changed after the project was initially approved, the bond that the public voted for could technically be considered null and void. Meanwhile part of the alleged profit from this rail line was supposed to come from other train services, most notably Amtrak, sharking the line and paying for the rails they use. The other rail lines then replied they had no interest in using the lines.
Although this is normal for a government boondoggle project, it is a bit of an extreme example of a government boondoggle. So what is to be done by the State of California? And how can this be remedied without costing the taxpayer a fortune?
Well, there is one way, and that is to enforce the contract that the state made with the High Speed Rail Agency. That goes against the spirit of corporatist corruption that established this boondoggle in the first place, but it fits pretty well within the letter of the law. The State of California should say to the High Speed Rail Agency "You will deliver to us the rail you promised, at the price you promised, or we will jail your leadership for fraud."
It might be just the thing to scare the many other corrupt corporatist endeavors that have been bleeding California dry with their promises of many bountiful returns but instead only receive government grants. Putting a few of their directors in jail for never giving any returns might force them to actually create business plans that go farther than the next government grant.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Why Republicans Must Choose Ron Paul
Every single election, the Republicans make the same sales pitch to independent libertarian voters: this election is so critical, support us in this, and maybe later once the enemy is defeated we can maybe support issues that are important to you.
It is an offer that will never be reciprocated. In the odd even that a Libertarian candidate is the stronger candidate, the Republican Party has no intention of ever supporting that candidate. Although Massachusetts senate races are usually decided by a 2-1 ratio in favor of the Democrat candidate, in 2002 when there was no Republican candidate the Libertarian candidate only received 18% of the vote. There is no evidence of Republican support.
Progressives like to make rhetorical use of the alleged sympathy between libertarians and conservatives, and one of their few offered proofs is Ron Paul and his election to the House of Representatives as a Republican instead of as a Libertarian or Democrat. The treatment of Representative Paul by the Republican Party should be sufficient disproof of that point, but facts do not interfere with that rhetorical usage.
Further disproof of that sympathy is shown by the upcoming Iowa caucus. The Republican Party leadership has come out strongly against Ron Paul winning that caucus, to the point where they have threatened to strip Iowa of their "first in the nation" status if Paul wins, and have even moved the counting over alleged threats from Occupy.
If Representative Paul does win Iowa, the threats are there for the whole Republican establishment to come out and attack him. It is unknown what will happen if Representative Paul manages to pick up a majority of delegates, although it does appear they have a plan in place to discount the effect of all delegates from early states.
If the nomination is actually stolen from Representative Paul, if it is given to Mitt Romney, that would be an absolute proof that the "big tent" ceased to exist years ago and that the whole "Libertarian Republican" meme is nothing but a charade designed to fool libertarians into wasting their votes with Republicans and to give rhetorical ammunition to progressives.
If the Republicans want to keep up the sales pitch to libertarians, they have to allow Representative Paul to win. The alternative is to stop pretending there is a big tent, to stop pretending that there is anything in common between libertarianism and the Republican Party, and to lose the race by losing Ron Paul. If the Republican Party wants a future, they must choose Ron Paul.
It is an offer that will never be reciprocated. In the odd even that a Libertarian candidate is the stronger candidate, the Republican Party has no intention of ever supporting that candidate. Although Massachusetts senate races are usually decided by a 2-1 ratio in favor of the Democrat candidate, in 2002 when there was no Republican candidate the Libertarian candidate only received 18% of the vote. There is no evidence of Republican support.
Progressives like to make rhetorical use of the alleged sympathy between libertarians and conservatives, and one of their few offered proofs is Ron Paul and his election to the House of Representatives as a Republican instead of as a Libertarian or Democrat. The treatment of Representative Paul by the Republican Party should be sufficient disproof of that point, but facts do not interfere with that rhetorical usage.
Further disproof of that sympathy is shown by the upcoming Iowa caucus. The Republican Party leadership has come out strongly against Ron Paul winning that caucus, to the point where they have threatened to strip Iowa of their "first in the nation" status if Paul wins, and have even moved the counting over alleged threats from Occupy.
If Representative Paul does win Iowa, the threats are there for the whole Republican establishment to come out and attack him. It is unknown what will happen if Representative Paul manages to pick up a majority of delegates, although it does appear they have a plan in place to discount the effect of all delegates from early states.
If the nomination is actually stolen from Representative Paul, if it is given to Mitt Romney, that would be an absolute proof that the "big tent" ceased to exist years ago and that the whole "Libertarian Republican" meme is nothing but a charade designed to fool libertarians into wasting their votes with Republicans and to give rhetorical ammunition to progressives.
If the Republicans want to keep up the sales pitch to libertarians, they have to allow Representative Paul to win. The alternative is to stop pretending there is a big tent, to stop pretending that there is anything in common between libertarianism and the Republican Party, and to lose the race by losing Ron Paul. If the Republican Party wants a future, they must choose Ron Paul.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Don't do it Gary
Right now there is intense speculation (in libertarian circles) about Republican Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson and a possible move from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party to seek the presidential nomination.
That would be a bad idea.
Yes, Governor Johnson has reason to feel slighted. The press is giving much more coverage to all the other two-term governor candidates than to Governor Johnson, and he is being snubbed from the debates in spite of having polling numbers similar to other two-term governor candidates. The second debate that he was invited to was to see if the press could get him to attack Representative Ron Paul on who is more libertarian, and when Governor Johnson refused to play that game the press lost all interest.
Governor Johnson entered the race hoping to be the "Ron Paul of 2012" but when Representative Paul entered the race the two had to compete for the same initial slice of support, donations, and votes. While followers of one would generally be content with the other, a choice had to be made factoring in both the credentials of the candidates and the likelihood of making it through the primaries. The public settled on Representative Paul as the one most likely to have an impact in the 2012 race.
But that is not a reason to quit. Representative Paul has indicated that if he does not receive the nomination in 2012 he will retire from politics. If Governor Johnson sticks through with the Republican Party he can go in four years from ignored to a prominent voice, much the way Representative Paul did from 2007 to 2011. He will have shown the determination to pick up where Representative Paul has left off and move forward from there.
However, if he leaves to join the Libertarian Party and seek the presidential nomination there are many problems associated with doing so. The first of such problems is that the Libertarian Party is NOT a dumping ground for disaffected Republicans. The Libertarian Party of Alaska was wise enough to say no to Lisa Murkowski, and the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island was wise enough to say no to Daniel Gordon.
But the Libertarian Party was not wise enough to rebuff conservative Bob Barr, with whom Governor Johnson will be repeatedly compared. This is a comparison that will not go well considering that Governor Johnson's views on war are reported to be not as pure as those of Representative Paul's views. It is true that Governor Johnson initially supported the war in Afghanistan, but does not currently do so. It is also true that Governor Johnson wants to tie United States foreign policy to another country. A foreign policy of non-intervention is core to libertarianism. Given how both the Republican Party (except for Ron Paul) and the Democratic Party are pro-war, being pro-peace is very critical for anyone who would be as much of a spokesperson as the presidential nominee.
And on the issue of peace and war, the person who appears to be doing the most to bring Governor Johnson into the Libertarian Party is pro-war soi disant libertarian spokesperson Wayne Allyn Root, Bob Barr’s former running mate on the libertarian ticket in 2008. Perhaps Governor Johnson doesn’t know just how controversial Wayne Root is within the Libertarian Party, and how much his endorsement can actually hurt Governor Johnson within the party.
Riding on Bob Barr's coattails and being associated with Wayne Root - that is not the way to make a grand entrance into Libertarian Party politics. Doing so after not gaining ground in the Republican Party does damage to the image of the Libertarian Party with all of the false associations the press creates between the two parties. It would be a bad idea, both for Governor Johnson and for the Libertarian Party, for Governor Johnson to seek the Libertarian Party nomination.
That would be a bad idea.
Yes, Governor Johnson has reason to feel slighted. The press is giving much more coverage to all the other two-term governor candidates than to Governor Johnson, and he is being snubbed from the debates in spite of having polling numbers similar to other two-term governor candidates. The second debate that he was invited to was to see if the press could get him to attack Representative Ron Paul on who is more libertarian, and when Governor Johnson refused to play that game the press lost all interest.
Governor Johnson entered the race hoping to be the "Ron Paul of 2012" but when Representative Paul entered the race the two had to compete for the same initial slice of support, donations, and votes. While followers of one would generally be content with the other, a choice had to be made factoring in both the credentials of the candidates and the likelihood of making it through the primaries. The public settled on Representative Paul as the one most likely to have an impact in the 2012 race.
But that is not a reason to quit. Representative Paul has indicated that if he does not receive the nomination in 2012 he will retire from politics. If Governor Johnson sticks through with the Republican Party he can go in four years from ignored to a prominent voice, much the way Representative Paul did from 2007 to 2011. He will have shown the determination to pick up where Representative Paul has left off and move forward from there.
However, if he leaves to join the Libertarian Party and seek the presidential nomination there are many problems associated with doing so. The first of such problems is that the Libertarian Party is NOT a dumping ground for disaffected Republicans. The Libertarian Party of Alaska was wise enough to say no to Lisa Murkowski, and the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island was wise enough to say no to Daniel Gordon.
But the Libertarian Party was not wise enough to rebuff conservative Bob Barr, with whom Governor Johnson will be repeatedly compared. This is a comparison that will not go well considering that Governor Johnson's views on war are reported to be not as pure as those of Representative Paul's views. It is true that Governor Johnson initially supported the war in Afghanistan, but does not currently do so. It is also true that Governor Johnson wants to tie United States foreign policy to another country. A foreign policy of non-intervention is core to libertarianism. Given how both the Republican Party (except for Ron Paul) and the Democratic Party are pro-war, being pro-peace is very critical for anyone who would be as much of a spokesperson as the presidential nominee.
And on the issue of peace and war, the person who appears to be doing the most to bring Governor Johnson into the Libertarian Party is pro-war soi disant libertarian spokesperson Wayne Allyn Root, Bob Barr’s former running mate on the libertarian ticket in 2008. Perhaps Governor Johnson doesn’t know just how controversial Wayne Root is within the Libertarian Party, and how much his endorsement can actually hurt Governor Johnson within the party.
Riding on Bob Barr's coattails and being associated with Wayne Root - that is not the way to make a grand entrance into Libertarian Party politics. Doing so after not gaining ground in the Republican Party does damage to the image of the Libertarian Party with all of the false associations the press creates between the two parties. It would be a bad idea, both for Governor Johnson and for the Libertarian Party, for Governor Johnson to seek the Libertarian Party nomination.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
This is not a victory for Obama
When Senator Obama ran for the presidency he promised, among other things, to end the Iraq war. Upon achieving the office, President Obama made it very clear that he had no intention of keeping that promise. It was the peace vote that formed a very solid vote in his favor, even though Candidate Obama had promised to escalate hostilities in Afghanistan. He did promise to end the occupation of Iraq, and won a Nobel Peace Prize for the achievement of being someone other than George W. Bush.
The final insult to those who vainly supported President Obama in the hope that he might, eventually, possibly keep his Iraq promise was when he declared that all "combat troops" were leaving Iraq, and that the 50,000 remaining troops were "non-combat troops." It was a clear signal that President Obama had absolutely no intention of even pretending to end the occupation of Iraq.
Since then, the Iraqi government has directed the United States government to withdraw all troops.
This puts the United States government in an awkward position. The rhetoric is that the current government of Iraq is legitimate and democratically elected. This legitimate and democratic government voted that the United States military should depart. If the United States government refuses the directive it puts to lie many of the already shallow claims about the Iraq war.
So in spite of not wanting troops to depart, in spite of all his efforts to keep troops in Iraq, President Obama has reluctantly decided to declare victory instead. He is claiming that he worked to keep his campaign promise, when the truth is that the promise was kept in spite of his best efforts otherwise.
The broader implications of this move are yet to be determined, as Iraq is a central launching ground for attacks throughout most of the Middle East and obviously a front in the evitable war with Iran.
Sadly, most of the Republican candidates will likely not only allow the lie by President Obama, but will encourage it. Their rhetoric will be that President Obama withdrew troops too early and is leaving behind a fragile Iraq, so that they may appear to be strong and determined on foreign use of the military. Only one candidate, Ron Paul, has the credentials to actually challenge President Obama on the actual facts of the Iraq withdrawal.
It is a good thing that the Iraq war is finally ending. It is unfortunate that President Obama will get credit for achieving that which he opposed simply because he happened to be in office at the right time.
The final insult to those who vainly supported President Obama in the hope that he might, eventually, possibly keep his Iraq promise was when he declared that all "combat troops" were leaving Iraq, and that the 50,000 remaining troops were "non-combat troops." It was a clear signal that President Obama had absolutely no intention of even pretending to end the occupation of Iraq.
Since then, the Iraqi government has directed the United States government to withdraw all troops.
This puts the United States government in an awkward position. The rhetoric is that the current government of Iraq is legitimate and democratically elected. This legitimate and democratic government voted that the United States military should depart. If the United States government refuses the directive it puts to lie many of the already shallow claims about the Iraq war.
So in spite of not wanting troops to depart, in spite of all his efforts to keep troops in Iraq, President Obama has reluctantly decided to declare victory instead. He is claiming that he worked to keep his campaign promise, when the truth is that the promise was kept in spite of his best efforts otherwise.
The broader implications of this move are yet to be determined, as Iraq is a central launching ground for attacks throughout most of the Middle East and obviously a front in the evitable war with Iran.
Sadly, most of the Republican candidates will likely not only allow the lie by President Obama, but will encourage it. Their rhetoric will be that President Obama withdrew troops too early and is leaving behind a fragile Iraq, so that they may appear to be strong and determined on foreign use of the military. Only one candidate, Ron Paul, has the credentials to actually challenge President Obama on the actual facts of the Iraq withdrawal.
It is a good thing that the Iraq war is finally ending. It is unfortunate that President Obama will get credit for achieving that which he opposed simply because he happened to be in office at the right time.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Economic Principles outside Economics
Although most people would deny it, economic principles apply in many areas of human life, beyond the labor market and the shopping market. Most people do not think of it in this way, but exchanges of value occur in every aspect of life. Perhaps that is why Ludwig von Mises referred to the subject as "Praxeology" instead of "Economics" because Praxeology is the study of human action. Praxeology studies what people do, in contrast to Psychology which studies what people think.
The simple act of who a person chooses as a friend to spend time with is in this sense an economic decision. When a person chooses a friend, the person says "you have sufficient value to me that I consider you worthy of the investment in time and emotion." As Ayn Rand noted, a person would not choose a friend who does not reflect the values of that person, but this can be expanded through an economic perspective.
A person would not invest with someone beneath them, and would be unlikely to achieve that investment from someone far above them. Of course value is relative, so therefore the terms "above" and "beneath" are relative as well, so that statement does not imply that there is an objective system of values that says some people are intrinsically better than others.
This is even more true in more intimate relationships. It is true that if someone were desperate enough that a sexual partner could be easily found, but there are many who would never lower themselves to the necessary level simply for some physical satisfaction. A persons body is a commodity that is not shared freely, but is instead traded with those who a person feels worthy of the trade.
Social activities outside of work and family reflect economic decisions as well. Some people are involved in religious activities, others in athletics, others in community artistic endeavors, and yet others in politics. The choice one makes are an investment of time at the expense of the opportunity cost of other activities.
This isn’t news to anyone who has studied the basics of economics, which includes all libertarians. Why therefore does it need to be stated? Because while most people have various economic beliefs other than laissez faire, they do not practice those other beliefs in their own lives. And their failure to do so, and what they actually practice, should be noted to them.
There are some ways this is done contrasting capitalism and socialism, such as various stories about students sharing grades. But that fails to capture the full range of economic ideologies, leaving out most notably Kenyesian and Welfarist economics. That leaves only the question of how one would apply those decision making theories to the decisions that take place outside of the labor market and the shopping market.
The simple act of who a person chooses as a friend to spend time with is in this sense an economic decision. When a person chooses a friend, the person says "you have sufficient value to me that I consider you worthy of the investment in time and emotion." As Ayn Rand noted, a person would not choose a friend who does not reflect the values of that person, but this can be expanded through an economic perspective.
A person would not invest with someone beneath them, and would be unlikely to achieve that investment from someone far above them. Of course value is relative, so therefore the terms "above" and "beneath" are relative as well, so that statement does not imply that there is an objective system of values that says some people are intrinsically better than others.
This is even more true in more intimate relationships. It is true that if someone were desperate enough that a sexual partner could be easily found, but there are many who would never lower themselves to the necessary level simply for some physical satisfaction. A persons body is a commodity that is not shared freely, but is instead traded with those who a person feels worthy of the trade.
Social activities outside of work and family reflect economic decisions as well. Some people are involved in religious activities, others in athletics, others in community artistic endeavors, and yet others in politics. The choice one makes are an investment of time at the expense of the opportunity cost of other activities.
This isn’t news to anyone who has studied the basics of economics, which includes all libertarians. Why therefore does it need to be stated? Because while most people have various economic beliefs other than laissez faire, they do not practice those other beliefs in their own lives. And their failure to do so, and what they actually practice, should be noted to them.
There are some ways this is done contrasting capitalism and socialism, such as various stories about students sharing grades. But that fails to capture the full range of economic ideologies, leaving out most notably Kenyesian and Welfarist economics. That leaves only the question of how one would apply those decision making theories to the decisions that take place outside of the labor market and the shopping market.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
The Progressives Did It to Themselves
It is a rather humorous take on Occupy Wall Street - the corporations control the government, so therefore we need more government to control the corporations. It would seem to indicate a flaw in progressive thinking, if the goal of progressivism was to regulate the economy for the benefit of the people.
But a look at history, when liberals and progressives were considered to be something different instead of today's misunderstanding which considers them the same, reveals a different picture of what progressives stand for and why.
When the so-called "Gilded Age" gave way to the "Progressive Era" the succession of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft show the actual motives of the progressives, and why they actually sought to increase government power in spite of claims that it was for the good of the masses.
A significant portion of United States history can be explained by the conflict between the Rockefeller family and the Morgan family, with each family backing political candidates. The goal was to use the government to attack the interests of the other. Theodore Roosevelt was sponsored by, and acted for, the Morgan family. William McKinley and William Howard Taft were candidates of the Rockefeller family.
With all three, the appeal was made to give the government more regulatory powers, while the motive was to use those powers to attack the interests of the other family.
Libertarians and progressives both have a product to sell, and the target audience of both is liberals. Right now progressives are the more successful salesmen. They know how to frame their ideas in terms that appeal to liberals. They are able to frame the issues more successfully, because control for the sake of control isn't a liberal value.
The combination of Occupy Wall Street and Ron Paul preparing to face Barack Obama in the general election has thrown the whole issue of progressivism's true values into sharp relief. It is getting harder and harder for progressives to sell their poisoned product to liberals, and that is why progressives really are more terrified of libertarianism than ever before and so staunchly oppose the candidacy of Ron Paul.
But a look at history, when liberals and progressives were considered to be something different instead of today's misunderstanding which considers them the same, reveals a different picture of what progressives stand for and why.
When the so-called "Gilded Age" gave way to the "Progressive Era" the succession of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft show the actual motives of the progressives, and why they actually sought to increase government power in spite of claims that it was for the good of the masses.
A significant portion of United States history can be explained by the conflict between the Rockefeller family and the Morgan family, with each family backing political candidates. The goal was to use the government to attack the interests of the other. Theodore Roosevelt was sponsored by, and acted for, the Morgan family. William McKinley and William Howard Taft were candidates of the Rockefeller family.
With all three, the appeal was made to give the government more regulatory powers, while the motive was to use those powers to attack the interests of the other family.
Libertarians and progressives both have a product to sell, and the target audience of both is liberals. Right now progressives are the more successful salesmen. They know how to frame their ideas in terms that appeal to liberals. They are able to frame the issues more successfully, because control for the sake of control isn't a liberal value.
The combination of Occupy Wall Street and Ron Paul preparing to face Barack Obama in the general election has thrown the whole issue of progressivism's true values into sharp relief. It is getting harder and harder for progressives to sell their poisoned product to liberals, and that is why progressives really are more terrified of libertarianism than ever before and so staunchly oppose the candidacy of Ron Paul.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Stop SOPA
Those who wish to rule must rue that the government ever created the internet. It has, since it branched beyond military use, become a big thorn in the side of the political class. In terms of shopping, it has enabled people to bypass sales taxes and to find bargains from a great distance as well as purchase used items at deep discounts on sites such as eBay. In terms of news it has allowed non-mainstream providers and their audience to find each other, and allowed greater dissemination of stories that the mainstream media would prefer to bury. In terms of law enforcement, incidents of an individual being mistreated are no longer considered isolated incidents local to one area but are instead indicative of a pattern with each new "isolated incident" feeding into the general outrage of the people being mistreated by the police. In terms of political activism, it has created the Ron Paul campaign as well as other issue focused campaigns that in the past would have died for lack of coverage.
Various attempts at "net neutrality" have been a topic of conversation, in which the cover of safeguarding the net is used to control the net. While there is some merit to some aspects of the discussion in favor of net neutrality measures, the discussion as a whole lacks much merit. It is obvious by the way the internet was constructed that it was a government project initially, as the methods of allocating bandwith are somewhat crude compared to how one might design the internet if one was starting from scratch.
But "net neutrality" keeps getting a justified defeat, so false claims of fairness have proven to be far insufficient. So in the name of stopping piracy a bill has been introduced to congress that will effectively shut down large swaths of the internet for those who access in the United States. It is the Stop Internet Privacy Act. A better, although more biased and more vulgar link can be found here although it would be a bad idea to open that link at work.
This bill has the potential to, in the name of stopping piracy, shut down many sites that contribute the value to the internet today. Any site that has user-provided content is at severe risk lest one of the users provides copy-righted content. If the content falls under fair use, the burden of proof is on the accused. Currently, under DCMA, if someone sees copyrighted material they must submit a letter to the site requesting the material be taken down. Under the SOPA bill, a site must instead actively monitor all content lest something be copyrighted, and failure to do so is a crime. YouTube, which receives a vast number of videos every day, could not handle the burden and would have to shut down. That would stop the embarrassing videos of police abusing people from surfacing and spreading.
Other sites that share content, such as Rational Review News Digest and Freedom's Phoenix which excerpt portions of an article and link to the original article at the original site may be considered to be at risk if the original provider does not want their article shared with a particular audience. Righthaven was shut down for their abuse of copyright law, but this new bill strengthens the position of similar copyright trolls.
The internet has been a force for freedom in this increasingly oppressive world. Given how many content provider websites are headquartered in the US, and disputes are supposed to be settled in the US no matter where the content provider website is located, this amounts to world-wide censorship. Currently this bill is in committee, but given what it could potentially accomplish this is bill should be stopped.
Various attempts at "net neutrality" have been a topic of conversation, in which the cover of safeguarding the net is used to control the net. While there is some merit to some aspects of the discussion in favor of net neutrality measures, the discussion as a whole lacks much merit. It is obvious by the way the internet was constructed that it was a government project initially, as the methods of allocating bandwith are somewhat crude compared to how one might design the internet if one was starting from scratch.
But "net neutrality" keeps getting a justified defeat, so false claims of fairness have proven to be far insufficient. So in the name of stopping piracy a bill has been introduced to congress that will effectively shut down large swaths of the internet for those who access in the United States. It is the Stop Internet Privacy Act. A better, although more biased and more vulgar link can be found here although it would be a bad idea to open that link at work.
This bill has the potential to, in the name of stopping piracy, shut down many sites that contribute the value to the internet today. Any site that has user-provided content is at severe risk lest one of the users provides copy-righted content. If the content falls under fair use, the burden of proof is on the accused. Currently, under DCMA, if someone sees copyrighted material they must submit a letter to the site requesting the material be taken down. Under the SOPA bill, a site must instead actively monitor all content lest something be copyrighted, and failure to do so is a crime. YouTube, which receives a vast number of videos every day, could not handle the burden and would have to shut down. That would stop the embarrassing videos of police abusing people from surfacing and spreading.
Other sites that share content, such as Rational Review News Digest and Freedom's Phoenix which excerpt portions of an article and link to the original article at the original site may be considered to be at risk if the original provider does not want their article shared with a particular audience. Righthaven was shut down for their abuse of copyright law, but this new bill strengthens the position of similar copyright trolls.
The internet has been a force for freedom in this increasingly oppressive world. Given how many content provider websites are headquartered in the US, and disputes are supposed to be settled in the US no matter where the content provider website is located, this amounts to world-wide censorship. Currently this bill is in committee, but given what it could potentially accomplish this is bill should be stopped.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
The Democrat Argument for Ron Paul
If one must waste their vote by voting for a major party candidate instead of a third party candidate, there is no law saying that one must do so in an unintelligent manner. It still can pay to be smart and think ahead.
Most people who vote major party do not do that. Comments such as "I hope Bachmann wins because that would mean an easy victory for Obama" are common enough. The problem with such a wish is that it can too easily backfire. People saying such a thing should remember that whoever wins the Republican nomination does stand a good chance of winning the presidency.
It is therefore much smarter to hope that the best person wins the Republican nomination instead of the worst person. And if both parties are having a primary, as happened in 2008, it is better to hope that the best person in each race wins so that no matter which party wins the ultimate winner is better than he would otherwise be.
Although there are plenty of short-sighted reasons for the Democrats to support various candidates, the list of candidates that a Democrat could positively support is much shorter. It comes down to two candidates; Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Which candidate the Democrat should choose depends on whether the Democrat is a liberal or a progressive.
Progressives, if thinking strategically, would prefer Governor Romney. He is typical of a "moderate Republican" in that he supports the worst aspects of both the Republican agenda and the Democrat agenda.
Liberals, on the other hand, have every reason to support Representative Paul. He wants to end the wars in the Middle East. He would achieve the greatest advancement in civil rights since granting minorities the right to vote by ending the war on drugs. Although he is pro life, he would do more for guaranteeing the right to choose by sending the issue back to the states than either Romney or Obama. But most importantly he will end the wars, bring the troops home, and stop wasting money spent on these adventures, money that is currently being taken from the poor through inflation.
Democrats can influence who will be the Republican nominee, and if they honestly assess what they stand for they should admit that Ron Paul actually is the best in the Republican field. An honest answer should be "if we have to have a Republican as President, then it might as well be Ron Paul." For that reason they should help him win instead of participating in the blackout.
Most people who vote major party do not do that. Comments such as "I hope Bachmann wins because that would mean an easy victory for Obama" are common enough. The problem with such a wish is that it can too easily backfire. People saying such a thing should remember that whoever wins the Republican nomination does stand a good chance of winning the presidency.
It is therefore much smarter to hope that the best person wins the Republican nomination instead of the worst person. And if both parties are having a primary, as happened in 2008, it is better to hope that the best person in each race wins so that no matter which party wins the ultimate winner is better than he would otherwise be.
Although there are plenty of short-sighted reasons for the Democrats to support various candidates, the list of candidates that a Democrat could positively support is much shorter. It comes down to two candidates; Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Which candidate the Democrat should choose depends on whether the Democrat is a liberal or a progressive.
Progressives, if thinking strategically, would prefer Governor Romney. He is typical of a "moderate Republican" in that he supports the worst aspects of both the Republican agenda and the Democrat agenda.
Liberals, on the other hand, have every reason to support Representative Paul. He wants to end the wars in the Middle East. He would achieve the greatest advancement in civil rights since granting minorities the right to vote by ending the war on drugs. Although he is pro life, he would do more for guaranteeing the right to choose by sending the issue back to the states than either Romney or Obama. But most importantly he will end the wars, bring the troops home, and stop wasting money spent on these adventures, money that is currently being taken from the poor through inflation.
Democrats can influence who will be the Republican nominee, and if they honestly assess what they stand for they should admit that Ron Paul actually is the best in the Republican field. An honest answer should be "if we have to have a Republican as President, then it might as well be Ron Paul." For that reason they should help him win instead of participating in the blackout.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Local Politics is also the most Corrupt
Local politics is not only the most intense, local politics is not only the most blatant, local politics is also the most vicious and corrupt in its pettiness.
In Los Angeles County there are many rural town councils to help the county administrate the rural area of the county. These boards, although elected by the communities they represent, do not have any legislative power. The best description for these boards is that they are elected lobbying firms, lobbying the county on behalf of the communities.
They do have the power to write the rough draft of the zoning laws, but the rough draft is then turned over to the county to implement, and the county does rewrite them before they implement them. They collect community complaints and relay them to the county, whether it be road conditions or any complains that the community may have with regards to law enforcement and other county services.
Given the importance of these boards, one might think that they are not important enough for political corruption. That would be an unfair assumption.
The political intrigues that go on, although on an amateur level, are vicious. There are attempts to stack committee meetings and council elections, taking advantage of the low involvement in general at politics.
At higher levels of politics, the corruption actually eases the activity. Democrats and Republicans will vote for each others programs in order to get votes for their own programs, since they have exempted themselves from the laws and they are not paying for the programs themselves.
At local levels, things get mean. On condo boards, people do sue each other. On town councils people have been known to lodge baseless police complaints against each other, calling law enforcement to harass the competition.
The stakes are so small, the fights are so vicious, and most of the people involved have no intention of using the local boards as a stepping stone to higher office.
Why are things so vicious? Some people sarcastically answer that it is because the stakes are so small. Others point out that there actually are some results. Whatever the reason, local politics really is the meanest.
In Los Angeles County there are many rural town councils to help the county administrate the rural area of the county. These boards, although elected by the communities they represent, do not have any legislative power. The best description for these boards is that they are elected lobbying firms, lobbying the county on behalf of the communities.
They do have the power to write the rough draft of the zoning laws, but the rough draft is then turned over to the county to implement, and the county does rewrite them before they implement them. They collect community complaints and relay them to the county, whether it be road conditions or any complains that the community may have with regards to law enforcement and other county services.
Given the importance of these boards, one might think that they are not important enough for political corruption. That would be an unfair assumption.
The political intrigues that go on, although on an amateur level, are vicious. There are attempts to stack committee meetings and council elections, taking advantage of the low involvement in general at politics.
At higher levels of politics, the corruption actually eases the activity. Democrats and Republicans will vote for each others programs in order to get votes for their own programs, since they have exempted themselves from the laws and they are not paying for the programs themselves.
At local levels, things get mean. On condo boards, people do sue each other. On town councils people have been known to lodge baseless police complaints against each other, calling law enforcement to harass the competition.
The stakes are so small, the fights are so vicious, and most of the people involved have no intention of using the local boards as a stepping stone to higher office.
Why are things so vicious? Some people sarcastically answer that it is because the stakes are so small. Others point out that there actually are some results. Whatever the reason, local politics really is the meanest.
Friday, November 04, 2011
The Supposed Campaign against Bullying
A seventh grade student is reading his history book. The subject is the Cherokee constitution and Cherokee law from early in United States history. He runs across a line stating that if man is attacked, and in the act of defending himself he kills the person who attacks him, that man is not to be punished.
The student is amazed. He tries to point out to adults around him this unique concept.
Their reaction puzzles him further. They see nothing amazing. They are confused as to why he is amazed. They react as if he is telling them how amazing it is that the sky is blue and the water is wet. Of course people are allowed to defend themselves.
Why is he amazed? Because self defense is not a protected concept in his world, the very artificial world of public schools.
The current focus of public schools, as expressed through public service announcements that run as if they were commercials, is a campaign against bullying. News stories hit the press about people who, unable to suffer any more, kill themselves. Teachers give occasional sermons about how school children should treat each other more kindly.
The problem is, students in school have figured out how the game operates. Those who would be cruel to their peers know that as long as the teachers don’t see it then it didn’t happen. As long as any cruelty ceases as soon as an authority figure enters the room then nothing happened.
Now if a victim actually stands up for himself, then it becomes a fight. The victim has to be taught a lesson, and that overrides the desire to stay out of trouble. Then the two students are brought to the school authorities, and both are punished for fighting.
Speaking to actual teachers about the need for them to do actual policing of bullying, how they need to determine who is the aggressor and the victim, leads to the cop-out that they are not police officers. And yet they are indeed given disciplinary authority, authority they could use to intervene if they desired.
The system, as it is currently set up, creates people who are supposed to be docile, to take any punishment, to never stand up for oneself. Some people take advantage of that system by aggressing against those who are being trained to be docile. The docility is a desired end by a government that doesn’t want anyone to stand up to the government. The bullying is a byproduct.
It is possible for the schools to determine who is an aggressor and who is a victim. The schools could curb bullying easily if they tried. The principle that both participants are equally guilty is what makes bullying possible, because refusing to acknowledge the difference between bulling and self defense is the only way to encourage docility. It also explains why the student would be surprised at a law that authorizes self defense.
The student is amazed. He tries to point out to adults around him this unique concept.
Their reaction puzzles him further. They see nothing amazing. They are confused as to why he is amazed. They react as if he is telling them how amazing it is that the sky is blue and the water is wet. Of course people are allowed to defend themselves.
Why is he amazed? Because self defense is not a protected concept in his world, the very artificial world of public schools.
The current focus of public schools, as expressed through public service announcements that run as if they were commercials, is a campaign against bullying. News stories hit the press about people who, unable to suffer any more, kill themselves. Teachers give occasional sermons about how school children should treat each other more kindly.
The problem is, students in school have figured out how the game operates. Those who would be cruel to their peers know that as long as the teachers don’t see it then it didn’t happen. As long as any cruelty ceases as soon as an authority figure enters the room then nothing happened.
Now if a victim actually stands up for himself, then it becomes a fight. The victim has to be taught a lesson, and that overrides the desire to stay out of trouble. Then the two students are brought to the school authorities, and both are punished for fighting.
Speaking to actual teachers about the need for them to do actual policing of bullying, how they need to determine who is the aggressor and the victim, leads to the cop-out that they are not police officers. And yet they are indeed given disciplinary authority, authority they could use to intervene if they desired.
The system, as it is currently set up, creates people who are supposed to be docile, to take any punishment, to never stand up for oneself. Some people take advantage of that system by aggressing against those who are being trained to be docile. The docility is a desired end by a government that doesn’t want anyone to stand up to the government. The bullying is a byproduct.
It is possible for the schools to determine who is an aggressor and who is a victim. The schools could curb bullying easily if they tried. The principle that both participants are equally guilty is what makes bullying possible, because refusing to acknowledge the difference between bulling and self defense is the only way to encourage docility. It also explains why the student would be surprised at a law that authorizes self defense.
Friday, October 28, 2011
To Be a Real Radical
It disconcerts progressives to learn that libertarians enjoy and appreciate Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. For a very long time they have tried to equate the term "progressive" with "radical" - but only sometimes - to try to portray their demands as daring, avant-garde, leading edge, or in some other way innovative.
For an example of this viewpoint, just peruse any comparison of the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement that is written by a progressive. Libertarians understand that the two movements, when at their best, are very nearly identical in meaning. The demands of those Occupiers that are less appealing to libertarians are the same demands progressives have been making for decades, and are considered "revolutionary" by the progressives commenting on the Occupy movement.
From a progressive point of view Saul Alinsky is supposed to be "left" and libertarians are supposed to be "right," whatever those terms mean. Plus libertarians support capitalism, therefore libertarians "can't be radical," ignoring the many and profound differences between corporatism and capitalism.
This must be made clear: the twentieth century was the century of government. That means advocating government is advocating what currently exists. That means there is nothing radical about seeking governmental solutions to society’s problems.
Everything that the progressive has to offer is a governmental solution to society's problems. Their only defense of that single track argument is to engage in the fallacy that if the government is not acting then nobody is acting to solve those problems.
The radical wants something different from the status quo. The conservative is comfortable with the status quo. The political and economic situation of the United States is a mix of mercantilist and Keynesian economics with a near-limitless government. The status quo is "progressive," and that means progressives are not only conservatives, they are arch-conservatives.
The real radical doesn't support more of the same. There are real radicals in both the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement. Anyone who claims that one is good and the other bad is in support of "keep them divided" and thus in support of the 1% of the population that is composed of elected and appointed government officials with actual power - the real ruling class. The real danger is that the radicals in each movement might discover a common cause with each other.
For an example of this viewpoint, just peruse any comparison of the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement that is written by a progressive. Libertarians understand that the two movements, when at their best, are very nearly identical in meaning. The demands of those Occupiers that are less appealing to libertarians are the same demands progressives have been making for decades, and are considered "revolutionary" by the progressives commenting on the Occupy movement.
From a progressive point of view Saul Alinsky is supposed to be "left" and libertarians are supposed to be "right," whatever those terms mean. Plus libertarians support capitalism, therefore libertarians "can't be radical," ignoring the many and profound differences between corporatism and capitalism.
This must be made clear: the twentieth century was the century of government. That means advocating government is advocating what currently exists. That means there is nothing radical about seeking governmental solutions to society’s problems.
Everything that the progressive has to offer is a governmental solution to society's problems. Their only defense of that single track argument is to engage in the fallacy that if the government is not acting then nobody is acting to solve those problems.
The radical wants something different from the status quo. The conservative is comfortable with the status quo. The political and economic situation of the United States is a mix of mercantilist and Keynesian economics with a near-limitless government. The status quo is "progressive," and that means progressives are not only conservatives, they are arch-conservatives.
The real radical doesn't support more of the same. There are real radicals in both the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement. Anyone who claims that one is good and the other bad is in support of "keep them divided" and thus in support of the 1% of the population that is composed of elected and appointed government officials with actual power - the real ruling class. The real danger is that the radicals in each movement might discover a common cause with each other.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Macroethics and Microethics
It is common, upon finding out that libertarians oppose coercive wealth redistribution, to accuse libertarians of opposing charity as a whole. This is due to a basic confusion between macroethics and microethics.
Macroethics is the ethics of the macro scale, much like macroeconomics. It encompasses two fields; politics and economics. Microethics is ethics on the personal scale, the more traditionally understood field of morality. Of course the distinction between the two is as artificial as the distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics, but doing so is useful to understand how the macro and the micro are different, just as in economics.
The two fields do relate, as is to be expcted, and holding certain macroethical positions will necessitate holding certain microethical positions, and vice versa. It is impossible to consistently hold a political belief opposing the initiation of force without also holding the moral belief opposing the same.
But the connections aren't direct and easy to misinterpret, much like how the connections between microeconomics and macroeconomics are not direct and easy to misinterpret. One can point out how microeconomically it doesn't matter to an individual whether his wage comes from the government or from the private sector, as long as he is working he will have both the satisfaction of a job and the satisfaction of an income. It takes looking at the matter from both the micro and macro perspective to notice the essential difference.
And it takes looking at ethical activities from both a micro and macro perspective to correctly identify them. Accusing a libertarian of wanting people to starve (microethics) simply because he opposes wealth redistribution (macroethics) is an unwarranted extension. It is quite clear that the two positions are in the two different fields. Having identified that they are in different fields, one can then challenge the person claiming there is a connection to substantiate the claim.
Since the extension is unwarranted the claim cannot be substantiated. But a converse claim can be made. This converse claim will be a lot harder for the critic of libertarianism to defuse because it invokes the critics own logic. By claiming that force of government is needed because otherwise old people will be starving in the street, the person making the claim is admitting an unwillingness to care for family members if not forced to by the government. It is also a spurious claim.
The ability to distinguish between the macroethcial and the microethical, between the political and the moral, is important. The ability to point out the different is also important. It enables one to put away the fallacies that libertarians often face.
Macroethics is the ethics of the macro scale, much like macroeconomics. It encompasses two fields; politics and economics. Microethics is ethics on the personal scale, the more traditionally understood field of morality. Of course the distinction between the two is as artificial as the distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics, but doing so is useful to understand how the macro and the micro are different, just as in economics.
The two fields do relate, as is to be expcted, and holding certain macroethical positions will necessitate holding certain microethical positions, and vice versa. It is impossible to consistently hold a political belief opposing the initiation of force without also holding the moral belief opposing the same.
But the connections aren't direct and easy to misinterpret, much like how the connections between microeconomics and macroeconomics are not direct and easy to misinterpret. One can point out how microeconomically it doesn't matter to an individual whether his wage comes from the government or from the private sector, as long as he is working he will have both the satisfaction of a job and the satisfaction of an income. It takes looking at the matter from both the micro and macro perspective to notice the essential difference.
And it takes looking at ethical activities from both a micro and macro perspective to correctly identify them. Accusing a libertarian of wanting people to starve (microethics) simply because he opposes wealth redistribution (macroethics) is an unwarranted extension. It is quite clear that the two positions are in the two different fields. Having identified that they are in different fields, one can then challenge the person claiming there is a connection to substantiate the claim.
Since the extension is unwarranted the claim cannot be substantiated. But a converse claim can be made. This converse claim will be a lot harder for the critic of libertarianism to defuse because it invokes the critics own logic. By claiming that force of government is needed because otherwise old people will be starving in the street, the person making the claim is admitting an unwillingness to care for family members if not forced to by the government. It is also a spurious claim.
The ability to distinguish between the macroethcial and the microethical, between the political and the moral, is important. The ability to point out the different is also important. It enables one to put away the fallacies that libertarians often face.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Ron Paul and the Progressive Dilemma
There have been a series of articles explaining exactly why Ron Paul should appeal to progressives, and counter-arguments by liberals and progressives as to why Ron Paul should not appeal to them.
Given that Ron Paul is not the leading Republican candidate, that the nomination is more likely to go to Mitt Romney, then why is there so much frenzy, both for and against, for Ron Paul?
There are two potential reasons. The first is that it actually is possible that Ron Paul will win the Republican Party nomination. He is the true second place candidate in the primary in spite of being eclipsed by various temporary other "flavor of the month" candidates.
The other reason is, for all the reasons explained by Charlie Davis, he does have reason to appeal to liberals. Charlie Davis uses the word "progressive" but there are reasons why “liberal” would be a better term.
Some people are led by their ideology to choose a political party, and because they are idealists are willing to reject the party when the party strays from what it is supposed to stand for. Some people are led by their party to choose an ideology, and if the party changes they change along with it. For some, ideas come first. For others, power and party come first.
Because of all the reasons detailed by those authors who wrote in favor of Ron Paul, he has some very strong appeal to those who place ideas as their primary motivation. And Barack Obama has very weak appeal to those same people. He could easily enough steal the support of those idealists from the Democratic Party where they are more often found, and therefore away from Barack Obama.
Those who place party first recognize this as a very real threat. Since their primary motivation is victory for their party, they are out to nullify Ron Paul before he becomes an actual threat. And that means convincing independents and Democrats that they have no reason to vote in Republican primaries for him.
- The Progressive Critique of Ron Paul: He Isn't Libertarian Enough
- Why Do Some Progressives Support Ron Paul, Even Though He Is Anti-Woman, Anti-Civil Rights, and Anti-Equality?
- I'll take the reactionary over the murderer, thanks
- 5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution -- 'Cuddly' Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics
- Ron Paul hates women and minorities; Obama just kills and imprisons them
Given that Ron Paul is not the leading Republican candidate, that the nomination is more likely to go to Mitt Romney, then why is there so much frenzy, both for and against, for Ron Paul?
There are two potential reasons. The first is that it actually is possible that Ron Paul will win the Republican Party nomination. He is the true second place candidate in the primary in spite of being eclipsed by various temporary other "flavor of the month" candidates.
The other reason is, for all the reasons explained by Charlie Davis, he does have reason to appeal to liberals. Charlie Davis uses the word "progressive" but there are reasons why “liberal” would be a better term.
Some people are led by their ideology to choose a political party, and because they are idealists are willing to reject the party when the party strays from what it is supposed to stand for. Some people are led by their party to choose an ideology, and if the party changes they change along with it. For some, ideas come first. For others, power and party come first.
Because of all the reasons detailed by those authors who wrote in favor of Ron Paul, he has some very strong appeal to those who place ideas as their primary motivation. And Barack Obama has very weak appeal to those same people. He could easily enough steal the support of those idealists from the Democratic Party where they are more often found, and therefore away from Barack Obama.
Those who place party first recognize this as a very real threat. Since their primary motivation is victory for their party, they are out to nullify Ron Paul before he becomes an actual threat. And that means convincing independents and Democrats that they have no reason to vote in Republican primaries for him.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
The Occupy Wall Street Tea Party
Watching the activities of Occupy Wall Street is quite like watching the history of the Tea Party played at high speed.
Both movements started out grass-roots, comprised of a diverse range of ideologies. Both are spurred by the excesses of the collusion between the banking system and the government and the abuses contained therein, and therefore have appeal to libertarians. Both started under presidents that it is assumed the movements would support. Both were ignored by the media at first, until the country's political leadership decided it was time to co-opt the movement by sending in a stooge to claim to be in charge of and represent the movement. Both have a big name partisan speaking for the group, Michael Moore as the analogue to Sarah Palin. Both are being fully Astroturfed, with the Tea Party being taken over by theocons and Occupy Wall Street being taken over by unions.
Whereas this is working faster, Occupy Wall Street has already reached certain end conclusions that took the Tea Party years to achieve. Already leaders have appeared to present lists designed to discredit any participants who aren’t amenable to being steered in an appropriate direction. Given the two party paradigm, the effort is to shoehorn them into the Democratic Party.
Apparently the Tea Party proved to be a lesson for those in charge. It was ignored too completely, and became an actual movement before there was an opportunity to capture it and control it. Diligent work was required by Sarah Palin and Glen Beck in order to slowly co-opt the movement, and for a while there was a strong conflict between the "Sarah Palin faction" and the "Ron Paul faction" over control of the Tea Party. Even then the Tea Party did partially steer the 2010 mid-term elections, although they did “deliver the vote” as required by the Republican Party,
The Tea Party movement was ignored for one year, and it took two years to tame. Clearly the political elite do not want to go through that again. After ignoring the Occupy Wall Street movement for one week and determining that it is not going way, they moved in quickly to ensure that this movement doesn’t get away from them. Until then, the Democrats finally have their own Tea Party to go to.
Both movements started out grass-roots, comprised of a diverse range of ideologies. Both are spurred by the excesses of the collusion between the banking system and the government and the abuses contained therein, and therefore have appeal to libertarians. Both started under presidents that it is assumed the movements would support. Both were ignored by the media at first, until the country's political leadership decided it was time to co-opt the movement by sending in a stooge to claim to be in charge of and represent the movement. Both have a big name partisan speaking for the group, Michael Moore as the analogue to Sarah Palin. Both are being fully Astroturfed, with the Tea Party being taken over by theocons and Occupy Wall Street being taken over by unions.
Whereas this is working faster, Occupy Wall Street has already reached certain end conclusions that took the Tea Party years to achieve. Already leaders have appeared to present lists designed to discredit any participants who aren’t amenable to being steered in an appropriate direction. Given the two party paradigm, the effort is to shoehorn them into the Democratic Party.
Apparently the Tea Party proved to be a lesson for those in charge. It was ignored too completely, and became an actual movement before there was an opportunity to capture it and control it. Diligent work was required by Sarah Palin and Glen Beck in order to slowly co-opt the movement, and for a while there was a strong conflict between the "Sarah Palin faction" and the "Ron Paul faction" over control of the Tea Party. Even then the Tea Party did partially steer the 2010 mid-term elections, although they did “deliver the vote” as required by the Republican Party,
The Tea Party movement was ignored for one year, and it took two years to tame. Clearly the political elite do not want to go through that again. After ignoring the Occupy Wall Street movement for one week and determining that it is not going way, they moved in quickly to ensure that this movement doesn’t get away from them. Until then, the Democrats finally have their own Tea Party to go to.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Phony Arguments
"If you removed EPA regulations on BP, does that mean they will suddenly become good citizens and not pollute anymore?" That is an example of an argument used against libertarians when the subject of regulation comes up. It contains many premises not shared by libertarians: under current law individual land owners were not able to file legal suits against BP, the state of Louisiana was not able to take independent action to protect coastal properties from the spill, and the owners of BP were not held liable for the damage caused by the company.
"If you change this one little point, and leave everything else exactly the same, doesn't that prove that libertarianism doesn't work?" Pointing out all the unshared premises, that "everything else exactly the same" is not something libertarians agree to, does nothing to those making the argument. The response, over and over, is to say that anyone who points out it is a loaded question is actually ducking the question.
Does the argument represent a misunderstanding about libertarianism? Or is it a deliberate distortion of what libertarians believe? Given the refusal to allow any discussion of unshared premises it seems like a shallow attempt to conflate the corporatism and capitalism, a conflation that can only benefit the progressive belief in a thoroughly regulated economy.
People who make that argument forget that libertarianism is indeed comprehensive. Changing just one point, the endpoint regulation that appears to be necessary because of all the prior interventions, does not negate the theory that would deny all the previous interventions as well.
That leads to another, even worse argument used against libertarianism: the Somalia argument. Given all the times libertarians object to government interventions that make the situation worse, both in economic and civil matters, those who favor an activist government argue that libertarians should move to Somalia where they would be more comfortable. The argument also implies that the chaos that takes place in Somalia is exactly what libertarians advocate.
History clearly and easily shows the truth about Somalia, in which it was the fallen government of Somalia that brought the country to the lowest point a country could possibly reach. Those in the government forgot that a parasite is not supposed to kill the host, and proved that it takes a government to create the degree of chaos normally thought of as anarchy. Once the government fell, the people started to rebuild. Occasionally some government sends in a peace-keeping force to break everything again and install a temporary government that will fall once the foreign troops leave. The resulting destruction is considered further proof of how lack of a government is unworkable.
Given those facts, then why is that argument made? Like the loaded question, it is not made for the purpose of genuine discussion. The thing to do is, as always, to point out the facts, but there is no reason to suppose that doing so will actually work. Those making the two arguments are not interested in facts, they are merely hoping that others witnessing the argument will be more impressed with the argument than the facts.
"If you change this one little point, and leave everything else exactly the same, doesn't that prove that libertarianism doesn't work?" Pointing out all the unshared premises, that "everything else exactly the same" is not something libertarians agree to, does nothing to those making the argument. The response, over and over, is to say that anyone who points out it is a loaded question is actually ducking the question.
Does the argument represent a misunderstanding about libertarianism? Or is it a deliberate distortion of what libertarians believe? Given the refusal to allow any discussion of unshared premises it seems like a shallow attempt to conflate the corporatism and capitalism, a conflation that can only benefit the progressive belief in a thoroughly regulated economy.
People who make that argument forget that libertarianism is indeed comprehensive. Changing just one point, the endpoint regulation that appears to be necessary because of all the prior interventions, does not negate the theory that would deny all the previous interventions as well.
That leads to another, even worse argument used against libertarianism: the Somalia argument. Given all the times libertarians object to government interventions that make the situation worse, both in economic and civil matters, those who favor an activist government argue that libertarians should move to Somalia where they would be more comfortable. The argument also implies that the chaos that takes place in Somalia is exactly what libertarians advocate.
History clearly and easily shows the truth about Somalia, in which it was the fallen government of Somalia that brought the country to the lowest point a country could possibly reach. Those in the government forgot that a parasite is not supposed to kill the host, and proved that it takes a government to create the degree of chaos normally thought of as anarchy. Once the government fell, the people started to rebuild. Occasionally some government sends in a peace-keeping force to break everything again and install a temporary government that will fall once the foreign troops leave. The resulting destruction is considered further proof of how lack of a government is unworkable.
Given those facts, then why is that argument made? Like the loaded question, it is not made for the purpose of genuine discussion. The thing to do is, as always, to point out the facts, but there is no reason to suppose that doing so will actually work. Those making the two arguments are not interested in facts, they are merely hoping that others witnessing the argument will be more impressed with the argument than the facts.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
No Official Accountability
Troy Davis has been executed for killing a police officer. There appear to be a large number of people convinced of his innocence, but the courts did not stop the execution. Some even claim that they have a confession by the actual murderer.
Assuming those protesting this execution are correct, then what does that mean? It means that the prosecutors, police, and a few other officials are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. But what does that mean? Tragically, that means nothing.
First, the state holds a monopoly on criminal prosecutions. It is impossible to hold anybody in the law enforcement apparatus responsible unless they agree to do so. In the case of Kelly Thomas of Fullerton, CA, the worry of many was that the District Attorney would decline to prosecute entirely. That particular case had the population so enraged that it was impossible to bury without damage to the government structure, so two of the six police were charged. That case was very much an exception. In other cases where a criminal member of the law enforcement apparatus was held accountable, Mike Nifong got a single day in jail because neither the prosecutor nor the judge could believe that a prosecutor was being held accountable.
Second, assuming there was sufficient evidence to prove that an innocent was executed there is no guarantee that in a civil court these people could be held accountable. The law enforcement apparatus have granted themselves immunity for their actions. It takes a significant effort to prove that those responsible were acting outside what is legally allowable for them, and prosecuting someone who they have reason to believe is guilty at the time and then later ignoring the case when contradicting evidence comes to light is considered allowable. Refusing to reconsider a case is not forbidden.
If Troy Davis is innocent, as many claim, that means that there are several murderers in Georgia, from the police to the prosecutors to the judges, and it also means they have gotten away with it. Meanwhile in Fullerton there are four police officers who are accomplices to murder who are getting away with it. Both cases emphasize the need to reform the whole of law enforcement by stripping prosecutors of their monopoly on criminal prosecutions and severely diminishing the nearly all-encompassing protections of official immunity. Essentially there is no accountability anymore, and that is the indicator of a police state.
Assuming those protesting this execution are correct, then what does that mean? It means that the prosecutors, police, and a few other officials are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. But what does that mean? Tragically, that means nothing.
First, the state holds a monopoly on criminal prosecutions. It is impossible to hold anybody in the law enforcement apparatus responsible unless they agree to do so. In the case of Kelly Thomas of Fullerton, CA, the worry of many was that the District Attorney would decline to prosecute entirely. That particular case had the population so enraged that it was impossible to bury without damage to the government structure, so two of the six police were charged. That case was very much an exception. In other cases where a criminal member of the law enforcement apparatus was held accountable, Mike Nifong got a single day in jail because neither the prosecutor nor the judge could believe that a prosecutor was being held accountable.
Second, assuming there was sufficient evidence to prove that an innocent was executed there is no guarantee that in a civil court these people could be held accountable. The law enforcement apparatus have granted themselves immunity for their actions. It takes a significant effort to prove that those responsible were acting outside what is legally allowable for them, and prosecuting someone who they have reason to believe is guilty at the time and then later ignoring the case when contradicting evidence comes to light is considered allowable. Refusing to reconsider a case is not forbidden.
If Troy Davis is innocent, as many claim, that means that there are several murderers in Georgia, from the police to the prosecutors to the judges, and it also means they have gotten away with it. Meanwhile in Fullerton there are four police officers who are accomplices to murder who are getting away with it. Both cases emphasize the need to reform the whole of law enforcement by stripping prosecutors of their monopoly on criminal prosecutions and severely diminishing the nearly all-encompassing protections of official immunity. Essentially there is no accountability anymore, and that is the indicator of a police state.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
TSA won't molest kids anymore ... maybe
The TSA has recently changed the rules for subjecting minors to the highly invasive pat-down that is given to those who opt out of the Advanced Imaging Technology (formerly Whole Body Imaging.) The problem is, according to the TSA, this doesn't mean anything is actually changing.
The procedure is changing except for when it isn't?
Another problem with this announcement is that it is not the first time the TSA has made this announcement. There seems to be a real recidivism problem with the TSA, their policies, or their agents. The stories about the TSA and the invasiveness of their pat-downs are coming faster and more detailed, with the comments the stories receive showing the public gives more credibility to the passengers than to the TSA.
There is something deeply wrong when an agency has to promise to not molest children. There is something even more deeply wrong when an agency has to promise to not do it anymore. The recent rule change is the TSA promising to stop molesting children - unless the front line agent feels it is absolutely necessary.
Please understand that this isn’t a free pass. TSA will always incorporate random and unpredictable security measures and nobody is guaranteed expedited screening.
The procedure is changing except for when it isn't?
Another problem with this announcement is that it is not the first time the TSA has made this announcement. There seems to be a real recidivism problem with the TSA, their policies, or their agents. The stories about the TSA and the invasiveness of their pat-downs are coming faster and more detailed, with the comments the stories receive showing the public gives more credibility to the passengers than to the TSA.
There is something deeply wrong when an agency has to promise to not molest children. There is something even more deeply wrong when an agency has to promise to not do it anymore. The recent rule change is the TSA promising to stop molesting children - unless the front line agent feels it is absolutely necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)