A question to puzzle me for later. I've have just read a snippet from a prominent libertarian arguing that a school voucher program is just as statist as any other form of public education. He argues that it is an attempt to allow government to start regulating private schools. He also lambastes Milton Friedman a bit. Gary North is the name I believe.
Here is a slightly different question about school vouchers:
Should everyone is a given school district still be required to pay taxes to support the school system or should it simply be those with children. In other words, no voucher program, but simply parents using their own money to pay for schools. One logical follow-up to this is then should education be mandatory? The purist libertarian argument would be no it should not be mandatory and that people should have to pay their own money if they want their children to go to school.
For the time being though, my thoughts rest on the Mrs. Lovejoy argument to think of the children. There are plenty of adults out there who would not provide their children with any education (home school or public) at all for the sake of saving the money. I've heard of plenty of examples from teachers about parents who neglect their children in every other basic way, so it would not be a stretch to guess that they would skimp on the really big bill of school tuition if they had a choice. This is why I would break from the purist tradition. There are parents out there who would not let their children go to school and this would punish children who have no control over the situation in the short term and likely punish society as a whole once these kids are old enough to choose between getting a job and starting trouble.
I just don't like where the logic would lead in such a system because it would likely lead to a perpetual class of uneducated people. In a technological sophisticated society, this is a recipe for disaster. Some would argue, and I could agree, that we have such an uneducated class now as a result of poor quality public schools. I would agree, but my inclination would be first to go to vouchers. If education every became so cheap that anyone could afford it, then we wouldn't need to spread the costs on everyone, just the people with schoolchildren.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Redefining Conservatism
I'm not pro-Life, but I am for Ron Paul. Apparently a few Huckabee supporters in the media are saying the Ron Paul is pro-abortion because, get this, he supports a policy that would make it legal for states to legalize abortion. It is called overturning ''Roe v. Wade'', but I guess the hope is that Huckabee supporters are dumb enough not to understand the implications of overturning ''Roe v. Wade'', which has been part of the conservative agenda for 35 years. This includes both social conservatives and even pro-choice conservatives who believe in the plain meaning of the constitution. Lynn Swann and Fred Thompson never appeared to understand this, so it wouldn't surprise me if most people who consider themselves conservatives fall for this line.
Despite the spin and what essentially amounts to telling a big lie against Ron Paul, there is, I think, a fundamental question at stake here that may split the conservative vote even more than it already has been. For most of the nation's history, issues of health, safety, welfare, and morals were reserved to the states under the plain language of the federal constitution and the 10th Amendment. However, following WWII, a series of cases, of which ''Roe'' was a part, vaulted these issues into the realm of the federal government. This meant that these issues now became federal issues whether or not people were willing to accept this power grab by the Supreme Court and Congress.
And while the issues of safety regulation and others related to commerce have been just as integral to the destruction of the federal Constitution, it is really on moral issues that conservatives may reach a total split. The question is this: (a) do conservatives fight to put these issues back at the state level where they belong in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution; or (b) do conservatives deal with the fact that these are now federal issues by using Congress, the federal courts, and amendments to the federal Constitution to legislate what are primarily moral issues?
I fully believe that now that the GOP has become populist rather than conservative, we will continue to see morality issues such as abortion, gay rights, marriage, divorce, school prayer, church-state separation, and whole host of other issues handled at the federal level rather than by the states. Liberals and activist liberal judges went out of there way to destroy the plain meaning of the constitution when it suited their needs. They may be about to reap the reward of the destruction they have sown by seeing the federal government used to enforce one particular segment of society's morality upon the rest of us. Traditionally this has happened at the state level, but theoretically at the state level, people would have a greater say in what they wanted for their morality-based legislation. This also would theoretically allow for greater diversity among opinions. Diversity is supposed to be unquestionably good, right?
More importantly, however, is that the constitution says these should not be federal issues. We should be very reluctant to change that document without some overwhelming reason besides satisfying the latest controversial issue ''du jour''. Unfortunately, that has already happened without changing a single word in the document.
Despite the spin and what essentially amounts to telling a big lie against Ron Paul, there is, I think, a fundamental question at stake here that may split the conservative vote even more than it already has been. For most of the nation's history, issues of health, safety, welfare, and morals were reserved to the states under the plain language of the federal constitution and the 10th Amendment. However, following WWII, a series of cases, of which ''Roe'' was a part, vaulted these issues into the realm of the federal government. This meant that these issues now became federal issues whether or not people were willing to accept this power grab by the Supreme Court and Congress.
And while the issues of safety regulation and others related to commerce have been just as integral to the destruction of the federal Constitution, it is really on moral issues that conservatives may reach a total split. The question is this: (a) do conservatives fight to put these issues back at the state level where they belong in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution; or (b) do conservatives deal with the fact that these are now federal issues by using Congress, the federal courts, and amendments to the federal Constitution to legislate what are primarily moral issues?
I fully believe that now that the GOP has become populist rather than conservative, we will continue to see morality issues such as abortion, gay rights, marriage, divorce, school prayer, church-state separation, and whole host of other issues handled at the federal level rather than by the states. Liberals and activist liberal judges went out of there way to destroy the plain meaning of the constitution when it suited their needs. They may be about to reap the reward of the destruction they have sown by seeing the federal government used to enforce one particular segment of society's morality upon the rest of us. Traditionally this has happened at the state level, but theoretically at the state level, people would have a greater say in what they wanted for their morality-based legislation. This also would theoretically allow for greater diversity among opinions. Diversity is supposed to be unquestionably good, right?
More importantly, however, is that the constitution says these should not be federal issues. We should be very reluctant to change that document without some overwhelming reason besides satisfying the latest controversial issue ''du jour''. Unfortunately, that has already happened without changing a single word in the document.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
1968 for the Democrats
I do not always agree with Rush Limbaugh's conclusions although I do believe that he believes and understands the proper application of conservative principles to issues. I'm a little cynical about a few other things about him, but that's beside the point.
I would rank him in among the first class minds of our age as far as his pure intellectual abilities go, but he has something that even the best and brightest minds do not always seem to possess, which is an uncanny ability to predict the future. He reminds us of it constantly, but I feel that his claim to prescience is well established and justified.
No Matter Who Wins the Voting, Mrs. Clinton Will Be the Nominee
He appears to be utterly convinced, and I'm not sure how anyone could draw the opposite conclusion, that Hillary Clinton will pull out all of the stops to win the nomination including, no doubt, the types of dirty tricks I would frequently see in my YR days. He mentions the Superdelegates, he mentions trying to have Michigan's and Florida's delegate reinstated. He probably also knows a few other things that she will try. As an aside, it's a bit ironic that the superdelegates hold so much sway in the democratic primary: nearly 20% of the delegate total. It turns out that the democrats are less democratic than the republicans in picking their presidential candidate.
This all came from his radio program yesterday, but today Drugde posted the contents of a letter from Al Sharpton (who must have heard Rush yesterday) urging the DNC not to "change the rules" and reinstate MI and FL delegates precisely because this would throw heavy numbers to Hillary. You can claim Al is playing racial politics, but they would be foolish not to listen to him. At this point Obama is the clear favorite of voters and is likely to win the most delegates. To play dirty tricks on national television in front of the public will make Hillary so reviled among Obama supporters and the general public, that she will effectively kill her candidacy. Maybe even a few Hillary supporters will finally wake up like many democrats and realize she is all about herself and not any noble (if ill-conceived) liberal notions about how to solve the world's problems.
Personally, at this point, I would prefer Hillary over Obama or McCain, but I don't see it happening without some dirty tricks being played. They will almost certainly try something, but if they want to see Chicago 1968 all over again, the DNC will get if they allow her even an inch to mess around with. This is now or never for Hillary.
I would rank him in among the first class minds of our age as far as his pure intellectual abilities go, but he has something that even the best and brightest minds do not always seem to possess, which is an uncanny ability to predict the future. He reminds us of it constantly, but I feel that his claim to prescience is well established and justified.
No Matter Who Wins the Voting, Mrs. Clinton Will Be the Nominee
He appears to be utterly convinced, and I'm not sure how anyone could draw the opposite conclusion, that Hillary Clinton will pull out all of the stops to win the nomination including, no doubt, the types of dirty tricks I would frequently see in my YR days. He mentions the Superdelegates, he mentions trying to have Michigan's and Florida's delegate reinstated. He probably also knows a few other things that she will try. As an aside, it's a bit ironic that the superdelegates hold so much sway in the democratic primary: nearly 20% of the delegate total. It turns out that the democrats are less democratic than the republicans in picking their presidential candidate.
This all came from his radio program yesterday, but today Drugde posted the contents of a letter from Al Sharpton (who must have heard Rush yesterday) urging the DNC not to "change the rules" and reinstate MI and FL delegates precisely because this would throw heavy numbers to Hillary. You can claim Al is playing racial politics, but they would be foolish not to listen to him. At this point Obama is the clear favorite of voters and is likely to win the most delegates. To play dirty tricks on national television in front of the public will make Hillary so reviled among Obama supporters and the general public, that she will effectively kill her candidacy. Maybe even a few Hillary supporters will finally wake up like many democrats and realize she is all about herself and not any noble (if ill-conceived) liberal notions about how to solve the world's problems.
Personally, at this point, I would prefer Hillary over Obama or McCain, but I don't see it happening without some dirty tricks being played. They will almost certainly try something, but if they want to see Chicago 1968 all over again, the DNC will get if they allow her even an inch to mess around with. This is now or never for Hillary.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Take Away Cal Thomas's Crackpipe
Redefining conservatism
I don't even know where to begin on this one. I would say that this is just a suggestion piece, but Cal Thomas really appears to believe that relabeling interventionist polities as conservative policies, the conservative movement can be revived?
Rhetorically he asks if Reagan were 100% conservative. The answer is, of course, no. No politician is ever 100% conservative. No human being can follow all of the principles of conservatism 100% of the time and politicians have it even worse because they need to compromise in reaching political solutions. I can't believe somewhat like Cal Thomas would not understand that if something that is not 100% in line with conservative principles happens during a politicians term in office it doesn't necessarily mean that they have compromised their ''principles''.
And that is at the root of my frustration with his proposal and apparently that of David Frum which he summarizes. Conservative principles (or rather classical liberal principles) have existed for a long time in Western ideology. Conservatism nowadays is more closely aligned with social conservatism and as a result fiscal conservatism has taken a beating with people who might otherwise be inclined toward free market capitalism. That aside, abandoning conservative principles of small, limited government simply because they are what Reagan claimed to believe in doesn't mean that the early 80s were the only time they were ever exercised or anyone ever believed in them. Can someone who has been around as long as Cal Thomas not understand that conservative principles have been around for several hundred years?
So what is the propose alternative? Create more government programs and interference in the market but "engage in better story telling" by telling voters that this is perfectly in line with conservative principles. He even makes the laughable remark that these programs will help reaffirm conservative principles by reducing people's dependence on government programs. Given that there is no such thing as a government program that has ever gone away or been eliminated and bureaucrats primary motivation is self-preservation, does he really anticipate that any new program "designed to reduce dependence on government" will actually ever be declared successful. Government programs to reduce dependence on government programs is as ironic as any suggestion I have ever heard coming from a so-called conservative.
Here is the main problem though. The main point of the conservative movement in the realm of economics is that government interference never solves a problem. All it does it interfere with the natural mechanism of economics and create moral hazards and perverse incentives that take a bad problem and make it worse. This then requires more government interference to deal with the unintended consequences created in the first place by the government interference. The other main point of the conservative movement it that government interference may or may not always pick the best solution, but when it picks the wrong one, there are no market forces to correct their bad decisions. Furthermore, by taking capital out of the market through the taxes used to create the bureaucracy to administer the government program, there is less money available in the market to find and invest in the best solution. The money goes where the bureaucracy directs either through mandates or perverse economic incentives, right or wrong.
Here are some of Frum's proposals:
* Universally available health insurance, but offered through the private sector
* Lower taxes to encourage savings and investment
* Higher taxes on energy and pollution to promote conservation
* Conservative environmentalism that promotes nuclear power to reduce our need for oil and coal
* Federal policies to encourage larger families
* Major reductions in unskilled immigration
* A campaign for prison reform
* A campaign against obesity
* Higher ethical standards inside the conservative movement and Republican Party
* Renewed commitment to expand and rebuild the armed forces in order to crush terrorism and prepare for the coming challenge from China.
* Micro-loan program to help the poor out of poverty, rather than more government programs that subsidize the poor in their poverty and offer no hope for the future. (Cal's own suggestion)
I will take these apart of the next few days unless something else comes up. The conservative approach to solving problems in this country is dead. Cal is now transitioning himself to join McCain's "March to Mediocrity" in government.
I don't even know where to begin on this one. I would say that this is just a suggestion piece, but Cal Thomas really appears to believe that relabeling interventionist polities as conservative policies, the conservative movement can be revived?
Rhetorically he asks if Reagan were 100% conservative. The answer is, of course, no. No politician is ever 100% conservative. No human being can follow all of the principles of conservatism 100% of the time and politicians have it even worse because they need to compromise in reaching political solutions. I can't believe somewhat like Cal Thomas would not understand that if something that is not 100% in line with conservative principles happens during a politicians term in office it doesn't necessarily mean that they have compromised their ''principles''.
And that is at the root of my frustration with his proposal and apparently that of David Frum which he summarizes. Conservative principles (or rather classical liberal principles) have existed for a long time in Western ideology. Conservatism nowadays is more closely aligned with social conservatism and as a result fiscal conservatism has taken a beating with people who might otherwise be inclined toward free market capitalism. That aside, abandoning conservative principles of small, limited government simply because they are what Reagan claimed to believe in doesn't mean that the early 80s were the only time they were ever exercised or anyone ever believed in them. Can someone who has been around as long as Cal Thomas not understand that conservative principles have been around for several hundred years?
So what is the propose alternative? Create more government programs and interference in the market but "engage in better story telling" by telling voters that this is perfectly in line with conservative principles. He even makes the laughable remark that these programs will help reaffirm conservative principles by reducing people's dependence on government programs. Given that there is no such thing as a government program that has ever gone away or been eliminated and bureaucrats primary motivation is self-preservation, does he really anticipate that any new program "designed to reduce dependence on government" will actually ever be declared successful. Government programs to reduce dependence on government programs is as ironic as any suggestion I have ever heard coming from a so-called conservative.
Here is the main problem though. The main point of the conservative movement in the realm of economics is that government interference never solves a problem. All it does it interfere with the natural mechanism of economics and create moral hazards and perverse incentives that take a bad problem and make it worse. This then requires more government interference to deal with the unintended consequences created in the first place by the government interference. The other main point of the conservative movement it that government interference may or may not always pick the best solution, but when it picks the wrong one, there are no market forces to correct their bad decisions. Furthermore, by taking capital out of the market through the taxes used to create the bureaucracy to administer the government program, there is less money available in the market to find and invest in the best solution. The money goes where the bureaucracy directs either through mandates or perverse economic incentives, right or wrong.
Here are some of Frum's proposals:
* Universally available health insurance, but offered through the private sector
* Lower taxes to encourage savings and investment
* Higher taxes on energy and pollution to promote conservation
* Conservative environmentalism that promotes nuclear power to reduce our need for oil and coal
* Federal policies to encourage larger families
* Major reductions in unskilled immigration
* A campaign for prison reform
* A campaign against obesity
* Higher ethical standards inside the conservative movement and Republican Party
* Renewed commitment to expand and rebuild the armed forces in order to crush terrorism and prepare for the coming challenge from China.
* Micro-loan program to help the poor out of poverty, rather than more government programs that subsidize the poor in their poverty and offer no hope for the future. (Cal's own suggestion)
I will take these apart of the next few days unless something else comes up. The conservative approach to solving problems in this country is dead. Cal is now transitioning himself to join McCain's "March to Mediocrity" in government.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
There is still Ron Paul
Romney supporters and Thompson supporters who switched to Romney are now decrying the current state of the GOP and clamoring that there are now true conservatives left. The have either not heard of Ron Paul or have drunk to deeply of the spin that Ron Paul is not a real conservative because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He is not anti-War, no president has been or ever can be. He is not eve opposed to the war against terrorism or the war in Afghanistan. He is just opposed to the war in Iraq.
And so, despite the misconception of some conservatives, there is still Ron Paul who is 100% conservative on all issues including going after bin Laden and his network in Afghanistan and the rest of the world. He has only refused to adopt the revised notion of interventionism as compatible with conservatism. The one that Bush claimed to support when he was inaugurated. The same notion that told us to oppose Clinton’s war against Serbia, which as a by-product helped foster the growth of radical Islam in the Balkans.
Remember how Reagan responded to the terrorist bombing of our embassy in Lebanon? He withdrew the troops and as a result, attacks against Americans stopped. The next round of terrorist attacks against the U.S. didn’t renew until someone had the bright idea of permanently deploying troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. For some strange reason, all of the troops were withdrawn after the 9/11 attacks from the very country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. That is because we know that our military bases there did nothing to stop terrorism.
Terrorism can’t be stopped with conventional military forces. Putting our troops on the ground in Iraq just makes them targets. The next terrorist attack against the U.S. is being plotted inside of safe, stable countries and inside of private houses. The only way to fight them is through intelligence gathering and special forces to identify and destroy them quietly. A permanent military occupation of every country in Asia does nothing but drain the treasury and make our troops targets for anyone with a gun.
Ron Paul has never blamed America and has always supported going after those who have attacked us. He has only questioned the current tactics we are employing and for this he has been smeared as a coward and unpatriotic. If you want to send a message to the GOP that we are sick of watered-down conservatism, vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Otherwise your vote will either be considered support for McCain’s ameliorating moderation or the an affirmation of the “progressive” movement’s desire to control every aspect of our economic and social lives.
And so, despite the misconception of some conservatives, there is still Ron Paul who is 100% conservative on all issues including going after bin Laden and his network in Afghanistan and the rest of the world. He has only refused to adopt the revised notion of interventionism as compatible with conservatism. The one that Bush claimed to support when he was inaugurated. The same notion that told us to oppose Clinton’s war against Serbia, which as a by-product helped foster the growth of radical Islam in the Balkans.
Remember how Reagan responded to the terrorist bombing of our embassy in Lebanon? He withdrew the troops and as a result, attacks against Americans stopped. The next round of terrorist attacks against the U.S. didn’t renew until someone had the bright idea of permanently deploying troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. For some strange reason, all of the troops were withdrawn after the 9/11 attacks from the very country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. That is because we know that our military bases there did nothing to stop terrorism.
Terrorism can’t be stopped with conventional military forces. Putting our troops on the ground in Iraq just makes them targets. The next terrorist attack against the U.S. is being plotted inside of safe, stable countries and inside of private houses. The only way to fight them is through intelligence gathering and special forces to identify and destroy them quietly. A permanent military occupation of every country in Asia does nothing but drain the treasury and make our troops targets for anyone with a gun.
Ron Paul has never blamed America and has always supported going after those who have attacked us. He has only questioned the current tactics we are employing and for this he has been smeared as a coward and unpatriotic. If you want to send a message to the GOP that we are sick of watered-down conservatism, vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Otherwise your vote will either be considered support for McCain’s ameliorating moderation or the an affirmation of the “progressive” movement’s desire to control every aspect of our economic and social lives.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Mitt Romney Out
So now that Romney is out, McCain is the presumptive heir. Word is Romney plans to run in 2012. I believe Romney has now realized what many have been predicting regarding the country both politically and economically. Economically, we are headed for a serious recession that is likely to last for a few years. This is the cumulative effect of our monetary policies (the Fed, the tax code, inflation, devaluation, take your pick...). Whoever becomes our next president will preside over an economy worse than he one under Carter's administration. It will, through no fault of their own, make the next president and one termer and confine them to being one of the worst presidents in American history.
I think Romney is also reading the writing on the walls with regard to the voting numbers. A look a Missouri, the supposed bellwether of the country, the Democrats are showing up in numbers by a 3/2 margin over Republican voters. This does not bode will for the eventual nominee since the two leading democrats are virtually identical in the campaign platforms. In the meantime, Republicans have a fairly wide range of choices, but they don't care. They are sick of the establishment and will not likely show up in the fall or, quite possible, may vote for the democrat. The number of voters though is just one indication. The other is the amount of money that is being generated by small donations. That money is going overwhelmingly to Obama, somewhat to Clinton, and, on the GOP side, the media-marginalized Ron Paul candidacy. Small money donations are otherwise not going to the GOP. This is a sign that no one really believes in the GOP in any significant numbers to put their money behind it.
In short, the democrat cannot help but win this fall. I still think it will be Hillary, but Obama has a lot going for him now. Either way, the media will make McCain and his platform look old and tired. I can see a slogan like the "3rd term of the Bush Administration" being used derisively by democrats. GHWB campaigned as Reagan's 3rd term. Many republicans, most independents, and every democrat do not want a 3rd term. The funniest part is that if they use that slogan, McCain will probably adamantly argue against it since he despises Bush. He will have to both align himself with and distance himself from the Bush administration to get elected since the only remaining loyal Republicans are the one's who think that nothing has gone wrong in the last eight years with conservatism in the GOP. The rest of us woke up to reality a long time ago.
I think Romney is also reading the writing on the walls with regard to the voting numbers. A look a Missouri, the supposed bellwether of the country, the Democrats are showing up in numbers by a 3/2 margin over Republican voters. This does not bode will for the eventual nominee since the two leading democrats are virtually identical in the campaign platforms. In the meantime, Republicans have a fairly wide range of choices, but they don't care. They are sick of the establishment and will not likely show up in the fall or, quite possible, may vote for the democrat. The number of voters though is just one indication. The other is the amount of money that is being generated by small donations. That money is going overwhelmingly to Obama, somewhat to Clinton, and, on the GOP side, the media-marginalized Ron Paul candidacy. Small money donations are otherwise not going to the GOP. This is a sign that no one really believes in the GOP in any significant numbers to put their money behind it.
In short, the democrat cannot help but win this fall. I still think it will be Hillary, but Obama has a lot going for him now. Either way, the media will make McCain and his platform look old and tired. I can see a slogan like the "3rd term of the Bush Administration" being used derisively by democrats. GHWB campaigned as Reagan's 3rd term. Many republicans, most independents, and every democrat do not want a 3rd term. The funniest part is that if they use that slogan, McCain will probably adamantly argue against it since he despises Bush. He will have to both align himself with and distance himself from the Bush administration to get elected since the only remaining loyal Republicans are the one's who think that nothing has gone wrong in the last eight years with conservatism in the GOP. The rest of us woke up to reality a long time ago.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday
Super Tuesday is now over. Despite a considerable showing in several states, Obama did not beat Clinton. She will be our next president and will preside over one of the worst economic periods in our nation's history in at least 30 years. This will not be her fault entirely, but the fault of the system that has produced her and all of the other candidates who would share the same fate if they became president.
On the GOP side, Republicans supposedly fed up with Bush, the War, and the turn of the GOP from conservative principles, have voted in John McCain in overwhelming numbers apparently unaware that "maverick" is the media's euphemism for unprincipled flip-flopper for candidates that they like. It wasn't predominantly democrats lighting up the Capital Hill switchboards to opposed McCain-Kennedy, it was more than likely Republicans and probably a fair share of independents. Now they have overwhelming supported the candidate that will grant that amnesty as soon as he enters office. The same thing with the war. People opposed to Bush's handling of the Iraq War and who want the U.S. to bring its troops back voted overwhelmingly for McCain, the candidate who promised to be in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. Those who are fed up with the Bush administration in general overwhelmingly voted for him even though he is the inheritor of the Bush's election team and finance managers.
This has all been the media building up McCain to look like an outsider, maverick, and someone who can bring the much abused term "change". Someone who has been a Washington insider for over 20 years, is 71 years old, has worked in government essentially all his life, and who is being joined in large numbers by part of the Bush team is not going to be an agent for change. If McCain is elected, we will be entering the 3rd term of the George W. Bush administration. The media which built him up will soon start tearing him down so that Hillary can become our next president.
How conservatives can take by the GOP is beyond me at this point.
On the GOP side, Republicans supposedly fed up with Bush, the War, and the turn of the GOP from conservative principles, have voted in John McCain in overwhelming numbers apparently unaware that "maverick" is the media's euphemism for unprincipled flip-flopper for candidates that they like. It wasn't predominantly democrats lighting up the Capital Hill switchboards to opposed McCain-Kennedy, it was more than likely Republicans and probably a fair share of independents. Now they have overwhelming supported the candidate that will grant that amnesty as soon as he enters office. The same thing with the war. People opposed to Bush's handling of the Iraq War and who want the U.S. to bring its troops back voted overwhelmingly for McCain, the candidate who promised to be in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. Those who are fed up with the Bush administration in general overwhelmingly voted for him even though he is the inheritor of the Bush's election team and finance managers.
This has all been the media building up McCain to look like an outsider, maverick, and someone who can bring the much abused term "change". Someone who has been a Washington insider for over 20 years, is 71 years old, has worked in government essentially all his life, and who is being joined in large numbers by part of the Bush team is not going to be an agent for change. If McCain is elected, we will be entering the 3rd term of the George W. Bush administration. The media which built him up will soon start tearing him down so that Hillary can become our next president.
How conservatives can take by the GOP is beyond me at this point.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Defeating Radical Islam
I am absolutely perplexed by candidates and people in general on both sides of the political divide who feel that overt military action is the cure for fighting radical Islam. These are generally the same people who think isolationism and non-interventionism are synonymous. It does not make the United States isolationist if we do not invade every country on the planet.
Do we understand that people should be free to choose their own religion?
Do we understand that the war on terror is to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans?
Do we understand that attempting to impose any beliefs by force, no matter how strongly we may believe in them, will never succeed?
The only logical conclusion to our policy is the one that radical Muslims are suggesting that the West is practicing: (a) we are out to destroy Islam and convert everyone to Christianity; (b) we are intent on permanently occupying all Muslim countries. How could Muslims perceive the case to be otherwise?
For those of you who don't remember history, here is a quick timeline showing cause and effect:
657 Islam Founded
1604-1983 No attacks by Muslim fundamentalists against Americans
1983 U.S. deploys troops to Lebanon to intervene in civil war there
1983 U.S. compound destroyed by Muslim fundamentalist suicide bomber
1984 U.S. troops withdraw 100% from Lebanon
1984-1993 No attacks by Muslim fundamentalists against Americans
1991 U.S. deploys troops permanently to Saudi Arabia and engages in repeated bombing of Iraq
1993 Attack by Muslim fundamentalists against World Trade Center
1993-2001 Numerous attacks by Muslim fundamentalists against U.S. military stationed in the Middle East
2001 2nd Attack by Muslim fundamentalists against World Trade Center; attackers are predominantly from Saudi Arabia used their real names on all documents, entered the country legally on U.S. granted visas, and planned their attacks in secret for years
2002 U.S. Attacks Afghanistan
2003 U.S. WITHDRAWS all forces from Saudi Arabia
2003 U.S. invades Iraq because [insert your reason for invasion here].
So did you notice that there were no attacks against American citizens during the time we were outside of the Middle East. Did you notice that President Bush withdrew our forces from Saudi Arabia AFTER the 9/11 attacks: the country where nearly all of the suicide bombers came from? Why are we not stationing troops there if soldiers on the ground can prevent terrorist attacks against Americans? The answer is that they don't.
Putting U.S. soldiers anywhere they are not welcome simply makes them targets for whoever doesn't want them there. The government spins this as being attacks from Al Qaeda and terrorists, but the reality is that often we have no idea if U.S. soldiers are being attacked by local warlords, organized terrorists, or just people angry at the U.S. presence. In the meantime, the next likely terrorist attack against the U.S. is being planned in secret in potentially just about every other country except Iraq.
Do we understand that people should be free to choose their own religion?
Do we understand that the war on terror is to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans?
Do we understand that attempting to impose any beliefs by force, no matter how strongly we may believe in them, will never succeed?
The only logical conclusion to our policy is the one that radical Muslims are suggesting that the West is practicing: (a) we are out to destroy Islam and convert everyone to Christianity; (b) we are intent on permanently occupying all Muslim countries. How could Muslims perceive the case to be otherwise?
For those of you who don't remember history, here is a quick timeline showing cause and effect:
657 Islam Founded
1604-1983 No attacks by Muslim fundamentalists against Americans
1983 U.S. deploys troops to Lebanon to intervene in civil war there
1983 U.S. compound destroyed by Muslim fundamentalist suicide bomber
1984 U.S. troops withdraw 100% from Lebanon
1984-1993 No attacks by Muslim fundamentalists against Americans
1991 U.S. deploys troops permanently to Saudi Arabia and engages in repeated bombing of Iraq
1993 Attack by Muslim fundamentalists against World Trade Center
1993-2001 Numerous attacks by Muslim fundamentalists against U.S. military stationed in the Middle East
2001 2nd Attack by Muslim fundamentalists against World Trade Center; attackers are predominantly from Saudi Arabia used their real names on all documents, entered the country legally on U.S. granted visas, and planned their attacks in secret for years
2002 U.S. Attacks Afghanistan
2003 U.S. WITHDRAWS all forces from Saudi Arabia
2003 U.S. invades Iraq because [insert your reason for invasion here].
So did you notice that there were no attacks against American citizens during the time we were outside of the Middle East. Did you notice that President Bush withdrew our forces from Saudi Arabia AFTER the 9/11 attacks: the country where nearly all of the suicide bombers came from? Why are we not stationing troops there if soldiers on the ground can prevent terrorist attacks against Americans? The answer is that they don't.
Putting U.S. soldiers anywhere they are not welcome simply makes them targets for whoever doesn't want them there. The government spins this as being attacks from Al Qaeda and terrorists, but the reality is that often we have no idea if U.S. soldiers are being attacked by local warlords, organized terrorists, or just people angry at the U.S. presence. In the meantime, the next likely terrorist attack against the U.S. is being planned in secret in potentially just about every other country except Iraq.
Monday, February 4, 2008
McCain and the Media
Most Americans do not really pay attention to politics. They view it like the weather and so avoid doing any critical thinking about the candidates they back. The election does not involve issues. It involves personality and buzzwords like "change" and "leadership". If anyone wonders why politics seems to become so bitter the answer is really two-fold. The first is that politics isn't any more bitter than it has been before. The second is that it only seems more bitter because everything involves more personal attacks than actual policy disputes. This is all a result of both parties have very little distinction in their agendas. When that happens, the only way to distinguish yourself is through personality which means that negative advertising as to go after personality and not policy.
That there is very little distinction between the two major parties is apparent. When the so-called "conservative" GOP front-runner believes in global warming, amnesty for illegal immigrants, limitations on the first amendment, and distances himself from Bush's Supreme Court nominations (the latter being about the only redeemable aspect of his administration) then you realize that most fundamental issues are off the table. This will be no different that a 3rd grade race for class president.
So what will happen tomorrow? The democratic nomination may not be wrapped up as a result of the apportionment rules for the dems, but in all likelihood Hillary will be there nominee. On the GOP side, McCain will walk away with it quite easily on Tuesday.
But if you eat and breath politics don't think these are the results of critical thinking by Americans. In the age of the Internet, information on the candidates and their issues and background are widely available. Few, if any, however, take advantage of this. In fact, it may be that because of the information overload we experience as a result of the Internet and media, people are even less likely now than before to learn anything but the most superficial information about candidates. Because of this, the media has a very strong but subtle effect on presidential races. And, here it comes: The media in this country is overwhelmingly liberal. Because they are liberal and because they know how to manipulate the vote by determining what information about what candidates gets put out in the newspapers and especially TV, they can make one candidate look like the savior of all mankind one day, and the devil the next.
Which brings us to what is happening in this race. I would call it a conspiracy of sorts, but it really doesn't require a whole lot of concerted action. The media, engaging in tokenism of sorts, promotes the first female nominee and the black nominee to be fielded by a mainstream party, at the expense of the usual white male candidates. Even more surprisingly is that the candidates with the most experience both in terms of years in office, years as an executive, and chronological years (Biden, Richardson, Gravel) are marginalized out of existence. Members of the media already had numerous ties to the Clintons from the 90s, but many see a chance to "stick it" to conservatives see a minority nominated to the presidency. True conservatives could care less about someone's gender or race. But that is what is happening on the democratic side.
On the Republican side, the media also want someone as liberal as can be. So for a long time, the front-runner was Giuliani. Then Fred Thompson was suddenly the flavor of the month. Then Mike Huckabee. Now it is McCain. Who is the most liberal of this field? Probably McCain. And he has been given almost nothing but a positive portrayal by the media. So were the other liberals, but none seemed to have staying power at the polls. The closest thing that the party has to a conservative that the media is paying attention to is Mitt Romney, however is constantly characterized as a flip-flopper (whereas McCain is a "maverick" for having non-conservative opinions). Romney himself appears to have a pretty liberal streak, so the cause of liberal will be accomplished only slightly less quicker if the GOP wins the White House.
But mark my words. The Press has put McCain at the lead to hedge their bets. They know that Hillary is a divisive candidate and that the country may not be quite ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein and who first and last names are Arab in origin. So they have hedged their bets with McCain and should he win, have also ensured that the conservative movement in the GOP, which has been marginalized by George W. Bush, will be forced completely underground during a McCain administration. If Hillary wins, they will get their agenda accomplished only slightly faster but they still want her to win, so here is what will happen.
Obama will come ever so close to winning the nomination through the numbers he will get on Super Tuesday. This will make him the heir apparent to the party after Hillary is done her race for the office. To put Hillary on top, they will not go after Obama, but marginalize him by devoting all of their coverage to Hillary and reminding everyone about how "evil" middle American simply won't vote for a black man. People who would have voted for him will then be given their excuse to switch for Hillary before the convention.
After McCain comes out ahead for the GOP, the attack machine will start. There is too much to list here, but he will undoubtedly be painted as part of the Bush White House for inheriting his advisers, as a war-monger for his "100 years in Iraq" statement, for abandoning his first wife after she was crippled, the Keating 5 scandal, and just about anything else under the sun. It won't take but a few weekends to make this happen and these stories, many from the distant past, will be rekindled with a vengeance like they are fresh news that no one heard about until a few days before the segments start running. They will be characterized as "shocking revelations" that were somehow overlooked by voters.
The press has been very kind to McCain is an effort to marginalize Romney and especially Ron Paul, but they will turn on him the moment he achieves success as the GOP nominee. I have seen enough elections and read enough of the exit polls to know that the vast majority of people voting for McCain do not really know his positions and are voting from the gut based on his image. The image was created by the media and they can destroy it as well.
Hillary will be our next president and it will all seem so natural and inevitable. It will, however, be the work of the MSM manipulating the vast majority of voters who no longer have any particular ideology, only a commitment to mediocrity.
That there is very little distinction between the two major parties is apparent. When the so-called "conservative" GOP front-runner believes in global warming, amnesty for illegal immigrants, limitations on the first amendment, and distances himself from Bush's Supreme Court nominations (the latter being about the only redeemable aspect of his administration) then you realize that most fundamental issues are off the table. This will be no different that a 3rd grade race for class president.
So what will happen tomorrow? The democratic nomination may not be wrapped up as a result of the apportionment rules for the dems, but in all likelihood Hillary will be there nominee. On the GOP side, McCain will walk away with it quite easily on Tuesday.
But if you eat and breath politics don't think these are the results of critical thinking by Americans. In the age of the Internet, information on the candidates and their issues and background are widely available. Few, if any, however, take advantage of this. In fact, it may be that because of the information overload we experience as a result of the Internet and media, people are even less likely now than before to learn anything but the most superficial information about candidates. Because of this, the media has a very strong but subtle effect on presidential races. And, here it comes: The media in this country is overwhelmingly liberal. Because they are liberal and because they know how to manipulate the vote by determining what information about what candidates gets put out in the newspapers and especially TV, they can make one candidate look like the savior of all mankind one day, and the devil the next.
Which brings us to what is happening in this race. I would call it a conspiracy of sorts, but it really doesn't require a whole lot of concerted action. The media, engaging in tokenism of sorts, promotes the first female nominee and the black nominee to be fielded by a mainstream party, at the expense of the usual white male candidates. Even more surprisingly is that the candidates with the most experience both in terms of years in office, years as an executive, and chronological years (Biden, Richardson, Gravel) are marginalized out of existence. Members of the media already had numerous ties to the Clintons from the 90s, but many see a chance to "stick it" to conservatives see a minority nominated to the presidency. True conservatives could care less about someone's gender or race. But that is what is happening on the democratic side.
On the Republican side, the media also want someone as liberal as can be. So for a long time, the front-runner was Giuliani. Then Fred Thompson was suddenly the flavor of the month. Then Mike Huckabee. Now it is McCain. Who is the most liberal of this field? Probably McCain. And he has been given almost nothing but a positive portrayal by the media. So were the other liberals, but none seemed to have staying power at the polls. The closest thing that the party has to a conservative that the media is paying attention to is Mitt Romney, however is constantly characterized as a flip-flopper (whereas McCain is a "maverick" for having non-conservative opinions). Romney himself appears to have a pretty liberal streak, so the cause of liberal will be accomplished only slightly less quicker if the GOP wins the White House.
But mark my words. The Press has put McCain at the lead to hedge their bets. They know that Hillary is a divisive candidate and that the country may not be quite ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein and who first and last names are Arab in origin. So they have hedged their bets with McCain and should he win, have also ensured that the conservative movement in the GOP, which has been marginalized by George W. Bush, will be forced completely underground during a McCain administration. If Hillary wins, they will get their agenda accomplished only slightly faster but they still want her to win, so here is what will happen.
Obama will come ever so close to winning the nomination through the numbers he will get on Super Tuesday. This will make him the heir apparent to the party after Hillary is done her race for the office. To put Hillary on top, they will not go after Obama, but marginalize him by devoting all of their coverage to Hillary and reminding everyone about how "evil" middle American simply won't vote for a black man. People who would have voted for him will then be given their excuse to switch for Hillary before the convention.
After McCain comes out ahead for the GOP, the attack machine will start. There is too much to list here, but he will undoubtedly be painted as part of the Bush White House for inheriting his advisers, as a war-monger for his "100 years in Iraq" statement, for abandoning his first wife after she was crippled, the Keating 5 scandal, and just about anything else under the sun. It won't take but a few weekends to make this happen and these stories, many from the distant past, will be rekindled with a vengeance like they are fresh news that no one heard about until a few days before the segments start running. They will be characterized as "shocking revelations" that were somehow overlooked by voters.
The press has been very kind to McCain is an effort to marginalize Romney and especially Ron Paul, but they will turn on him the moment he achieves success as the GOP nominee. I have seen enough elections and read enough of the exit polls to know that the vast majority of people voting for McCain do not really know his positions and are voting from the gut based on his image. The image was created by the media and they can destroy it as well.
Hillary will be our next president and it will all seem so natural and inevitable. It will, however, be the work of the MSM manipulating the vast majority of voters who no longer have any particular ideology, only a commitment to mediocrity.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Ron Paul on Darfur
I just started watching a clip of Ron Paul answer a question about what the U.S. should do with regard to the genocide in Darfur. I can, unfortunately, see why his answers to questions about foreign policy turn people off so quickly. I had to stop because his answers were rambling (a bit) and not answer the question and concisely as he could have. I will have to watch it again, but here is the answer I would have given which I believe is also the correct answer.
For all current and future conflicts:
The United State government should not intervene in the dispute, send troops, or encourage the U.N. to intervene. The U.S. should, at most, condemn any acts of aggression or violence, but even that, while it may make us feel better, does not accomplish anything and may actually be counter-productive in getting the conflict resolved.
What the U.S. should do is not intervene or prevent weapons from going to either side in the conflict, especially the non-aggressor. History's lesson has always been that in order to be free, people must be armed and willing to protect their home territory. History has been full of aggressive wars by countries attempting to start empires and aggressive civil wars where one part of the nation attempts to impose its will on another part based on one ideology or another. History has shown, though, that the victim of aggression has the best chance of remaining free if their civilian population is well-armed and willing to fight the aggressors.
The reason for this is simple. The aggressive army is not and can never be as motivated as the population protecting its homes and families. Napoleon lost in Russia and Spain due to civilian resistance, not any major military defeat. The French and U.S. lost in Vietnam because such a substantial portion of the population either supported or actively fought against anyone perceived as a foreign occupation army. Even recently, Serbia was forced to leave Slovenia independent because the civilians and local militias were too well armed for them to risk a fight.
If we want the people of Darfur to be free and independent of aggression, then we will let them arm themselves to the hilt to resist any hostile armies that attempt to attack the area. If they are truly being attacked unprovoked, then we are dealing with an aggressor who is a bully. Bullies do not respond to negotiations. They smirk at them. Bullies only respond when their noses get bloodied and the cost of attacking exceeds any benefit they can reap from it. If we intervene in Darfur with our own military or the U.N. military, but do not let the people of Darfur arm themselves, then it is no different that putting a wall between a snake and a mouse. A soon as we leave, the wall the lifts and the snake will eat the mouse. If we let the people of Darfur make themselves strong, they will be more likely to succeed and gaining their freedom.
As an aside, an equally valid argument for non-interference is that when the U.S. military is involved, the news reported from the front about who is right and who is wrong in a conflict is often based on who is in charge of our foreign policy. For example, we have since discovered what many suspected about our campaigns against Serbia involving Kosovo. The claims of ethnic cleansing and genocide in that location were largely fictional and our military intervention actually exacerbated tension where only a little existed before. We basically created the war. The same with Vietnam. We were told that this was part of the worldwide monolith of global Communism attempting to take yet one more country. And yet, shortly after the war, the Vietnamese were engaged in a large war with communist China and a separate war with the communist Khmer Rouge. These were nationalists first and communists second.
If we have a White House that takes neutral stances on foreign wars and especially civil wars, then we have no need for manufactured ''causus belli'' like Ft. Sumter, Ft. Brown, the Tonkin Gulf resolution, or the Zimmerman telegram. And we would definitely not see a terrorist attack by Saudi Nationals who were part of Al Qaeda as being an excuse to invade and displace an Iraqi regime hostile to Al Qaeda. Attacking the enemies of our enemy makes even less sense than assuming the enemy of our enemy is a friend.
The 2nd amendment is the basic guarantor of our freedom for foreign enemies and from domestic tyranny. Why we never want to extend to other nations in the interest of worldwide freedom is beyond me.
People today hope for a wonderful ''deus ex machina'', usually in the form of the U.S., to come in a "solve" the crisis by punishing the aggressor. Usually, though, the answer to resolving a conflict is not that easy.
For all current and future conflicts:
The United State government should not intervene in the dispute, send troops, or encourage the U.N. to intervene. The U.S. should, at most, condemn any acts of aggression or violence, but even that, while it may make us feel better, does not accomplish anything and may actually be counter-productive in getting the conflict resolved.
What the U.S. should do is not intervene or prevent weapons from going to either side in the conflict, especially the non-aggressor. History's lesson has always been that in order to be free, people must be armed and willing to protect their home territory. History has been full of aggressive wars by countries attempting to start empires and aggressive civil wars where one part of the nation attempts to impose its will on another part based on one ideology or another. History has shown, though, that the victim of aggression has the best chance of remaining free if their civilian population is well-armed and willing to fight the aggressors.
The reason for this is simple. The aggressive army is not and can never be as motivated as the population protecting its homes and families. Napoleon lost in Russia and Spain due to civilian resistance, not any major military defeat. The French and U.S. lost in Vietnam because such a substantial portion of the population either supported or actively fought against anyone perceived as a foreign occupation army. Even recently, Serbia was forced to leave Slovenia independent because the civilians and local militias were too well armed for them to risk a fight.
If we want the people of Darfur to be free and independent of aggression, then we will let them arm themselves to the hilt to resist any hostile armies that attempt to attack the area. If they are truly being attacked unprovoked, then we are dealing with an aggressor who is a bully. Bullies do not respond to negotiations. They smirk at them. Bullies only respond when their noses get bloodied and the cost of attacking exceeds any benefit they can reap from it. If we intervene in Darfur with our own military or the U.N. military, but do not let the people of Darfur arm themselves, then it is no different that putting a wall between a snake and a mouse. A soon as we leave, the wall the lifts and the snake will eat the mouse. If we let the people of Darfur make themselves strong, they will be more likely to succeed and gaining their freedom.
As an aside, an equally valid argument for non-interference is that when the U.S. military is involved, the news reported from the front about who is right and who is wrong in a conflict is often based on who is in charge of our foreign policy. For example, we have since discovered what many suspected about our campaigns against Serbia involving Kosovo. The claims of ethnic cleansing and genocide in that location were largely fictional and our military intervention actually exacerbated tension where only a little existed before. We basically created the war. The same with Vietnam. We were told that this was part of the worldwide monolith of global Communism attempting to take yet one more country. And yet, shortly after the war, the Vietnamese were engaged in a large war with communist China and a separate war with the communist Khmer Rouge. These were nationalists first and communists second.
If we have a White House that takes neutral stances on foreign wars and especially civil wars, then we have no need for manufactured ''causus belli'' like Ft. Sumter, Ft. Brown, the Tonkin Gulf resolution, or the Zimmerman telegram. And we would definitely not see a terrorist attack by Saudi Nationals who were part of Al Qaeda as being an excuse to invade and displace an Iraqi regime hostile to Al Qaeda. Attacking the enemies of our enemy makes even less sense than assuming the enemy of our enemy is a friend.
The 2nd amendment is the basic guarantor of our freedom for foreign enemies and from domestic tyranny. Why we never want to extend to other nations in the interest of worldwide freedom is beyond me.
People today hope for a wonderful ''deus ex machina'', usually in the form of the U.S., to come in a "solve" the crisis by punishing the aggressor. Usually, though, the answer to resolving a conflict is not that easy.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Can "Progressives" be aligned with libertarians
In case you missed the memo, liberals are now trying to call themselves progressives because of the awful reputation they have given to liberalism. It is a title they did not deserve to have in the first place. Classical liberalism means a challenge to conventional means of the thinking. It means questioning, although not necessarily acting on, traditions and evaluating their merits and the any results, both positive and negative, that might result from either changing or eliminating the traditional ways of doing things.
Traditions are things that we no longer think about even though there may have been some rational explanation for the original creation. We call today Saturday out of tradition. It was not arrived at empirically. Women in our society wear dresses and mean wear ties. This is also apparently tradition. Very few people evaluate let alone attempt to change some of these traditions because they would not seemingly yield any beneficial results. The one exception is perhaps college students who somehow considered themselves enlightened by such antics, but these are more just cries for attention than legitimate challenges to traditions that have meaning.
Traditions are not, by definition, rational even if they had an originally rational explanation. Married women assume their husband's surname. This is tradition and no longer based on reason. It is something that most people do automatically out of tradition. Pink is for baby girls. Blue is for baby boys. People come up with all types of seemingly rational and psychological explanations for how these traditions arose, but more often than not, the answer is usually unknown because it is probably mundane or based on other cultural forces that are no longer present in society. However, when a so-called liberal wants to change any of these traditions, they are often quick to resort to why these traditions are racist, sexist, homophobic, what have you. They don't know either and the explanation is usually incidental to the main goal of giving the group that believes it is affected by the tradition more power. This has been the history of the 20th century.
The 18th and 19th centuries, if a generalization is acceptable, were more characterized by the true liberal tradition of applying the underlying philosophies of rationalism and natural rights developed primarily in the preceding centuries. It took about 100 years for Locke's philosophy regarding limited government as being primarily concerned with the protection of life, liberty, and property to be applied in practice in the form of the American revolution. It took 100 years after Adam Smith published ''The Wealth of Nations'' for the more capitalistic aspects of his book to be applied in the second industrial revolution of the late 19th century. As an aside, I'm aware that often philosophies are retroactively found and usually revived from obscurity to rationalize and justify what certain groups want, however, an empirical and moral proof of the justification of free market capitalism is for another day.
These earlier philosophies regarding the rights of man, individual freedom, and representative democracy were the true liberals since they questioned the existing social order regarding monarchy and the church and created virtually from scratch the idea of natural rights. In science, the classical liberals challenged the Aristotelian explanations of the natural world. All of the existing systems that they challenged were themselves rationalized, but they were traditions at the time and hence the principles of liberalism dictated the need to evaluate and change these traditional systems if they were found lacking. They could truly be called liberals because they were open to all ideas and one were not pitted in one particular direction. Hobbes was a liberal in this sense and is usually classified as one, but he is also the one who created the concept of the "commonwealth" and approved of an absolutist government.
Here is the problem with so-called progressives. Their thinking is pitted in one particular direction at all times and more often than not, they are not original thoughts, but merely irrational contempt for traditional values that are often characterized as being conservative. The liberals of today often do not rationally evaluate traditions and decide whether or not they should be changed based on identifiable criteria of what is best. Instead, it is almost as if they need to wait for conservatives, i.e. white Christian males, to state their position on a given subject before making their decision. And their decision is ALWAYS to oppose that consensus in the name of "diversity". Like the term liberal, though, the term diversity has been exposed as the Trojan Horse of gaining power for one particular group at the expense of another through the use of state action.
It is this final reason why "progressives" can never agree with libertarians. Progressives have never been advocates of free market capitalism. This is so obvious is does not need a proof. Progressives are often mislabeled as socialist though for these tendencies. The reality is that on economic issues so-called progressives tend to be socialist on only a few issues and interventionists on just about every other issue. The purest and perhaps best definition of socialism is that the state owns the means of production. This is what our education system is. The is the way most of our transportation and utility infrastructure are run. They are slowly attempting to do the same with health care. The vast majority of policies favored by "progressives" however are interventionist and deal primarily with regulating behavior either through laws prohibiting certain activities, making changes in the tax codes to coerce market behavior to punish and reward activities, or outright government subsidies to encourage market behavior. The private individual still ultimately controls the means of production, they are just increasingly limited in what they can do with that means through interventionism.
The real place where progressives might claim to be in lock step with libertarians but are not is in the area of civil liberties and rights. They claim to be in favor of increased liberty, but are more likely than conservatives to call for new laws to coerce social behavior and thinking. Speech codes, laws against smoking in private establishments, hate crime laws, hate speech laws, and campaign finance laws, are all attempts by so-called free thinkers to get the state to coerce behavior among the general public for things that involve the mere acts of individuals exercising individual rights that do no direct harm to others against their will.
To promote so-called "gay rights" the progressives do not call for the state to remove their intrusion from the personal and purely religious institution of marriage. Instead they demand that society pass and change these laws to "empower" gay citizens who wish to marry by adding yet more people who will now be subject to state control in determining whether or not they are married. Progressives have no choice in this matter, however, since "gay marriage" is not about marriage, but about entitlement to government benefits given to married couples. It is, to some extent also about acceptance from the general public through attempting to change legislation and forcing "society" to recognize "gay rights" in this area. Nothing has ever prevented gay people from calling themselves married and nothing ever will. This also tends to show the problem with progressives which is their confusion of society as being synonymous with government. It is problem that conservatives have as well. The true libertarian understands that society and government are not and should not be the same and that it is morally reprehensible for government to interfere in the decisions individuals make in society that do not directly harm anyone else.
This is why so-called progressives and libertarians are incompatible on most issues. Progressives are often just as statist as so-called conservatives who also often want societal norms and traditions to be codified and enforced as laws. It makes them feel so much better than facing the fearful notion that someone somewhere might be acting or thinking differently than what they find to be acceptable.
Traditions are things that we no longer think about even though there may have been some rational explanation for the original creation. We call today Saturday out of tradition. It was not arrived at empirically. Women in our society wear dresses and mean wear ties. This is also apparently tradition. Very few people evaluate let alone attempt to change some of these traditions because they would not seemingly yield any beneficial results. The one exception is perhaps college students who somehow considered themselves enlightened by such antics, but these are more just cries for attention than legitimate challenges to traditions that have meaning.
Traditions are not, by definition, rational even if they had an originally rational explanation. Married women assume their husband's surname. This is tradition and no longer based on reason. It is something that most people do automatically out of tradition. Pink is for baby girls. Blue is for baby boys. People come up with all types of seemingly rational and psychological explanations for how these traditions arose, but more often than not, the answer is usually unknown because it is probably mundane or based on other cultural forces that are no longer present in society. However, when a so-called liberal wants to change any of these traditions, they are often quick to resort to why these traditions are racist, sexist, homophobic, what have you. They don't know either and the explanation is usually incidental to the main goal of giving the group that believes it is affected by the tradition more power. This has been the history of the 20th century.
The 18th and 19th centuries, if a generalization is acceptable, were more characterized by the true liberal tradition of applying the underlying philosophies of rationalism and natural rights developed primarily in the preceding centuries. It took about 100 years for Locke's philosophy regarding limited government as being primarily concerned with the protection of life, liberty, and property to be applied in practice in the form of the American revolution. It took 100 years after Adam Smith published ''The Wealth of Nations'' for the more capitalistic aspects of his book to be applied in the second industrial revolution of the late 19th century. As an aside, I'm aware that often philosophies are retroactively found and usually revived from obscurity to rationalize and justify what certain groups want, however, an empirical and moral proof of the justification of free market capitalism is for another day.
These earlier philosophies regarding the rights of man, individual freedom, and representative democracy were the true liberals since they questioned the existing social order regarding monarchy and the church and created virtually from scratch the idea of natural rights. In science, the classical liberals challenged the Aristotelian explanations of the natural world. All of the existing systems that they challenged were themselves rationalized, but they were traditions at the time and hence the principles of liberalism dictated the need to evaluate and change these traditional systems if they were found lacking. They could truly be called liberals because they were open to all ideas and one were not pitted in one particular direction. Hobbes was a liberal in this sense and is usually classified as one, but he is also the one who created the concept of the "commonwealth" and approved of an absolutist government.
Here is the problem with so-called progressives. Their thinking is pitted in one particular direction at all times and more often than not, they are not original thoughts, but merely irrational contempt for traditional values that are often characterized as being conservative. The liberals of today often do not rationally evaluate traditions and decide whether or not they should be changed based on identifiable criteria of what is best. Instead, it is almost as if they need to wait for conservatives, i.e. white Christian males, to state their position on a given subject before making their decision. And their decision is ALWAYS to oppose that consensus in the name of "diversity". Like the term liberal, though, the term diversity has been exposed as the Trojan Horse of gaining power for one particular group at the expense of another through the use of state action.
It is this final reason why "progressives" can never agree with libertarians. Progressives have never been advocates of free market capitalism. This is so obvious is does not need a proof. Progressives are often mislabeled as socialist though for these tendencies. The reality is that on economic issues so-called progressives tend to be socialist on only a few issues and interventionists on just about every other issue. The purest and perhaps best definition of socialism is that the state owns the means of production. This is what our education system is. The is the way most of our transportation and utility infrastructure are run. They are slowly attempting to do the same with health care. The vast majority of policies favored by "progressives" however are interventionist and deal primarily with regulating behavior either through laws prohibiting certain activities, making changes in the tax codes to coerce market behavior to punish and reward activities, or outright government subsidies to encourage market behavior. The private individual still ultimately controls the means of production, they are just increasingly limited in what they can do with that means through interventionism.
The real place where progressives might claim to be in lock step with libertarians but are not is in the area of civil liberties and rights. They claim to be in favor of increased liberty, but are more likely than conservatives to call for new laws to coerce social behavior and thinking. Speech codes, laws against smoking in private establishments, hate crime laws, hate speech laws, and campaign finance laws, are all attempts by so-called free thinkers to get the state to coerce behavior among the general public for things that involve the mere acts of individuals exercising individual rights that do no direct harm to others against their will.
To promote so-called "gay rights" the progressives do not call for the state to remove their intrusion from the personal and purely religious institution of marriage. Instead they demand that society pass and change these laws to "empower" gay citizens who wish to marry by adding yet more people who will now be subject to state control in determining whether or not they are married. Progressives have no choice in this matter, however, since "gay marriage" is not about marriage, but about entitlement to government benefits given to married couples. It is, to some extent also about acceptance from the general public through attempting to change legislation and forcing "society" to recognize "gay rights" in this area. Nothing has ever prevented gay people from calling themselves married and nothing ever will. This also tends to show the problem with progressives which is their confusion of society as being synonymous with government. It is problem that conservatives have as well. The true libertarian understands that society and government are not and should not be the same and that it is morally reprehensible for government to interfere in the decisions individuals make in society that do not directly harm anyone else.
This is why so-called progressives and libertarians are incompatible on most issues. Progressives are often just as statist as so-called conservatives who also often want societal norms and traditions to be codified and enforced as laws. It makes them feel so much better than facing the fearful notion that someone somewhere might be acting or thinking differently than what they find to be acceptable.
Friday, February 1, 2008
CNN and media bias
"With former First Lady Nancy Reagan looking on, Paul disagreed with President Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor as a Supreme Court justice, while Huckabee and McCain declined to say whether they would have tapped her for a spot on the high court.
Romney said he "would rather have" a different kind of justice on the bench."
CNN article
Notice how they couldn't just say Ron Paul said her appointment was a bad decision, but that he had the insensitivity to say it in front of Nancy Reagan. For all we know she would agree with that opinion, but the point is to make him look heartless in giving an honest opinion. McCain and Huckabee of course don't answer the question because people don't want answers to questions. That's not the point of a debate.
However, Romney, who also gave something close to same answer is quoted as basically saying it was a bad idea. Apparently Nancy Reagan wasn't in the room though when he gave his answer.
Also, if you look at the article, their are links to the CNN web site for each presidential candidate from the body of the article as they are named. One is missing however. Can you guess which one?
Romney said he "would rather have" a different kind of justice on the bench."
CNN article
Notice how they couldn't just say Ron Paul said her appointment was a bad decision, but that he had the insensitivity to say it in front of Nancy Reagan. For all we know she would agree with that opinion, but the point is to make him look heartless in giving an honest opinion. McCain and Huckabee of course don't answer the question because people don't want answers to questions. That's not the point of a debate.
However, Romney, who also gave something close to same answer is quoted as basically saying it was a bad idea. Apparently Nancy Reagan wasn't in the room though when he gave his answer.
Also, if you look at the article, their are links to the CNN web site for each presidential candidate from the body of the article as they are named. One is missing however. Can you guess which one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)