Elizabeth Warren’s Declaration Of Dependence And How To Combat It Saturday, Jul 19 2014

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered a speech to the Netroots Nation, which is a gathering for progressive bloggers and activists. In her speech, the crony captialist outlined her “11 Commandments Of Progressivism”, because apparently she thought she can do one better than God.

Here they are:

-“We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

 

– “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”

 

– “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”

 

– “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”

 

– “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”

 

– “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”

 

– “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”

 

– “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”

 

– “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”

 

– “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”

 

– “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!

Lots of things about equality and government doing things for people, but nothing about freedom and responsibility. What these are a bunch of easily refuted talking points and ultimately, a declaration of dependence. Just give the government more control over your life and it will give you things.

What we on the center-right need to do is develop our own alternative version to this. We need to remind people that free markets are what create prosperity. We need to stop the left from falsely calling themselves the “party of science” and expose their quackery on GMOs, nuclear power, and vaccinations in addition to their alarmism on climate change. We need to address the real problem of student loan debt with free market solutions such as allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy and allowing banks to include a student’s major in assessing risk. We also need to remind the American people that Social Security is need of reform or it won’t be there for future generations. Finally, we need to promote a culture of responsibility and push back against the mentality of “my body, my choice, your wallet”.

We cannot allow the left to define the narrative any longer. We must push back with our message of freedom, hope, and prosperity. More importantly, we need to develop real world solutions to the problems facing the American people and we need to communicate it effectively.

We need to quit allowing the left to put us in a position where we can be defined. In other words, people on the center-right need to stop saying stupid things (looking at you Todd Akin and Chris McDaniel).

I’m glad Elizabeth Warren has laid out the battlelines and now it is up to us be up for the challenge and crush her and the left’s statist agenda.

Leave a Response »

 

Bundy Ranch Conservatism: All Hat, No Cattle Saturday, Apr 26 2014

The standoff at the Bundy Ranch between Cliven Bundy and the US government over unpaid grazing fees has turned into a political disaster for the right. As I pointed out in my last post, Cliven Bundy has no case and he should not have been the recipient of conservative and libertarian support in the first place. However, many conservatives and libertarians decide to champion the man’s cause as somehow a glorious struggle against big government and the Muslim Kenyan Communist dictatorship of Barack Obama, although Bundy did not own the land in question in the first place. Many of these people cheered when an armed militia was able to prevent the Bureau of Land Management from carrying out their lawful duty to enforce a court judgement against Bundy.

The farcical nature of the Bundy Ranch standoff came to a head when the New York Times published a story on Wednesday where Bundy made some racist remarks about blacks and compared public housing to slavery:

But if the federal government has moved on, Mr. Bundy — a father of 14 and a registered Republican — has not.

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Conservatives and libertarians should have seen this coming a mile away when they championed this cause which deserved no champion. The reason why we on the right continue to have to have people like Cliven Bundy, Todd Akin, and others continually embarrass us is because we have become an intellectually and morally bankrupt movement. As a movement, we care more about outrage seeking; throwing out cheap and meaningless slogans such as “we the people”, “cut spending”, “restore the Constitution”; and sprinkle in some Reagan quotes and quotes from the Founding Fathers and this is what has posed for modern conservatism in the age of Obama. Instead of doing the hard work required of a loyal opposition such as developing a credible alternative to the left, the right seeks out and turns into celebrities people such as Cliven Bundy, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Allen West, and many others and turns them into sound bite machines and fundraising products who continually spew goofy and kooky things for the benefit of the far-right base of the Republican Party. The best description for this kind of “conservatism” is Bundy Ranch conservatism because that ranch is where the American people got the full serving of this insanity. The worst part of Bundy Ranch conservatism is that its adherents, whether they call themselves conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Partiers, sincerely believe that they are a majority of the American people. Having these people in the driver’s seat will result in the ruin of the liberty movement.

The lesson to be learned here is just because someone says “we the people” a lot and talks about “restoring the constitution” does not mean that their cause or candidacy is one that should be embraced by the liberty movement. Case in point is Greg Brannon and his candidacy for the United States Senate in North Carolina. Greg Brannon has emerged as the “true conservative” challenger to the establishment candidacy of North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis. In fact, FreedomWorks is holding a “grassroots rally” for him this weekend. To be blunt, Greg Brannon’s views on many issues are going to come off as utterly insane to most average Americans. Buzzfeed has highlighted 13 of the nuttiest things Brannon has said including comparing property taxes to the Holocaust and the Soviet Union, ran an organization that frequently posted blog posts advocating conspiracy theories, says democratic debate of issues is “socialism”, accuses President Obama of “instituting a socialist dictatorship”, has compared abortion to slavery and the Holocaust, has also called President Obama a fascist, thinks the American political system is comparable to Nazism, and believes the Second Amendment allows private ownership of nuclear weapons. In addition, Brannon has plagiarized Senator Rand Paul’s website (who has endorsed Brannon), claims Obamacare is part of a “global conspiracy to control life”, and Brannon was found guilty by a civil jury of misleading investors for a company he was a board member of (his co-defendant was acquitted of all counts). Clearly Greg Brannon is not someone we should associate ourselves with, no matter how good he may seem on the issues. It’s as if someone decided it was a good idea for the most nutty member of the local Tea Party or the Infowars Fan Club to run for office.

The reason why people embrace Brannon, despite the fact that he cannot be considered a credible candidate, no matter where or what he is running for, is because there are many media personalities, “grassroots activists”, and political organizations who are invested in failure. The worst thing that can happen for some “in the movement” is for the left to be defeated and for the size and scope of government to actually be rolled back. Once that happens, the outrage seeking will have to go away because there will be no more excuses and people will demand results. Then perhaps the hard work of developing a credible alternative to the left’s statism and making the ideas of liberty relevant to the real world would have to begin. It’s time to start moving away from Bundy Ranch Conservatism and start building a real world libertarian conservationism that can win elections and have mass appeal among the American people.

 

Leave a Response »

 

The Assualt On Tolerance By The Tolerant Friday, Apr 4 2014

I strongly believe in a diverse, tolerant, and liberal society. I believe in not just tolerance when it comes to different races, religions, genders, and sexual orientations; I believe more strongly in the tolerance of ideas, especially those I strongly disagree with.

Unfortunately, the tolerant, liberal society I love and value so much is under attack, often by many of the same people who view themselves as “tolerant”. The latest case in point is the firing of Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla. Eich’s crime in the eyes of the tolerance police is the fact that he made a $1,000 contribution in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008. Proposition 8 sought to deny state recognition of same-sex marriage in the State of California. It passed, but was overturned by the US Surpreme Court in 2013.

Now I disagree with Eich on Proposition 8 and I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn it. I support same-sex marriage, however, I have nothing but contempt for those who went after Eich’s job. One of the most important things about a liberal, diverse, and tolerant society is the fact that people who have differing ideas, even those ideas that a majority of us would disagree with, could work and live together in peace. Such a diverse society and tolerant values allow us to be able engage in civil political discussions about anything without the threat to someone’s livlihood or the threat of a boycott designed to put a company out of business.

These tactics of trying to have a man fired or boycotting a business because you disagree with their owner’s or executive’s political beliefs is a sign of immaturity and frankly are the tactics of thugs and bullies. Boycotts are free speech and I support the right to free speech, however just because you have the right or are legally able to do something does not mean you should do that act. Cheating on your spouse or partner is legal in most jurisdictions, however, it is probably not a good idea to do it. Not only are you betraying that other person’s trust, but you are a scoundrel. You can legally boycott anything, however, if you’re doing it based on the political beliefs of the owners and executives, you are an immature bully who cannot handle an opposing point of view.

What boycotts and the lynch mob mentality in politics does is make even the slightest disagreements personal and it makes people afraid to express their viewpoints. In order to have a healthy, tolerant, and liberal society; people must have the assurance that they can express whatever political viewpoints they believe without having their livlihoods threatened. Using the tactics of bullies, even in the name of “tolerance”, is not very tolerant at all and it leads to self-censorship, which is just as dangerous to the American body politic as state censorship.

Private power and civil society can be just as coercive as the state and that is one of the reasons I am not an anarchist. I believe that the excesses of private power and even civil society must be kept in check by the state.

As a society, we benefit from being able to freely express our points of view; whether it be free from state coercion or the coercion of private parties. Whenever we allow ourselves to get into a lather over what a man’s political beliefs, especially to the point where we target his livlihood, we diminish this freedom. If we believe in tolerance, we must believe in tolerance for all political ideas, especially those which are unpopular. Anything less is an assualt on the liberal society and invites us on the road to totalitarianism.

2 Responses »

 

Confessions Of An Ex-Libertarian Friday, Feb 7 2014

Today, I finally acknowledged publicly what I have been knowing for sometime that I am no longer a libertarian. For awhile, I was feeling like I did not fit in any longer and felt alienated.

My own libertarianism was of a more moderate strain. I have no desire to privatize the roads, completely abolish the welfare state, abolish the military, privatize the police, and other anarchist fantasies. I believe in a strong, but limited government to maintain order, protect against external threats, enforce the laws and settle disputes, and provide the basic infrastructure the free market cannot provide. I continue to believe that free markets are preferable to central planning and do provide for greater prosperity for most people, although I do believe in a safety net for those who are inevitably the losers in capitalism, which I do not believe the private sector can provide on its own. Finally, I believe in a “live and let live” approach from the state as to how people live their lives, as long as they do not harm others. These beliefs have not changed.

However, for a few reasons I no longer feel comfortable calling myself a libertarian.

1)Libertarianism leads inevitably to anarchism. I agree with Thoughts on Liberty’s Rachel Burger that libertarianism eventually leads to anarchy and anarchy is quickly becoming the predominant strain in libertarianism. Organizations such as the Mises Institute, the Center For A Stateless Society, Students for Liberty, and the Foundation For Economic Education are promoting anarchy. I believe that a limited government is necessary to protect individual liberty and property. An armed mob is as coercive as any government agency and there must be a coercive power to protect life, liberty, and property from those who do not accept the social contract.

2) The infighting and dogmatism. Left-libertarians call right-libertarians racists, sexists, and homophobes and right-libertarians call left-libertarians communists. Both agree the other has to go. The differences between the two are becoming irreconcilable. In addition there is the unwillingness to tolerate opposing views in the movement. Such petty arguments are not conducive to a big tent or to a reality based approach to politics.

3) Making libertarianism into a cultural and not just a political ideology. One of the appeals of libertarianism is that anyone can support liberty, regardless of their cultural and moral views. All that is to be agreed to is that they would agree to not use the state to impose their morality. Unfortunately, that is no longer good enough. I outgrew utopian nonsense in elementary school.

I am a classical liberal which is the tree both libertarianism and American conservatism are spawned from. It is because of this common ancestry that I promote the conservatarian viewpoint. I still believe in limited government, the rule of law, private property rights, individual liberties, and free markets and that has not changed. I still consider myself a part of the broader liberty movement and I will stand up for liberty with anyone else who loves liberty, regardless of the label they give themselves.

I will fight for liberty alongside libertarians, however I will not fight for liberty as a libertarian.

4 Responses »

 

The TSA, Nazis, and Blowback Monday, Nov 4 2013

There is a piece creating a firestorm in the libertarian blogosphere today written by Rachel Burger called LAX Shooting: Now We Know What Blowback Means. In the piece, she argues that the recent shooting death of TSA agent Gerardo Hernandez was an example of the blowback theory. This piece has ignited a firestorm on libertarian social media. I myself was contacted by a media outlet asking my opinions on the piece.

I did not like the piece for many reasons. I thought it was way too soon to try and make political points off this death. I also did not like the Nuremberg Trials reference (more on that in a little bit). I also didn’t like some style aspects of the piece, but I won’t go into that. Finally, while I strongly disagree with the way airport security is handled in this country and do believe there needs to be more emphasis on the dignity of passengers, I do believe that the TSA screening procedures are legal under current law.

Having said all that, Rachel did not compare the TSA to Nazis. At least that was not her intention. Again, I did not like the Nuremberg Trials reference. But here’s the paragraph in question (bold emphasis is mine)

As a Jew, I am consistently reminded of the Nuremberg Trialswhen it comes to the TSA. Those who slaughtered the Jews in the Holocaust were “just following orders,” but that did not mean that they were any less accountable. Just following orders, just doing the job that they signed up for, did not excuse their actions. Of course, the Nuremberg Trials specifically addressed war crimes, but I think that the idea of just following orders extends beyond that. Being an ethical person requires critical thinking about everyday actions, whether commanded or not.

What she was trying to do (albeit poorly) was trying to make the point that obeying orders to persecute their fellow citizens was immoral. Again, although I believe the TSA is not a good example of her point, it is clear she was not comparing Hernandez and other TSA agents to Nazis. She also condemned the killing of agent Hernandez and said it was an unacceptable way to express frustrations with the TSA.

A personal note about Rachel Burger, she is not a violent radical. Like most libertarians, she adheres to the non-aggression principle which rejects violence as a means of political change. She would agree with me that changing the law peacefully through persuading our fellow Americans through the democratic process is the best and only moral approach. I hate that she is being portrayed otherwise.

One last thing, I have to take a little responsibility for this kerfuffle in a way. Five days ago on Twitter, I was (playfully) teasing Rachel about her lack of edginess sort of speak in her writing. She was obviously trying to prove me wrong. If you’re looking for someone to blame, blame me.

Other than that, it is unfortunate if the reputation of such a great writer like Rachel is destroyed over one piece.

Leave a Response »

 

Conscience Of A Conservatarian Monday, Jul 1 2013

My friend Christopher Bowen wrote a piece today called “Conscience Of A Liberaltarian”. It is a very thoughtful piece, I urge all of you to read it if at the very least to understand left-libertarianism which is probably most ascendant strain in the libertarian movement at this moment. This is especially true in academia, inside the Beltway, and on college campuses.

Now a bit about my political background. My mom is a liberal Democrat, bless her heart. The rest of my family are conservative Republicans though. I grew up on Rush Limbaugh and despised Bill Clinton. Then in the summer of 2001 at the age of 16, I spent that summer with my grandmother and spent my nights surfing her WebTV. There, I discovered Free Republic, which is/was a conservative web forum. It was there in some of the threads, I discovered libertarianism. Then 9/11 happened. While I still remained libertarian on domestic issues, I became hawkish on foreign policy. I supported the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq and I supported a tough stance against Islamic terrorism. I joined the College Republicans when I graduated high school and entered university. In 2004, I voted against Louisiana’s gay marriage ban and I voted for George W. Bush. I eventually became disillusioned and turned against the Iraq War, but after watching how Louisiana’s mostly Democratic leadership handled Katrina, I returned to the fold. I voted for Bobby Jindal in 2007 for governor. I also worked on several political campaigns professionally but I was becoming more and more disillusioned. In 2008, I did not vote for president. I became more and more libertarian. In 2012, I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries and I did not want to vote at all again for president, but ultimately I voted for Gary Johnson.

I do not want to take away from the good work my friend Allan Bourdius has done with his Conservatarian 101 series (and you should read it as well!) but here’s a very brief outline of what most conservatarians generally believe.

* I’ll take this directly from Allan: “believes the Constitution of the United States, as amended, is inviolate. It’s also meaningless without the Declaration of Independence standing behind it.”

* Believes in as much of a decentralized government as possible. Government should be as close to the governed as possible

* Are politically pragmatic. Knows it is better to get some of what of you want and to advance liberty in small steps than to achieve 100% of nothing.

* Has a deep distain for political purity tests of any kind, whether it be from “truuuuuuue” conservative Tea Party types or Big-L Libertarians.

* Sees the “conservative” in conservatarian as more of a temperment than an ideology. Because of this, we have a deep distain for social engineers, statists, and any grand scheme to remake society, whether it comes from the left or the right.

* Generally adheres to “live and let live” on social matters. If it does not impact another person’s physical welfare, government has no right to regulate it.

* Taxes are fundamentally theft, but at the same time there is no other real way to fund government. Taxes should only be as high as needed to fund the necessary and proper functions of government.

* We have a deep suspicion of anything written by “Gang of whatever” or 1,000+ page bills. Usually, they’re trying to hide something from the American people and it is usually not good.

* We reject the corporatism of the Republican Party and the socialism of the Democratic Party. We support free markets for all and especially letting people fail. No bailouts for anyone.

*Finally, conservatarians are all over the place on foreign policy. Some lean neo-conservative, some are non-interventionists, most are realists. As for myself, I am a realist with a non-interventionist bias.

This is just a broad outline of what conservatarianism is. I hope expound on it some more in the future and more importantly, I hope others will do so as well.

What do you think?

4 Responses »

 

Edward Snowden And The Rule of Law Sunday, Jun 23 2013

The latest world tour by Edward Snowden has many people denouncing him. What’s more interesting is that many of the people denouncing him were praising him not too long ago for revealing the existence of the Obama Administration’s domestic spying program. There are a few things that I think are important here.

1) Edward Snowden should return to the US to stand trial. Snowden was indicted on Friday by the Justice Department for stealing and revealing classified documents and other related charges. Instead of fleeing to Hong Kong and now to Russia, Cuba, and to asylum in Ecuador; he should explain and defend his actions in front a judge and jury of his peers. This leads me to my next point.

2) Civil disobedience is fine and good, but you must be willing to pay the consequences. Martin Luther King Jr. had to spend the night in the Birmingham Jail. The point of civil disobedience is to break the law to force a change in policy. If Snowden had the courage of his convictions, he would go back to the US and stand trial. He can use the platform of his trial to explain his actions and why he did it. All he has to do is persuade one juror that he was right and he escapes. Even if he is convicted, he can possibly persuade the American people to pressure the president to issue a pardon. Instead of debating the merits of domestic spying, the focus and scrutiny is now on him and whether or not he is selling or giving away national security secrets to nations that don’t wish the US well.

3) No one is above the law in a free society. The laws apply to everyone equally, or at least should be. Edward Snowden and Barack Obama should be subject to the same laws. The Constitution prohibits warrantless spying on American citizens while the law prohibits the release of classified information. There is a procedure in place to change the law if you do not agree with it.

4) Ultimately, Edward Snowden is irrelevant. We shouldn’t really care about Edward Snowden or what his motives were. The law will take care of that. Instead, we should be more concerned about debating whether or not we want the government reading e-mails, monitoring Internet activity, listening to phone calls; without a warrant or probable cause in the name of national security. Snowden should not be a distraction from the debate over whether or not we want our government spying on us.

Leave a Response »

 

We Need To Reform Drug Policy Thursday, Apr 4 2013

We need to reform how we combat drug abuse and addiction in this country. A story in The Atlantic shows why.

But let’s focus here on the anecdote about Horner, because it gets at the utter madness of the War on Drugs. For the sake of argument, let’s presume he’s guilty of selling $1,800 of pain pills prescribed to him for an injury. Forget that he was arguably entrapped. Just look at the crime in isolation. What sort of punishment should it carry?

You’ve got a 46-year-old employed father caught selling four bottles of prescription pain pills. “Under Florida law Horner now faced a minimum sentence of 25 years, if found guilty,” the BBC reports.

Twenty-five years minimum! 

This doesn’t seem like a case where the punishment fits the crime. This is a case where the costs of incarceration would be better spent elsewhere. Not to mention the abuses of government power which have come as a result of the War on Drugs such as no-knock search warrants and how drug prohibition has fueled the growth of street gangs and organized crime. Finally, it has ravaged poor and minority communities as members of both groups are disproportionately impacted by drugs.

You do not have to believe in drug prohibition to know that the way we combat drug abuse and drug addiction in this country is madness. It would be more cost efficient money wise and less injurious to civil liberties to treat it as a public health issue instead of a criminal justice matter, let alone a war.

Leave a Response »

 

Freedom In The States Thursday, Mar 28 2013

Today, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University released their report analyzing freedom in the states. The report gives an overall score and then it further breaks it down into the best states for economic freedom, social freedom, and personal freedom. The report also measures such specific things as tax burden freedom, education freedom, and victimless crime freedom among many others.

Just a few things from the report: North Dakota was first in overall freedom, with New York dead last.

South Dakota was first in economic freedom, with New York dead last. Alaska was first in personal freedom, with Illinois dead last. You would be surprised a very red state was first and one of the bluest states in the country was last in the personal freedom category.

A few other things of note. South Dakota had the lowest tax burden while New York had the highest tax burden. Kansas was the top state in the “Find a Job” category which measured both labor freedom and occupational licensing restrictions. California was the worst state in that category. Florida led the nation in educational freedom while Maryland was at the bottom. Arizona has least restrictive gun laws while California had the most restrictive.

Check out the report to see where your state ranked. Hopefully it was better than my Louisiana which is sadly ranked #37, but that’s an improvement from #45 in the last report.

Leave a Response »

 

Gay Marriage Roundup Tuesday, Mar 26 2013

Today, the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in cases concerning the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 and federal government’s Defense of Marriage Act. Both laws outlaw same sex marriage and define marriage as one man and one woman.

What I’m hoping for out of the Supreme Court is first and foremost for DOMA to be struck down as unconstitutional. There is no authority for the Federal government to define marriage under the Constitution.

As for Proposition 8, it too be should be struck down, but how and why it should be struck down is key. This New York Times graph shows the possible scenarios that can happen with both cases. The two scenarios I lean toward are using the Equal Protection Clause to strike down the “separate but equal” civil unions/domestic partnerships and make these states that have utilized this “solution” to actually take a stand. President Obama agrees with me on this.

I wouldn’t also mind the decision on this issue by the Ninth Circuit to be upheld. They essentially ruled that because the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage under the California constitution, that Proposition 8 was enacted in a mean spirited fashion targeting gays and thereby denying them equal protection and due process of the law. This would essentially only affect California.

What would be overreaching is striking down marriage laws in every other state in the Union. This would be a stretch of the Equal Protection Argument because many of these laws were not just targeting gays, but also polygamists and many others. While there maybe a public policy argument for revising marriage laws, this is a decision best left to legislatures and the voters of each state and not to judicial dictat. Yes, the result is important, but even more important is the process of achieving that result. There is more legitimacy to using the democratic and legislative process to achieve the goal of marriage equality than using 5 to 9 unelected bureaucrats to hand down a decision that was deliberated in secret. This is tantamount to “rule by experts” and is very undemocratic.

Finally, solving this through the democratic process will solve many of the controversial side issues that have arisen with this issue such as religious liberty protections and other conscience protections for those churches and businesses and others who oppose same sex marriage. The democratic process is often long and slow, but gradual change makes it more likely the change won’t be reversed and will become more accepted in time.

One Response »