Don’s Debates – when the Straw Man ariseth

It’s been a few months since I enjoyed a good argumentation rodeo. One presented itself on a friend’s discussion thread in social media recently. I had been resisting the urge to throw-in my two-cents’ worth (or five bucks, depending on perspective).

By the way, as a matter of pure happenstance that friend is a fellow Libertarian.

In this latest installment of Don’s Debates, a video spoofing stereotypical comments made to libertarians by three pro-big-government characters was posted.

It appeared as though it was going to turn into a run-of-the-mill libertarian-love-fest in the comments section. Right after I posted a quote by Frédéric Bastiat there came a pair of replies by someone less libertarian-leaning. Another individual followed those two comments with his own selection of a Bastiat quote: “It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Then the straw men were erected by the less-libertarian participant. He contributed the following observation: “State raised grain is inferior in some way to privately raised grain? Less iron or protein, or you just don't like anything any government might do? Will it feed fewer people?”

The banter continued after I had logged-out to start getting ready for work. It became a tad circular in nature while I was away. It had been my intention to not embroil myself in an elongated point-counterpoint session. But, I allowed Mr. Statist to suck me into the conversation when he opted to proclaim those who disagreed with him weren’t adequately making their point.

So, I gave-in and replied with the following:

The problem, [name omitted], is when government (be it here or anywhere else in the world) decides to participate in any industry – in the case you're attempting to make, agriculture – virtually all actions must be run through its internal bureaucracy which makes the production and delivery of the grain inferior: not the grain itself.

When the production and delivery are inferior, less of it gets to its recipients in a timely manner. The delays and inevitable loss to spoilage leads to increased hunger.

You're engaging in a complete straw man argument.

You're deliberately omitting the fact when government is thrust into a sector of the economy it soon disapproves of competition. This leads to laws and regulations that squeeze-out private-sector competitors and leave people few-to-no choices of alternate sources for that grain.

Adding to the potential for rampant hunger is the unavoidable political component when those elected (or appointed) insist distribution be fair, which then requires a massive regulatory establishment to oversee said fairness.

That doesn't factor [further] increased hunger in certain segments of the population where the political connections aren't as vibrant – thus the component of fairness becomes flexible in its definition as a result of cronyism.

Does cronyism exist in the free market?

Of course.

But, in a free market we are all consequently free to pursue our desired goods (such as grain) from other sources when that situation becomes intolerable. Or, depending on the circumstances of one's situation, some among us are then free to take it upon ourselves to engage in that industry and produce that good.

Mr. Statist responded later that morning with this end-all-be-all post:

“We don't have anything even approaching a free market. Talk about straw men!”

Sigh...

Occupy for Liberty, not the Left

To all the libertarians participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement and the various springboard protests across the country: break free while you can.

Okay, for all my agreement with their unalienable right to protest as protected under the First Amendment and my belief the overall "Occupy" movement is getting a few points right, this item is a bit much to swallow: as reported by the Associated Press, out of the $435,000 raised thus far to financially support the protest efforts on Wall Street itself, approximately $350,000 of it has been donated via online credit-card transactions.

Why does this matter? This movement is founded on the notion that financial sector greed is at the root of almost all of the evils gnawing and rotting away at America. So to combat that evil, OWS protesters are funding their effort via the very financial machinery against which they claim to be locked in righteous struggle.

Next, common sense dictates that for any grassroots movement to successfully win over popular support from the public at large they need to be willing and able to interact with traditional media in addition to the new media of the digital age.

When that same common sense employed in the previous paragraph is applied toward a situation where men donning masks engage in open hostility toward a local television reporter in Oakland because she simply is trying to give them news coverage, that should lead most people who choose to use it to realize the movement's radicalization is careening down an irreversible course.

And that is a shame. Occupy Wall Street began with genuine promise for affecting something positive in America. Instead, it has been so thoroughly overtaken in sheep-like manner by the Left it makes the Right Wing's effort to co-opt the Tea Party pale in comparison.

In my final appeal to common sense, take a moment to read a Bloomberg article explaining how there now is a greater concentration of wealth in Washington, D.C., than in Silicon Valley.

But Wall Street remains the central focus for protesters… The things that make you go, "Hmmmm…"

Or, as Lew Rockwell has pointed-out, the wrong 1% in America is being protested.

So, my fellow libertarians and voluntaryists trying to co-opt this movement, the left's infernal hypocrisy in most corners and radical agenda in others are too much to overcome. Splinter off and form you own movement – "occupy" in front of the Federal Reserve, Securities & Exchange Commission, and other public and quasi-public financial entities – but don't be afraid to piggyback on the left's efforts.

If they believe so much in redistribution, they won't mind sharing some of the media attention a few of them are so eager to spurn...

Can our Free Will be amended?

As I do so well and on such a consistent basis, I wish to state the obvious.

The leadership for both major parties have no idea what the ultimate function of the Constitution of the United States of America has always been intended to serve.

I bring this up yet again in light of reactions to the recent legislative action in New York. The idea has been reintroduced into the national conversation about pursuing a constitutional amendment to define and limit marriage as only taking place between one man and one woman.

This is being urged by high-profile members of the Establishment Right.

Throughout my lifetime (and for several decades preceding the start of it), there have been those who believe the Constitution is missing essential duties that the federal government should undertake on our behalf and thus needs to be amended to contain the additional language outlining those obligations as well as have key limits to governmental power eliminated.

This is being urged by high-profile members (and particularly those behind the scenes) of the Establishment Left.

The two points illustrated above share a key unifying component: they demonstrate how the top decision makers of both major parties either have no clue or are deliberately spurning the role our Constitution was meant to play in the governance of America.

To those who advocate for a constitutional amendment on marriage, I pose this question: was the Constitution ever intended to serve as a vehicle to limit the choices and control the behaviors of individuals?

While it is well-known it was written and designed to limit the power and constrain the actions of the federal government, is there also room for it to be used as a means to place similar limits and constraints on any of our nation’s citizens?

The answer to that can only be a resounding, “No!”

To those who yearn for a country where well-meaning authorities are enabled by law to act for us whether we wish it or not, I tell you that you share with your so-called opponents on the right one striking similarity: the deliberate disregard for our human free will.

If you all should get your way – those of you who insist that people cannot… must not… determine our own choices for ourselves, that we cannot… must not… be free to do for ourselves and brave the consequences for our decisions, choices, and actions – then at such time America will cease to be America.