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...
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Right-wing collective salvation no less destructive than the Left’s
“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, and that we shouldn’t get involved with the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved with cultural issues – that is not how traditional conservatives view the world... There is no such society – that I’m aware of – where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), interview on NPR, August 4, 2005
In political analysis, temptations are everywhere. They lie-about like a minefield – designed to snap-up and bite you at the first careless step taken.
I’ve stepped on a couple of mines already in my own still-short and obscure foray into politics. As Santorum’s comments quoted above continue to make the rounds in social media, the minefield-like temptation is to engage early and often in ad hominem commentary.
But, such an approach inevitably would steer the overall discussion away from the real issue. The man is not where our focus should be: we must dismantle the premises he has promoted with such comments. Senator Santorum and others who share his views will come and go. But, failing to adequately and accurately refute the ideology and philosophy behind such views – at a time such as this in our society – is to miss an opportunity to expand the greater understanding of what liberty truly means.
So, suffice it to say I wholeheartedly disagree with Santorum. Now, here is why...
The logic flaw behind comments such as Santorum’s is he encourages a path toward public virtue of a right-wing nature that runs in parallel to the left’s.
The growing outlook among the left in America has become the quest for “collective salvation” via redistribution of income. President Barack Obama has discussed this concept on more than one occasion over the years.
The central premise with their argument is the establishment and its crowd of elites must be entrusted with saving us all from ourselves and our uncontrollable propensity – as mere, weak mortals – for the sins of greed and material avarice.
They – and they alone – know what is best for leading society into that public virtue.
As the concept of self-reliance continues to decay in America, one need only to look at the condition and plight of our larger cities to recognize how inevitably dehumanizing Progressive governance is.
With the sociological outlook being advanced by Santorum, we can see there is an effort underway to recharge the batteries for furthering what is the undeniable right-wing equivalent to Obama’s social agenda.
The central concept is the same: government must be granted the power and authority to save us from ourselves. The left wants to social-engineer us toward charitable virtue. The right seeks to social-engineer us toward moral virtue.
The left would have us believe that prosperity for all – fair and equal in their eyes – only can be achieved through government intervention. The right would have us believe that morality for all only can be achieved in the same manner.
Redistribution of income has had an irrefutable destructive effect on the American work ethic and dedication to self-reliance. As we have reached the point where 47% of the population is receiving some form of public assistance, this trend only will continue toward total dependence on the state. As long as availability continues to expand, so will not just the demand for it but the expectation.
The result is simple: the consequence of reliance on the state is our society is eating itself from the inside out.
The combination of welfare, tighter economic controls, and regulation of business has created an environment that is best described as “the race to the bottom” where people do what has been predicted by free-market economists for roughly one-and-a-half centuries: many seek to do the minimum in order to get by in life while others aggressively seek-out every possible loophole in the laws to exploit the opportunities for ill-conceived gain.
The same principle will apply to state-sponsored morality.
As the government attempts to nudge, push, and then steamroll citizens into behavior control as well as limitations on individual personal choices, the outcome as a result of securing America’s moral fabric is bound to be the exact opposite of the promise of easier access to salvation.
It will happen because we will be conditioned to rely on government and its body of laws to guide our consciences as opposed to scripture, prayer, and God.
Human nature will inevitably kick into overdrive as people become eager to settle for the legally acceptable minimum standards in moral conduct while others look for the aforementioned loopholes. With rebellion being humanity’s natural social state, the results can only descend from there as others engage in outright defiance of the law.
And, just as we have witnessed with the Left continually arguing for more and more economic and financial control by the government each time it becomes apparent the present body of laws is not “doing the trick” for society, the right will engage in the same pattern if allowed the opportunity (just examine the history of the war on drugs).
Those on the right – such as Santorum – who expound the notion it is possible to codify God’s law into man’s law unfailingly omit one vitally important fact: the process of codification ultimately is left in the hands of politicians.
What could possibly go wrong there?
It is apparent that Senator Santorum and those who agree with him either have forgotten or chosen to disregard a critical axiom in Christian society just as his counterparts on the Progressive Left have chosen to spurn it: Virtue cannot exist in the absence of free choice.
It is our free will, given to us by God, that makes us uniquely human. It is only through our individual free will that any of us can reach the glory of salvation.
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), interview on NPR, August 4, 2005
In political analysis, temptations are everywhere. They lie-about like a minefield – designed to snap-up and bite you at the first careless step taken.
I’ve stepped on a couple of mines already in my own still-short and obscure foray into politics. As Santorum’s comments quoted above continue to make the rounds in social media, the minefield-like temptation is to engage early and often in ad hominem commentary.
But, such an approach inevitably would steer the overall discussion away from the real issue. The man is not where our focus should be: we must dismantle the premises he has promoted with such comments. Senator Santorum and others who share his views will come and go. But, failing to adequately and accurately refute the ideology and philosophy behind such views – at a time such as this in our society – is to miss an opportunity to expand the greater understanding of what liberty truly means.
So, suffice it to say I wholeheartedly disagree with Santorum. Now, here is why...
The logic flaw behind comments such as Santorum’s is he encourages a path toward public virtue of a right-wing nature that runs in parallel to the left’s.
The growing outlook among the left in America has become the quest for “collective salvation” via redistribution of income. President Barack Obama has discussed this concept on more than one occasion over the years.
The central premise with their argument is the establishment and its crowd of elites must be entrusted with saving us all from ourselves and our uncontrollable propensity – as mere, weak mortals – for the sins of greed and material avarice.
They – and they alone – know what is best for leading society into that public virtue.
As the concept of self-reliance continues to decay in America, one need only to look at the condition and plight of our larger cities to recognize how inevitably dehumanizing Progressive governance is.
With the sociological outlook being advanced by Santorum, we can see there is an effort underway to recharge the batteries for furthering what is the undeniable right-wing equivalent to Obama’s social agenda.
The central concept is the same: government must be granted the power and authority to save us from ourselves. The left wants to social-engineer us toward charitable virtue. The right seeks to social-engineer us toward moral virtue.
The left would have us believe that prosperity for all – fair and equal in their eyes – only can be achieved through government intervention. The right would have us believe that morality for all only can be achieved in the same manner.
Redistribution of income has had an irrefutable destructive effect on the American work ethic and dedication to self-reliance. As we have reached the point where 47% of the population is receiving some form of public assistance, this trend only will continue toward total dependence on the state. As long as availability continues to expand, so will not just the demand for it but the expectation.
The result is simple: the consequence of reliance on the state is our society is eating itself from the inside out.
The combination of welfare, tighter economic controls, and regulation of business has created an environment that is best described as “the race to the bottom” where people do what has been predicted by free-market economists for roughly one-and-a-half centuries: many seek to do the minimum in order to get by in life while others aggressively seek-out every possible loophole in the laws to exploit the opportunities for ill-conceived gain.
The same principle will apply to state-sponsored morality.
As the government attempts to nudge, push, and then steamroll citizens into behavior control as well as limitations on individual personal choices, the outcome as a result of securing America’s moral fabric is bound to be the exact opposite of the promise of easier access to salvation.
It will happen because we will be conditioned to rely on government and its body of laws to guide our consciences as opposed to scripture, prayer, and God.
Human nature will inevitably kick into overdrive as people become eager to settle for the legally acceptable minimum standards in moral conduct while others look for the aforementioned loopholes. With rebellion being humanity’s natural social state, the results can only descend from there as others engage in outright defiance of the law.
And, just as we have witnessed with the Left continually arguing for more and more economic and financial control by the government each time it becomes apparent the present body of laws is not “doing the trick” for society, the right will engage in the same pattern if allowed the opportunity (just examine the history of the war on drugs).
Those on the right – such as Santorum – who expound the notion it is possible to codify God’s law into man’s law unfailingly omit one vitally important fact: the process of codification ultimately is left in the hands of politicians.
What could possibly go wrong there?
It is apparent that Senator Santorum and those who agree with him either have forgotten or chosen to disregard a critical axiom in Christian society just as his counterparts on the Progressive Left have chosen to spurn it: Virtue cannot exist in the absence of free choice.
It is our free will, given to us by God, that makes us uniquely human. It is only through our individual free will that any of us can reach the glory of salvation.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Activism, in style
While the story of Anthony Buehler [embedded below] steadily spreads across the online social media world and many (myself included) support him in his endeavor to draw full and proper attention to excessive use of force by law enforcement, I have a second pressing issue I wish resolved.
Take a good look at the picture above: where can I get a T-shirt like that?!
"D'Anconia Copper" is easy to read but I am rather curious what the rest of the printing below it says. Unfortunately, what you see up top was the best screen grab I could get during the second news segment used in the video.
Also, is it one of a matching set? You know: another has on display "Reardon Steel"; a third option offers "Wyatt Oil"...
Thursday, December 29, 2011
2012: the year ‘conservatives’ embraced LBJ
As this year winds-down, I know my pro-Ron Paul commentary will need to wind-down as well. The Libertarian Party has multiple outstanding presidential candidates – highlighted by former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson’s recent switch in party affiliation (and God Bless him for it!).
As chair of the Allen County Libertarian Party it is my responsibility and duty to begin focusing my energy and lead the energies of my local colleagues toward our own candidates and leave the Republicans to their own.
Perhaps, more appropriately, we need to leave the Republicans to eat their own – namely Paul and his supporters.
Still, it is my intent to churn-out one more essay espousing virtues of Representative Paul before the Iowa caucus on January 3 and then observe how the chips fall. My hope is that message will go viral if nothing else I write ever does.
Take a long look at the accompanying screen shot. Then, I want you to watch the embedded video below.
Once the connection struck me between the rhetoric contained in the pictured tweet and in the embedded video, I found myself compelled to put-aside everything else I’m working-on at the moment and author this note.
I’ve read the commentary and snark about how Paul’s entry into front-runner status in the GOP field has revealed how his supporters – be they his dedicated boots on the ground or armchair advocates such as myself – are thin-skinned, etc...
But the message on display here, originating from Twitter, is fully emblematic of what has been in play all the while – and being dished in extra generous servings over the last several weeks since he began ascending in mainstream polling.
Paul and his supporters have stuck to examining the track records, platforms, and rhetoric of his opponents and doing the requisite analysis – and when applicable even making comparisons to presidents past and present. His detractors, conversely, have offered the kind of discourse displayed here.
I have commented in social media ad nauseum about the irony that drips from commentary by so-called conservatives about him. President Barack Obama’s stimulus package was decried as unconstitutional. His Affordable Health Care Act is unconstitutional. His party’s finance reform law is unconstitutional. Damn near his entire agenda has been unconstitutional since he entered the White House. However...
Now, when discussing candidates’ qualifications, faithfulness to the Constitution has steadily and amazingly descended in pertinence.
Republicans and Conservatives who vote with that party have a chance to nominate and push into the presidency a candidate who has been the most consistent and reliable constitutionalist to hold any high-profile elected office in decades, in a lifetime.
What we are witnessing instead is the Grand Ole Party channeling the spirit of Lyndon Baines Johnson as it existed in his 1964 reelection bid.
When you throw-in the fact of all his predecessors within the Republican Party, Ron Paul has been most commonly compared to the late-Senator Barry Goldwater, the parallels approach new depths of comedy.
Given that the reemergence of nuclear holocaust rhetoric is coming from within his own party, the irony is as disgusting as it is mind-boggling.
So, take a bow, Republicans! Somewhere in his special little pit in Hell, good ol’ LBJ is enjoying a break from eternal torment and relaxing with a tall, cool one on your tab.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Conservatives and their selective hearing...
Someone please explain something for me...
Why is it that Conservative talking heads and radio heads continually hammer home the arguing point that we must listen to what the Israelis are trying to tell us as well as their concerns...
...but the same Conservatives unanimously ignore this comment by Benjamin Netanyahu?
This wasn't some casual interview with Israeli media or some third-party quote in an obscure online publication. These were Netanyahu's remarks made on the floor of the U.S. Capitol Building before a joint session of Congress on May 24, 2011.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Due to budgetary concerns, the light at the end of the tunnel...
Thank God for small miracles!
Earlier today, Congressional Republicans managed to finally attach an amendment to the latest Continuing Resolution spending bill that will operate (for the time being) as a sort-of de facto repeal of the 2007 incandescent light bulb ban.
While it's about damned time this happened (the legislation's components were set to take effect the first of the coming year) there is no shortage of comedic misdirection being perpetrated by the right-wing.
Here is a sample of such posturing from the article linked above:
"'When the American people gave Republicans control of the House in January, one of the major issues involved was the Democratic ban on the 100 watt bulb,' said Rep. Michael Burgess, who fought to preserve the incandescent bulb. 'Republicans have fulfilled our promise to the American people by allowing them to continue to be able to choose what type of bulb they use at home. Consumers should drive the marketplace, not the government.'"
Burgess will make such a comment with complete disregard for the fact Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) -- who presently chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- was one of the ban's legislative architects and the bill was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush.
But, we're all supposed to believe this was a "Democratic ban."
My next-favorite snippet appears two paragraphs before the one quoted above:
"Stopping the bulb ban was a chief GOP priority coming into this year, with all of the candidates seeking to become chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee saying they would push through a repeal."
Be aware that I refer to the GOP's "policy rider" as a "sort-of de facto repeal" due to the fact it doesn't actually overturn the original legislation it merely places prohibitions on expenditures related to its enforcement.
And some people still wonder why I'm a Libertarian.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Potential spoiler or possible ace in the hole?
There is no denying the Republican Party has gone to great lengths in order to keep former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson out of the public eye and from presenting his vision of libertarianism to the public.
As time winds-down before the Iowa Caucus next month, Johnson could very well get a last laugh of his own at the GOP.
Discussions of him leaving the Republican field and pursuing the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination have been America’s worst-kept secret which very, very few in the mainstream news media have mentioned.
Thank goodness for the Judge…
When Johnson made his appearance on Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, December 7 on Fox Business Network, he tackled that topic with a response that was noticeably noncommittal when it comes to offering a definitive “yes” or “no.”
What I noticed when watching the interview was he made a point of emphasizing that “the message” was always his goal with his campaign. As he pointed-out, his constant exclusion from GOP debates denied him any chance to spread it.
And then he hinted at something noteworthy during his interview with Napolitano: if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich land the nomination, he is likely to pursue the Libertarian Party’s ticket.
The unspoken hint is that he won’t do it if Representative Ron Paul gets the nod.
Johnson is a smart man. He wants to succeed personally yet at the same time has a genuine love of his country and his principles – principles of liberty which Paul shares. At this point it seems clear to me what Johnson’s strategy is moving forward: one way or another, libertarianism is moving to the forefront of America’s political discussion.
He also knows the GOP’s trepidations regarding how a strong third-party candidate could affect voting dynamics come November 2012. By inching ever closer to seeking the LP’s presidential nomination, Johnson may be the best thing to ever happen to Ron Paul’s candidacy.
How so? Johnson – in my view rather patriotically – is willing to serve as a bargaining chip for liberty.
If the message hasn’t already been explicitly sent (albeit behind closed doors) to the GOP establishment it will be coming soon: you need to support Ron Paul from here-on-out or face a three-way election in November.
The Republican Party’s regularly stated goal has been to unseat President Barack Obama in next year’s election. Its members have been saying this since 2009. Although Johnson has a strong track record of drawing Democratic voters in his two successful gubernatorial campaigns in New Mexico which easily debunks the worn-out notion of “stealing conservative votes,” common sense dictates the GOP is not the least bit interested in taking any chances.
If he chooses to run as a Libertarian, Johnson will be the most viable third-party presidential candidate to run in 100 years. Unlike H. Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, Johnson has a solid track record as a government executive – which also lends him greater name recognition than Paul enjoyed in 1988 or Bob Barr in 2008.
Most importantly, unlike Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 he is not a Progressive, statist troll.
To summarize, as the Libertarian candidate Johnson would be poised to take a significant slice of the electorate pie. If he goes this route, the Republican National Committee may have to swallow its pride and accept his terms.
Still, his candidacy on the Libertarian ticket would be a dream-come-true for many party members – myself included.
Bloggers have noted in recent days that the Johnson campaign has been bombarded with correspondence by Libertarians to switch tickets. Members of our party have been reaching-out to him to make the right and honorable move – myself included.
While I will understand if he pursues the strategy laid-out above and secures the GOP nomination for Paul it will to the chagrin of many Libertarian Party members, we must remember one of our party’s most popular slogans: the party of principle. And if we believe in our core principle of maximum freedom – both economic and individual – through minimum government, we must then be willing to set aside our own partisanship and embrace this potential path toward restoration of liberty.
One key red flag being raised is time is slowly beginning to run short for Johnson to make a decision. Delegates for the Libertarian National Convention will be meeting in May to select the party’s presidential nominee.
My bet, however, is the picture for the Republican primaries ought to be fairly clear by the time Ohio holds its vote on March 6 – two months before the Libertarian convention.
In other words: fear not, my fellow Libertarians – there will be a resolution to this, one way or the other.
As time winds-down before the Iowa Caucus next month, Johnson could very well get a last laugh of his own at the GOP.
Discussions of him leaving the Republican field and pursuing the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination have been America’s worst-kept secret which very, very few in the mainstream news media have mentioned.
Thank goodness for the Judge…
When Johnson made his appearance on Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, December 7 on Fox Business Network, he tackled that topic with a response that was noticeably noncommittal when it comes to offering a definitive “yes” or “no.”
What I noticed when watching the interview was he made a point of emphasizing that “the message” was always his goal with his campaign. As he pointed-out, his constant exclusion from GOP debates denied him any chance to spread it.
And then he hinted at something noteworthy during his interview with Napolitano: if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich land the nomination, he is likely to pursue the Libertarian Party’s ticket.
The unspoken hint is that he won’t do it if Representative Ron Paul gets the nod.
Johnson is a smart man. He wants to succeed personally yet at the same time has a genuine love of his country and his principles – principles of liberty which Paul shares. At this point it seems clear to me what Johnson’s strategy is moving forward: one way or another, libertarianism is moving to the forefront of America’s political discussion.
He also knows the GOP’s trepidations regarding how a strong third-party candidate could affect voting dynamics come November 2012. By inching ever closer to seeking the LP’s presidential nomination, Johnson may be the best thing to ever happen to Ron Paul’s candidacy.
How so? Johnson – in my view rather patriotically – is willing to serve as a bargaining chip for liberty.
If the message hasn’t already been explicitly sent (albeit behind closed doors) to the GOP establishment it will be coming soon: you need to support Ron Paul from here-on-out or face a three-way election in November.
The Republican Party’s regularly stated goal has been to unseat President Barack Obama in next year’s election. Its members have been saying this since 2009. Although Johnson has a strong track record of drawing Democratic voters in his two successful gubernatorial campaigns in New Mexico which easily debunks the worn-out notion of “stealing conservative votes,” common sense dictates the GOP is not the least bit interested in taking any chances.
If he chooses to run as a Libertarian, Johnson will be the most viable third-party presidential candidate to run in 100 years. Unlike H. Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, Johnson has a solid track record as a government executive – which also lends him greater name recognition than Paul enjoyed in 1988 or Bob Barr in 2008.
Most importantly, unlike Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 he is not a Progressive, statist troll.
To summarize, as the Libertarian candidate Johnson would be poised to take a significant slice of the electorate pie. If he goes this route, the Republican National Committee may have to swallow its pride and accept his terms.
Still, his candidacy on the Libertarian ticket would be a dream-come-true for many party members – myself included.
Bloggers have noted in recent days that the Johnson campaign has been bombarded with correspondence by Libertarians to switch tickets. Members of our party have been reaching-out to him to make the right and honorable move – myself included.
While I will understand if he pursues the strategy laid-out above and secures the GOP nomination for Paul it will to the chagrin of many Libertarian Party members, we must remember one of our party’s most popular slogans: the party of principle. And if we believe in our core principle of maximum freedom – both economic and individual – through minimum government, we must then be willing to set aside our own partisanship and embrace this potential path toward restoration of liberty.
One key red flag being raised is time is slowly beginning to run short for Johnson to make a decision. Delegates for the Libertarian National Convention will be meeting in May to select the party’s presidential nominee.
My bet, however, is the picture for the Republican primaries ought to be fairly clear by the time Ohio holds its vote on March 6 – two months before the Libertarian convention.
In other words: fear not, my fellow Libertarians – there will be a resolution to this, one way or the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
