Liberty, Libertarians, and the Lesser of Two Evils

Election season is here in less than two weeks and libertarians are faced with a very mediocre/depressing set of choices between the two major parties and their respective nominees.  This inevitably fuels the fire of apathy and/or cynicism leading one to not vote, or it forces the eventual voter to decide which candidate would be a better friend of individual freedoms and liberty.  I have chosen to stay engaged and vote regardless of the choices, writing myself in when necessary.  Therefore, I must somehow decide which candidate is the lesser of two evils. 

The most realistic scenario libertarians can hope for is one of the two following: A Republican who strongly advocates free markets and economic freedom and is "generally" favorable to protecting civil liberties but will likely cave in to party demands on occasion versus a Democrat who is a crusader for civil liberties and respects the free market in general but is not philosophically committed to it. 

My general theory is that economic freedom serves as necessary precursor and defender of civil liberties because it allows power to be distributed, via wealth accumulation, to entities other than the state.   This type of power distribution is also relevant in relation to the right to bear arms, which happens to be the one civil liberty that civil libertarian Democrats usually do not recognize (I am using the ACLU as a reference to civil libertarian Democrats).  Under my general theory of power distribution a candidate who is a civil libertarian Democrat offers no way for individual actors to be a counter balance to excessive state power except by continuing to vote for him or her.  While a free market Republican (I use Milton Friedman as a reference to free market Republicans) will also usually support the right to bear arms giving individual actors two ways to counter excessive intrusion into personal matters. 

Obviously, there can be exceptions to my "most realistic" scenarios where a civil libertarian democrat strongly supports gun rights (supposedly this is the case with Jim Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana but Webb does not even mention gun rights on his campaign site in contrast to Tester) or a free market Republican that strongly supports civil liberties, such as Congressman Ron Paul.  However, in this case you still have pro-gun civil libertarian Democrats that lean populist on economics versus a libertarian who runs for congress as a Republican.  In the end I have concluded that there is no hope of a libertarian finding a voice in today's Democratic party (see the running debate at Cato Unbound) while a libertarian can at least exist, if only marginally, in the Republican party.  When given a "most realistic" scenario the lesser of two evils for me ends up being the Republican; however, when given a choice between populists and social conservatives (where neither support economic freedom), I am not able to logically distinguish a lesser of the two evils and Tip Tucker suddenly announces his candidacy.

Read more!

Libertarians Swinging Elections?

While reading the Economist I came across a very interesting article (I think you have to have a subscription to read it) about a study released by the Cato Institute describing small "L" libertarians as an overlooked swing voter.  Analyzing the data, Cato maintains that around 13% of the population fit into the libertarian category.  Most recently libertarians strongly supported Bush in 2000, 72%-20% but that support slipped considerably in 2004 to 59%-38%. 

My main concern is that to be a swing constituency the major parties have to first recognize you and second, reach out to you.  However, I do not see this happening on either side of the aisle during this years elections leading to my apathy this year for voting, and leading me to vote on the lesser of two evils basis (this philosophy will be explored in a future post).  The Economist said it best:

"Libertarians are ignored partly because they are hard to find, not least because they just want to be left alone. (There is a Libertarian Party, but it gets hardly any votes.) Politicians can reach social conservatives through churches or union members through their unions, but where do libertarians gather? Parties will always court the votes that are cheapest to court because, for once, they are spending their own money."

Read more!

Most Influenced by...

I have mentioned the French economist/philosopher/journalist Frédéric Bastiat in many of my previous posts and have concluded that his ideas and writings have directly affected my present day beliefs more so than any other individual. To this end I recognize him with the distinction of being the first person on my list of "Most Influenced by...". It is also with great pleasure that I unofficially declare Frédéric Bastiat the greatest Frenchman to have ever lived.

Read more!

New Orleans Officials Shredding the Constitution

To my surprise many people are not aware of the unconstitutional seizure of legally owned firearms in New Orleans after Hurricaine Katrina. Not only did the New Orleans Chief of Police and Mayor order the confiscations of hundreds of legally owned guns, they initially denied any takings and it took a federal court injunction on behalf of the gun owners for the City to admit they had possesion of numerous guns. In the first video below you see a New Orleans police officer brutally slamming a 61 year old woman into a wall because she simply possessed a gun to defend her against the out of control looters and criminals that had overrun New Orleans. The next video shows additional illegal confiscations. Not only was the 2nd Amendment clearly dismantled but the 4th Amendment seemed to be clearly disregarded as well. Once the natural right of self defense is taken away by the government, is there any realistic way to believe that an individual continues to live in a free society?

Read more!

The Hypocritical Morality of the Left

I have been thinking a lot about morality and government lately and the recent post from Mr Sisyphus in regards to What it Means to be a Liberal put me over the top.  For some reason religious conservatives are the ones always being pointed out for wanting the government to enforce moral values, which they do quite often.  However, and the original Chicago Tribune article shows it very well, modern day liberals', more appropriately called "the left" or "statists", are the primary perpetrators of using the government to enforce their moral code.  As stated in the article, a Liberal is one who seeks to use the government to " improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society".

My main point is that morality is subjective in relation to the viewpoints of different people.  The government cannot create rights based on the morality of the moment.  The only rights that can be claimed by all people are life, liberty, and property.  As Frédéric Bastiat eloquently puts it in his classic witting The Law :

"Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

The left claims that it is morally imperative for the government to meet the needs of those "less fortunate", but in what way?  Via legalized plunder in the words of Bastiat:

"The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy...Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on."

Is there anything more immoral, unjustified, or perverted than taking something from someone to give to someone else under the guise of morality?   The left cannot truly make a fixed list of what it means to be a "liberal" because it is based on the ever changing emotions and perceived morality of "false philanthropy" guided by a philosophy of humanism.  I do not maintain that helping others out of poverty, hunger, or unemployment is wrong, unless it is done through the government because you inevitably have to plunder another individual's liberty or money in order to do so.  Not to mention that regardless if 99.9% of the citizenry agree, those acts are acts of morality, a belief that doing those acts is good, right, and moral which is no different from the religious right wanting to have prayer in school because they believe it is good, right, and moral.  I intend to make it a running theme for future posts to point out the the various instances when the left seeks to force their morality on everyone else.

Read more!

Polygamy Actually is Illegal

The marriage topic can be a fire starter with a lot of people.  The gay marriage advocates look at it as a matter of civil liberties while the other side maintains that is a matter of centuries of tradition.  From my viewpoint I always ask both sides why the government should be involved in the matter in the first place.  This line of thinking led me to ponder polygamy.  I have always known that polygamy is not recognized by the state but I never really thought beyond that to realize that it is illegal.  I had always assumed that you could live with consenting adults and say that you are married much as the case is with many gay and lesbian couples.  However, I was very wrong, not only can you not live with multiple women and declare yourself married to them, the same as any gay couple could do at any moment, you could actually go to prison unlike the gay couple.  From the West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

States base their laws on the Model Penal Code § 230.1, which states that a person is guilty of the third-degree felony of polygamy if he or she "marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage." The offense continues until all cohabitation with and claim of marriage to more than one spouse terminate.

It is quite absurd to hear the fight for a "right to marriage" from same sex couples while they can easily declare themselves married, take the same last name, and have a ceremony conducted by a religious institution that recognized that form of marriage while it would be considered unlawful for a polygamist to do any of the aforementioned.  I recognize the fact that the governement is making a moral decision by only defining marriage as x, y, or z whether it be heterosexual, same sex, or polygmaist.  This is why the government should not make that distincition in the first place leaving that decision to individuals and religious entities. 

Read more!

Different Perspective on the Trade Deficit

Concerning trade in general I like to point out that trade is primarily conducted between individuals and firms not between nations as the media always seems to state.  For instance, it is common to hear a report stating that the U.S. has a [insert over the top adjective] trade deficit with China.  A more accurate portrayal would be to say that U.S. consumers and businesses prefer to purchase goods and services from other individuals and firms that happen to be physically located in China more so than comparable offerings from individuals or firms that happen to be located in the U.S. or other countries.

I found another interesting way to illustrate the trade deficit from the blog Cafe Hayek as referenced by Don Boudreaux:

My friend Jack Wenders, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Idaho, notes this passage in a recent AP report:

The U.S. must borrow more than $2 billion per day from foreigners to finance its huge trade deficits.

Jack's reaction to this typical way of framing the so-called 'trade deficit' is noteworthy:

Maybe a better way of putting this would be to say: "Foreigners must sell the U. S. more than $2 billion per day in goods and services to finance their huge purchases of U.S. assets."

Read more!

Sugar, the Cane of All Evil

One of my common stances that I take in matters of health that usually goes against the logic of that cosmic all-knowing figure, Dr. Mom, is that sugar does not make kids hyper.  I also find the stance of many health food fanatics ridiculous when they maintain that sugar is the cause of all things evil in the human body.  However, since I imagine most people would agree that sugar does not cause cancer, heart disease, arthritis, and whatever other ill you can think of I will choose not to focus on that aspect of the great sugar conspiracy.  In regards to hyperactivity Dr. Mom seems to have some new evidence on her side from a new study in Sweden that claims sugary soft drinks are directly connected with hyperactivity and has a "complex link" to mental health disorders.  What is interesting about the article (my confidence level in "scientific" journalists interpreting research studies is next to zero) that completely contradicts its initial claims of a "direct linear" connection is the following statement:

"The researchers said it was possible that other substances in the soft drinks, such as caffeine, were to blame for the symptoms, and they did not check other possible sources of refined sugar in the children's diets."

Dr. Moms across the country refuse to give children sugary candy or drinks before bed time or when they do not want the child to become hyper or act-out.  However, that same mom, when she needs a boost of energy to stay awake reaches for anything with caffeine not sugar.  I have never heard of de-caf coffee with loads of sugar being prescribed as a stay awake antidote.  Is there any possibility that kids go crazy about sugary foods and drinks because first of all they just really like them and second, the parent makes such an event out of having candy and soda that every opportunity to have any is a cause for celebration.  Sugar rots your teeth and probably not much else; there is a reason that placebo pills usually are simply sugar pills.    

 

Read more!

Immigrants for Security

The following article is written by a special guest contributor who who happens to be a member of one of the most elite groups in the world: Libertarians from the Middle East.

I am one of those immigrants who want to live in this country without fearing the sword of the fascists and/or carrying the taxing burden of the lazy. My belief is that the government is to maintain security and be the arbiter of disputes, nothing more. If the government is for the people by the people then the PEOPLE should decide what they want not the government; Majority rules is a nice democratic concept except for one heavy shortcoming where it allows the majority to dictate the lives, the income, the property, the marriage, …etc of the people.

It follows that the concept of security for the people is something of the duties of a limited government. One important element of maintaining security is having a reasonable and effective immigration policy "for law abiding, freedom loving immigrants like myself"; the immigration policy of this country is a joke, it can be best summed up by arbitrary decisions made by inept people who are trying to give the semblance of doing something "sort of keeping busy", security checks on immigrants are mostly random and arbitrary since the whole system is flawed without having a standard or organization to follow.

The bureaucrats compensate for those flaws by relying on another dumb technique AKA "racial profiling and random checks", it beats the hell out of going out of their way to gather true intelligence about people in the real world, it is the easy way out of doing one of the few necessary governmental function correctly. The result is a 2 fold disaster:

1-innocent people get bogged down in the system because the government has not any negative information about them yet they fit the profile based on race and citizenship. The government has no effective way of clearing them but feels scared of its' shadow to clear them. They already know how ineffective their methods are, someone slipping through the cracks will just further expose them, it is easier to hold all immigrants hostage rather than doing one's own job effectively, but asking a government employee to do his/her job is too much these days.

2-Most of the true criminals will go unnoticed because there is not a true staffing or mechanism to focus on the real suspicious people or to investigate them properly as true intelligence is some kind of a myth. Furthermore, it gives the funny impression that if you stay illegal you are unlikely to be investigated since the government knows nothing about your existence while applying for a legal immigration process will make them investigate you. Anyone care to venture which one the truly bad guys would choose ?

There is no way that the government should be taking 2 years investigating someone, think about it this way: if he is dangerous, then he almost is laughing @ their inability to find anything on him while going about his business which may very well be costly to innocent lives in this country; On the other hand, if he was innocent, it should not take them 2 years of wasted effort, resources, money and investigative time on him.

The bottom line: if it takes the government more than 2 years to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys, then we are in serious danger, and that is nothing short of dereliction of duty by the government for the purpose of a falsely positive publicity.

Nighthawk

Read more!

Global Warming, a Senator, and South Park

Senator Inhofe has gone off on the global warming racketeers (original speech is here and the follow up is here) with a very detailed account refuting many of the claims made by global warming propaganda experts. To me the main point is not about whether the earth is getting warmer, since that can obviously be done relatively simply by comparing temperature data from around the world, but whether we are causing it and is it really that bad and can we afford to radically change our way of live to enact a solution?

Trying to maintain that humans are the sole cause of global warming is where people get in trouble: they blindly assume a single cause for a situation that operates in a complex system with countless uncontainable variables. This is not to say that scientists can not theorize on cause x, y, or z, but, to say that humans are the single cause for any temperature rise and therefore governments must enact draconian rules to prevent further increases is just way too much for me to handle. It seems that global warming fanatics represent the height of egoism believing that they can single handedly change the world and make it a better place for you and for me and the entire human race.

As is true with most subjects, it takes South Park to break it down for us:

Read more!