Democrats or Republicans: Who’s Pro-Freedom?

I stumbled across this article: Elect more nonconforming libertarian-Republicans while reading articles over at The Free Republic.

I Hate It When I Don't Listen To MyselfIt cracks me up to read the comments to these articles, where the subject of adopting some Libertarian ideas is introduced to either Democrats or Republicans. The comments often run along the lines of, “Well I agree Libertarians here and there, but I part ways when it comes to the authority I wish to maintain over other people.”

Here is an example of one what I mean; it’s from one of the comments left to the article on The Free Republic.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” — Ronald Reagan

Up to the point of the Constitution. Sometimes I’m not sure that some Libertarians cross that line. Otherwise, I’m pretty much in full agreement and let the states work out the details. Politically and financially, our country would be rich. Spiritually, its another story. Our country needs real help in that area.

And as usual, a comment about Libertarians being members of the enemy camp.

Sure. Fight conservatism, fight America, and help the left with their 1960s agenda to destroy American Christian culture and traditions, while somehow fantasizing that you can win those left wing compatriots to leave the conservative economic policies standing. Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain. Libertarian Party Platform: Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.

For comparison,  here is an article from the Daily Kos, The Libertarian Dem. The thought process runs along the same lines when evaluating Libertarian principles. These comments are from the Democratic Underground about the Daily Kos article.

I’m for max individual freedom, but w/a social safety net I’m for rights of gun owners, gay folks to get married, whistleblowers not to get fired, speech, freedom from unlawful search (strenghten 4th amendment), internet privacy, credit info privacy, but I’m for pension protection, environmental legislation, worker rights, universal health care.

And also a comment about Libertarians being members of the enemy camp.

Dems don’t need libertarian contradictions Warpy echoed my thoughts: “There is an obvious need for big government to protect the powerless from the powerful, whether it’s natural disasters or cartels of obscenely rich men.” I wouldn’t depend on self-proclaimed libertarians, with their vague language and curious double standards, for those protections. “Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn’t be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy”. That is pure Republican pro-business talk.

The Daily Kos article is from 2006, back when the Democrats didn’t control the house, senate, or the White House. The Democrats were searching for ways to get back into power and briefly considered adopting some liberty-minded principles. Just as the Democrats didn’t adopt any Libertarian values while out of power, I doubt the Republicans will seriously embrace any Libertarian ones.

3D Character and Question MarkAs Ron Paul is fond of saying,  “Freedom is popular,” and the majority of Americas are pro-freedom. If everyone is for freedom, what is left to distinguish one party from another? What distinguishes these parties is where they do NOT support freedom–they are special and unique via the avenues they limit freedom.

The areas where the Democratic and Republican parties differ from Libertarianism are the areas where they call for coercive government. The base of voters for both the Democratic and Republican parties are the ones who want limits to liberty; if either party were to truly commit to not running other peoples lives, they would loose their base and hence, their identity.

Both parties existence is due to a self-deception of being pro-freedom while simultaneously calling for restrictions to freedom. As seen in the comments above, the “I’m all for freedom, except where I’m not” perspective is how they choose their respective parties. The Authoritarian Party of Democrats and Republicans can never truly be for freedom, because they would cease to exist if they did.

Share Button

Good Job ‘Supporting’ the Constitution Hare

“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.”

Congressman John Boccieri of Ohio being questioned about the health care law.

Off-camera: Where in the Constitution…

Rep. Hare: I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.

Off-camera: [Laughter.] Jackpot, brother.

Rep. Hare: What I care more about — I care more about the people that are dying every day that don’t have health insurance.

Off-camera: You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold!

Rep. Hare: I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now you tell me…

Off-camera: That’s the Declaration of Independence.

Rep. Hare: It doesn’t matter to me. Either one…

[Lots of childish sniping.]

Off-camera: Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to…

Rep. Hare: I don’t know. I don’t know.

Off-camera: That’s what I thought.

Later on Phil Hare responded to the video.

”I support the constitution, I served in the military for six years. I don’t need anybody including Mr. Schilling and his political crew telling me I don’t believe in the Constitution. I’m proud of my vote I cast. Millions of people now will have healthcare that never would have had it before and if they want to play ‘gotcha stuff” on whether I support the Constitution, that’s shameful, because I do”

The congressman is basically trying to make the argument that the morality of saving lives trumps all other concerns. In short, morality trumps legality. He supports the Constitution–as long as it is in keeping with his own moral views. Like so many other politicians, Hare fails to see the danger in this line of reasoning.

The problem with Phil Hare’s statements is not the constitutionality or morality of health care; it’s the assertion that question of constitutionality is irrelevant and meaningless.  The rule congressman Hare follows here is that his own moral compass supersedes the Constitution. He fails to see the contradiction in cases where his morality may conflict with the document that gives his authority legitimacy.

The Constitution is legal basis for congress, the federal government and the health care law itself. If the legal authority of the Constitution is irrelevant, that in turn makes the authority of  congress and any laws passed by congress irrelevant.

Update: Hey, you’re totally misreading what I said about the Constitution

Share Button

Please Don’t Add Porn Addiction to Health Insurance Coverage

Japanese PornographyThis NRO article, Getting Serious About Pornography – It is ravaging American families manages to get all the anti-porn arguments rolled into a very short piece.

Quick summary of the arguments:

  1. Pornography is an addiction.
  2. Compares pornography to a drug.
  3. Pornography destroys families.
  4. Pornography is an abuse of free speech.
  5. A lot of well educated people are against pornography.
  6. Personal account of marriage being destroyed by pornography.
  7. Pornography is a gateway to aberrant sexual practices.
  8. Correlating pornography with extra-marital affairs.
  9. Pornography increases belief in the “rape myth”
  10. Objectification of women.
  11. Calls it a mental illness.
  12. Pornography addiction should be added to the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
  13. Health insurance companies should provide coverage for treatment of pornography addiction.

And my rebuttal:

  1. People can form psychological dependencies with just about everything–we have workaholics, iphone-aholics, shop-aholics. For every human activity, there is someone out there who has turned it into an addition.
  2. Associating pornography with a drug addiction is to lead people to believe its the same as a physical addiction. A closer comparison would be a gambling addiction.
  3. Destroying families? This claim can be made against anything consuming a large amount time. Work, religion, political activism, and on and on could be said to destroy families.
  4. For every form of speech considered offensive, there is a group considering it an abuse of free speech.
  5. There are also well educated people that are not against pornography. Appeal to Authority fallacy.
  6. Bad feelings are associated with the subject, so the subject must be bad. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.
  7. Interest in a sexual practice prompts seeking it out in porn, not the other way around. Confusing Cause and Effect fallacy.
  8. Sixty-two percent of unfaithful husbands had affairs with someone at work, but I wouldn’t claim working causes affairs. Correlation does not imply causation.
  9. The implicit suggestion is that pornography causes rape. The responsibility for rape is with the rapist alone. Saying pornography causes rape gives rapists excuses.
  10. The process of becoming sexually aroused involves seeing your partners body as an object for sex. If sexual objectification were to cease, so would the human species. People of other gender may objectify others; the cause is a lack of empathy, not exposure to pornography.
  11. Others could just as easily be labeled for fear of pornography: pornophobia.
  12. If pornography addiction were included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, it would be an expression of political correctness. The DSM at one time listed homosexuality as a disorder.
  13. Isn’t health insurance expensive enough?

jealousy

Now its my turn for my theory about the role pornography plays in relationships. First off; I feel sympathy for anyone whose relationship has deteriorated due to addictive personality disorder. I don’t blame the focus of the addiction for the underlying personality disorder; I blame the disorder.

I don’t doubt there are some people who view pornography like an addict. From my own personal experiences and discussions with others, the conflicts surrounding pornography are more often a symptom of a problem in the relationship, caused by jealousy and lack of communication about sex.

Example–from the article mentioned above.

He (ex-husband) viewed it regularly during high school and college — and, although he tried hard to stop, continued to do so throughout the course of our marriage. For the past few years he had taken to sleeping in the basement, distancing himself from me, emotionally and physically.

Evidently there was conflict when it came to pornography, because the husband felt a reason to stop. The reason to stop might have been religious, or judging from the tone of the article, the husband might have been keeping his sexual interests secret from his wife.

If the reason for stopping was due to religious reasons, odds are that didn’t work out too well. The more you try not to think about something, the more you end up thinking about it. The more taboo a person finds a sexual activity that interests them, the harder they try to suppress those thoughts, the greater the urge becomes to indulge.

If the husband felt the need to keep his sexual interests secret (perhaps going to the basement to view porn), keeping secrets destroy relationships. Keeping parts of oneself hidden away from your significant other is what creates the divide that ends relationships. You can’t feel close to someone if you aren’t open and honest with them.

Another issue that couples run into around pornography is jealousy. Here is an example from a discussion on Porn and Marriage — One Wife’s Response

In a marriage, what one partner does affects the other. That is a fact. So yes, porn is a problem because it affects the person who is supposed to be the husband’s only object for affection.

While I empathize that people feel hurt when their spouse is sexually attracted to someone else, it’s unrealistic to expect your spouse to never find anyone else attractive. It is realistic to ask them to not act upon those attractions and remain monogamous.

marriedBelieving your spouse only finds physical features about you attractive is self objectification. Only considering the physical dimension of attraction leads to hurt feelings. The issue is not pornography, but feeling lack of worth outside of physical appearance.

Mutual admiration for one another goes farther in ending jealousy than physical attractiveness. In dealing with personal jealousy surrounding sex, couples can find security when they first find one another attractive as a person. If there is little beyond physical attraction, the relationship won’t last anyway.

Marriage counseling is fine, but please don’t add porn addiction to health insurance coverage, it’s expensive enough as it is.

Share Button

Bill O’Reilly on Westboro Baptist Church: Disrupting the Facts

Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points: Hating America – 03/30/10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qKPka-cwwA

O’Reilly at 1:25 into the clip:

Its obvious they were disturbing the peace by disrupting the funeral. They should have been arrested.

There is a problem with accusing the Westboro Baptist Church of disrupting the funeral. They didn’t disrupt the funeral, as 4th District which reversed the judgment pointed out.

The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service.

If the intent of the Westboro Baptist Church was to disrupt the funeral, they failed badly. Albert Snyder, the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq, did not see the signs of the protesters until he saw them on television later that day.

Reporting the church members disrupted the funeral is inaccurate. The lawsuit isn’t even about disrupting the funeral; the lawsuit alleges privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. If the Westboro Baptist Church had disrupted the funeral, they probably would have been arrested.

I don’t know which category this misreporting falls under: defamation, libel or slander. I see a potential for news outlets to be sued by Westboro Baptist Church, for the very similar reasons they were being sued by Albert Snyder–intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The church could claim their image has been harmed, by news outlets falsely reporting they were engaged in an illegal activity. Westboro has ammunition to backup the claim because the court has stated they were not disrupting the funeral.

Bill O’Reilly has offered to pay the $16,000 court costs for Albert Snyder to the Westboro Baptist Church. This sad story has the potential to become even more shocking and depressing. If O’Reilly continues to misrepresent the facts, he might end up handing over even more money to the church.

Share Button

War on Drugs Shenanigans: Free Drug Samples

FREE COCAINE SAMPLES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvb6ae7eyWI

California Gang Gives Away Free Samples Of Cocaine

Police in California are on the hunt for members of a local gang after they say they’ve begun targeting teens in the area by offering them free samples of cocaine and teaching them how to smoke it.

La Crescenta and northern Glendale police say a Hollywood area gang is swarming the area with the product and providing freebies to eager teens to up their clientele. The News Press reports that after giving the children the substance, the gang which has not been identified, would reportedly give the kids free lessons.

I call shenanigans for these reasons:

  • Very similar to the “strawberry quick handed to kids in school yards” myth.
  • Or the Drug dealers handing out LSD-laced tattoos of cartoon characters myth.
  • Originally the story was heroin being given away for free.
  • The gang is not mentioned, probably because it does not exist.
  • The reporter states “its happening allegedly in the Glendale area,” so no effort has been made to confirm the police statement.

It’s not impossible that drug samples might be given away for free; it’s just highly unlikely.

Chris Rock put it best:

“Drug dealers don’t sell drugs. Drugs sell themselves. It’s crack. It’s not an encyclopedia. It’s not a f**king vacuum cleaner.

You don’t really gotta try to sell crack. Ok? I’ve never heard a crack dealer going, ‘Man, how am I gonna get rid of all this crack?!'”

Share Button

War on Drugs Shenanigans: Free Drug Samples

FREE COCAINE SAMPLES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvb6ae7eyWI

California Gang Gives Away Free Samples Of Cocaine

Police in California are on the hunt for members of a local gang after they say they’ve begun targeting teens in the area by offering them free samples of cocaine and teaching them how to smoke it.

La Crescenta and northern Glendale police say a Hollywood area gang is swarming the area with the product and providing freebies to eager teens to up their clientele. The News Press reports that after giving the children the substance, the gang which has not been identified, would reportedly give the kids free lessons.

I call shenanigans for these reasons:

  • Very similar to the “strawberry quick handed to kids in school yards” myth.
  • Or the Drug dealers handing out LSD-laced tattoos of cartoon characters myth.
  • Originally the story was heroin being given away for free.
  • The gang is not mentioned, probably because it does not exist.
  • The reporter states “its happening allegedly in the Glendale area,” so no effort has been made to confirm the police statement.

It’s not impossible that drug samples might be given away for free; it’s just highly unlikely.

Chris Rock put it best:

“Drug dealers don’t sell drugs. Drugs sell themselves. It’s crack. It’s not an encyclopedia. It’s not a f**king vacuum cleaner.

You don’t really gotta try to sell crack. Ok? I’ve never heard a crack dealer going, ‘Man, how am I gonna get rid of all this crack?!'”

Share Button

Mandatory Purchases: New Lane on the Superhighway to Serfdom

Not enough fear mongering has been done about the mandatory purchase of health insurance. I know it’s a slippery slope argument, saying having mandatory health insurance will lead to government specifying mandatory purchases on everything. The slippery slope  helped make mandatory health insurance purchase requirements possible, by virtue of mandatory auto insurance.

It’s not a stretch to assume at some point, something else will be added to the list of mandatory purchases. Health and auto insurance will be used as the justification for further governmental control of personal income. I can’t predict what the next mandatory purchase will be, or how many there will be. Once the government has been granted a new power, it inevitably discovers additional “need” for exercise of the new-found power.

To avoid abuses of such authority, the next logical step would seem to be to set limits on how far government can go in requiring mandatory purchases. This obviously won’t work, because the federal government has repeatedly shown itself to ignore limits. Case in point, the federal debt limit:  each time the debt limit is reached, congress simply votes to raise the debt limit. Once a limit has been placed on power, they simply vote to extend the limits of the power.

There is the belief that as long as you have freedom of speech and religion, you still live in a free country, or that if you loose some of the ability to decide what to do with your own money but still have these basic rights, you are still free. The fallacy of this belief becomes clear as the percent of control the government has over income becomes closer to 100 percent than to zero percent.

Once the amount of taxes crosses fifty percent of income, people take notice and start to complain. They quickly come to realize the closer you get to being taxed at 100 percent, the closer you are to having zero freedom. If 100 percent of what you make is taken by government, then basically government owns you and the fruits of your labor. So government has to be careful not to go too far past the halfway point to enslavement.

The TEA Party protests indicate to me the government has pushed the boundary of taxation about as far as it safely can. While I’m sure there is still some room in there to squeeze in minor taxes, there is no room for large-scale tax increases–the type needed to fully fund health care coverage for all Americans. That’s why a new form of governmental control over income was needed. Enter mandatory purchases.

Allowing the federal government the ability to mandate purchases has opened up this new lane in The Superhighway to Serfdom. You’ll still have somewhere around half of your income in your hands, but the amount of your income you’ll have control over will gradually decrease through mandatory purchases.

Government needs to be careful not to load up this new lane of serfdom to quickly. Once people are heavily taxed and burdened with mandatory purchases, seeing they have little control over their lives, it sometimes produces consequences like the French Revolution. I hope a movement will form to undo this new dangerous power, and I hope it will be called the BABE Party, Bitten At Both Ends.

Share Button

Social Security: Wildly Popular and a Godsend?

This Week / Governors on Health Care

Ed Rendell compares the passage of health care reform to the passage of Social Security and Medicare; both were demonized at first, and are now a “godsend” to seniors.

It reminded me how often opposing views towards the changes in America’s health care system were dismissed, by pointing out that Social Security was at first met with similar opposition and is now “wildly popular” or a godsend.

It’s true: when the government returns your money, it is wildly popular! Income tax return checks are wildly popular, too. Unemployment checks are extremely popular as well. I guess it is important to point out times when government is magnanimous enough to give you your own money back!

In any other part of society, when someone gives you your own money back it’s not considered a godsend–it’s considered theft or fraud when you don’t get your money back. It’s only a godsend to get money back from an entity who has the power to take away money at will,  under no obligation to give it back. As in a bully that takes a kids lunch money and “generously” gives some of it back later on.

Rendell does have it correct in describing Social Security as a godsend, because the definition of godsend is “something wanted or needed that comes or happens unexpectedly.” Any time the bully that is our federal government gives money back to the people they took it from, that is is a godsend.

Government has Munchausen syndrome when it comes to Social Security; the government takes your money away, making it harder to save for retirement, then pats itself on the back for saving you. They can’t be content with helping only those in need, and instead make everyone ill and dependent on government for the cure.

Share Button

Social Security: Wildly Popular and a Godsend?

This Week / Governors on Health Care

Ed Rendell compares the passage of health care reform to the passage of Social Security and Medicare; both were demonized at first, and are now a “godsend” to seniors.

It reminded me how often opposing views towards the changes in America’s health care system were dismissed, by pointing out that Social Security was at first met with similar opposition and is now “wildly popular” or a godsend.

It’s true: when the government returns your money, it is wildly popular! Income tax return checks are wildly popular, too. Unemployment checks are extremely popular as well. I guess it is important to point out times when government is magnanimous enough to give you your own money back!

In any other part of society, when someone gives you your own money back it’s not considered a godsend–it’s considered theft or fraud when you don’t get your money back. It’s only a godsend to get money back from an entity who has the power to take away money at will,  under no obligation to give it back. As in a bully that takes a kids lunch money and “generously” gives some of it back later on.

Rendell does have it correct in describing Social Security as a godsend, because the definition of godsend is “something wanted or needed that comes or happens unexpectedly.” Any time the bully that is our federal government gives money back to the people they took it from, that is is a godsend.

Government has Munchausen syndrome when it comes to Social Security; the government takes your money away, making it harder to save for retirement, then pats itself on the back for saving you. They can’t be content with helping only those in need, and instead make everyone ill and dependent on government for the cure.

Share Button

Unintended Consequences of Listening to Ron Paul

What do the following radio and TV hosts have in common?

  • Rachel Maddow
  • Glenn Beck
  • Larry King
  • Tucker Carlson
  • Jim Cramer
  • Alex Jones
  • John Stewart
  • Andrew Napolitano
  • Neil Cavuto
  • Bill Maher
  • David Asman
  • Montel Williams
  • Ed Schultz
  • Joe Scarborough
  • Stephen Colbert

These are the people I tune into to find out their political views. Its a very diverse group. They don’t share the same views, and often attack each other. How did this happen? You’d have to be schizophrenic to listen or understand this group as a whole. I didn’t start out seeking a wide perspective for political views, it happened quite accidentally.

During the 2008 Presidential election, I was following Ron Paul. Whenever Paul was on TV I tuned in regardless of the network or host. I paid attention to how Paul was treated by the host. If the host let Paul speak and didn’t interrupt and interacted with Paul, I started tuning into their shows more often. The issue was not if the host agreed with the views of Ron Paul, but if they gave him a chance for his views to be fairly expressed.

There are some big names not on the list, like Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. Keith Olbermann I don’t listen to because Paul is basically nonexistent to Olbermann; O’Reilly kept interrupting Paul and not letting him finish a thought. Ron Paul is one of the most polite people in politics; it says a lot about someone who is rude to someone as humble and polite as Paul.

Ron Paul was the person in the news that came the closest to representing my views. If the host was showing politeness and respect to Ron Paul, then I felt they deserved the same politeness and respect from me. Ron Paul has often spoken of unintended consequences of government policy; one of the unintended consequences of following Ron Paul has been a much broader view of politics.

Share Button