“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
- Albert Einstein
With the exception of the odd Independent, Socialist, or other third-party representative, mayor, or councilman, power at the federal, state, and local levels of this country for the past hundred-plus years has been in the hands of two political parties. Republicans have shown themselves time and again to be the party of Big government, and Democrats the party of BIGGER government.
Democrats view Americans as children whom they must nurture from cradle to grave. Republicans view the American people as children whom they must protect from dangers, real or imagined.
Republicans espouse an almost limitless expansion of America’s military presence around the world, and have never met a conflict they didn’t like and couldn’t justify under the banner of “national interest.” Democrats champion government regulation of almost every aspect of our lives in the name of the “common good,” and have never met a government entitlement program they didn’t hold sacrosanct.
Today, we find ourselves with high unemployment, rising inflation, sinking home prices, record home foreclosures, anemic GDP growth, at least three armed conflicts around the world, failing schools, a futile drug “war,” over-crowded prisons, and a $14.3 trillion debt. These are the consequences of de facto one-party rule for more than a century and a half.
Yet, Americans continue to vote for the same Big Government candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, over and over again expecting different results. Even the criminally insane eventually recognize the futility of banging their heads against the wall and stop. Sadly, we have not yet learned that lesson. But, there is a true choice.
The Libertarian Party is the party of less government and more personal freedom. Libertarians view individuals as adults who have been given free will by their Creator to make their own choices, take care of themselves and their families, and use their property any way they see fit as long as they do not interfere with other individuals making their own free choices. From the Libertarian Party platform:
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
2.0 Economic Liberty
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.
Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
- James Madison
Think Libertarian.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The Shame of "Racial Politics"
This past Sunday, Democrat Florida congresswoman and chair of the DNC Debra Wasserman-Schultz accused Republicans of wanting to “drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws” when arguing against GOP proposed voter identification laws. You know, I already had my blog posting written for this week and was just going to let this ridiculous statement slide, but it got me thinking about the liberal (pun completely intended) use of the “race card” in politics today. Although not an exclusive tool of Liberals (see Willie Horton ad, 1988), in recent years the Left has mastered the art of divisive racial politics.
When politicians play the “race card” it usually ends up demonstrating more of a concern for their own political self-interests than any genuine concern for the particular race involved, and reveals a glaring lack of confidence in their own policy and ideological argument’s ability to stand on its own merits. I will not presume to know the congresswoman’s true intent, but reading her entire quote gives us a clue. "You have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally-and very transparently-block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates." So, is she more concerned about possible black voter disenfranchisement or the potential for fewer black votes being cast for her party? Would she be just as vociferous, and shamefully demagogic, if blacks voted predominantly for Republicans? If Ms. Wasserman-Schultz had had confidence in the strength of her argument, surely she would not have had to resort to inflaming the racial passions of her listeners and potential voters. However, rather than being the fall-back position of a losing argument, the “race card” has increasingly become the default setting of far-left ideologues. If you oppose the President’s policies or the direction he is taking the country, you are a racist who resents the fact that a black man is in the White House. If you propose Medicaid, food stamp, or other welfare reforms you are anti-minority.
Libertarians feel no need to divide people, and likewise voters, by race, and then pit one group against the other for political advantage. The concepts of liberty, individual freedom, self-reliance, independence, and personal responsibility are universal and transcend race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or nationality. All people should beware of politicians, from whichever political party, who must tear others down and inflame passions and prejudices in order to win an argument or obtain some political advantage. The Libertarian Party “Statement of Principles” says in part:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
Now, just a very brief history lesson for Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz and anyone else who might be interested. Jim Crow laws were implemented in order to keep blacks and whites separated in public places. They were, just what their name says, LAWS. Laws passed by Democrat controlled state legislatures in the South. Laws signed by Democrat governors. Laws enforced by Democrat sheriffs. They were the very definition of state sponsored racism. Many laws are put in place to discourage people from acting in a certain way or to encourge them to behave in a particular manner. If people are naturally inclined to behave or not behave in the manner desired by those in authority, then there is no need for the law. If all motorist naturally drove at a “reasonable” speed, there would be no need for speed limit laws. Likewise, if people naturally separated themselves by race in public places there would be no need for laws mandating that they do so. Jim Crow laws were born out of a fear that if blacks and whites were left to their own (natural) inclinations they would commingle. They were laws mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in a certain way, which were later replaced by laws (Civil Rights Act of 1964) mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in an opposite manner. If government had not interfered in the first place, we likely would have achieved racial desegregation, if not earlier, at least much more peacefully.
Jim Crow laws are an extreme example of the State imposing laws inhibiting the individual’s natural right to free association, and a perfect demonstration of the consequences of an overly intrusive government – two things that would not happen with a Libertarian government.
Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!
Think Libertarian.
<==== Please, vote in the "Freedom?" poll if you have not already.
When politicians play the “race card” it usually ends up demonstrating more of a concern for their own political self-interests than any genuine concern for the particular race involved, and reveals a glaring lack of confidence in their own policy and ideological argument’s ability to stand on its own merits. I will not presume to know the congresswoman’s true intent, but reading her entire quote gives us a clue. "You have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally-and very transparently-block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates." So, is she more concerned about possible black voter disenfranchisement or the potential for fewer black votes being cast for her party? Would she be just as vociferous, and shamefully demagogic, if blacks voted predominantly for Republicans? If Ms. Wasserman-Schultz had had confidence in the strength of her argument, surely she would not have had to resort to inflaming the racial passions of her listeners and potential voters. However, rather than being the fall-back position of a losing argument, the “race card” has increasingly become the default setting of far-left ideologues. If you oppose the President’s policies or the direction he is taking the country, you are a racist who resents the fact that a black man is in the White House. If you propose Medicaid, food stamp, or other welfare reforms you are anti-minority.
Libertarians feel no need to divide people, and likewise voters, by race, and then pit one group against the other for political advantage. The concepts of liberty, individual freedom, self-reliance, independence, and personal responsibility are universal and transcend race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or nationality. All people should beware of politicians, from whichever political party, who must tear others down and inflame passions and prejudices in order to win an argument or obtain some political advantage. The Libertarian Party “Statement of Principles” says in part:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
Now, just a very brief history lesson for Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz and anyone else who might be interested. Jim Crow laws were implemented in order to keep blacks and whites separated in public places. They were, just what their name says, LAWS. Laws passed by Democrat controlled state legislatures in the South. Laws signed by Democrat governors. Laws enforced by Democrat sheriffs. They were the very definition of state sponsored racism. Many laws are put in place to discourage people from acting in a certain way or to encourge them to behave in a particular manner. If people are naturally inclined to behave or not behave in the manner desired by those in authority, then there is no need for the law. If all motorist naturally drove at a “reasonable” speed, there would be no need for speed limit laws. Likewise, if people naturally separated themselves by race in public places there would be no need for laws mandating that they do so. Jim Crow laws were born out of a fear that if blacks and whites were left to their own (natural) inclinations they would commingle. They were laws mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in a certain way, which were later replaced by laws (Civil Rights Act of 1964) mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in an opposite manner. If government had not interfered in the first place, we likely would have achieved racial desegregation, if not earlier, at least much more peacefully.
Jim Crow laws are an extreme example of the State imposing laws inhibiting the individual’s natural right to free association, and a perfect demonstration of the consequences of an overly intrusive government – two things that would not happen with a Libertarian government.
Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!
Think Libertarian.
<==== Please, vote in the "Freedom?" poll if you have not already.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Freedom?
“If society fits you comfortably enough, you call it freedom.”
- Robert Frost
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously observed about pornography, “I know it when I see it.” The same might be said about freedom. There may not be a universally agreed upon definition of freedom, but most of us know it when we see it, or at least think we do. Each individual’s perception of their own freedom, or lack thereof, is highly subjective. Two people living in the same country, at the same time, at the same socio-economic level, of the same ethnicity, and of similar age may hold vastly disparate views as to their own, and their nation’s, freedom.
During our War for Independence, a majority of colonists were indifferent to dissolving America’s bonds with the motherland; in fact many were opposed to the move altogether. Surely, these “loyalists” thought, “What’s the big deal? Why ruin a good thing? We are free enough.” Only a small fraction of Chinese stared down the tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Granted, these brave souls were most certainly morally supported by a great number of Chinese (those that were even aware of the event). Many more, I believe, thought, “Why are these kids making trouble? Things could be much worse.”
So, possibly, individual freedom is not only in the eye of the beholder, but is also a matter of degree. The American loyalists were indeed “free enough”; maybe not as free as their British cousins or the Dutch, but free nonetheless. A majority of Chinese in 1989 could, with some legitimacy, look back over their lifetimes and conclude that they enjoyed considerable freedom, compared to during the Cultural Revolution or the “Great Leap Forward.”
In many ways, Americans are freer than they have been in the past. Homosexuality and interracial marriage have become more accepted. African-Americans have experienced an unprecedented expansion of personal freedom over the past 60 years or so. Discussion of drug legalization has crept out of the fringes and into the mainstream, and marijuana decriminalization ballot initiatives have sprung up across the country. In many states, gun laws over the past 20 years have become increasingly less restrictive, and unlike 40 years ago, there is no longer an active military draft.
Unfortunately, in other areas we are considerably less free. Government regulations have made it more difficult for entrepreneurs to start new businesses. A perverted judicial interpretation of eminent domain has eroded property rights, allowing governments to confiscate land from one private owner and transfer it to another. Our natural right to travel, as well as the constitutionally guaranteed “right of the people to be secure in their persons,” have been abridged by an irrational and overzealous Department of Homeland Security and TSA. There are calls from both the Left and the Right for some form of national identification system. Will we soon, in the name of national security, be randomly asked to show our “papers,” as citizens of former Soviet bloc countries were once required?
Please, take a moment to contemplate your own personal freedom and how free you feel America has become. Then vote in the poll in the left-hand column. Thank you.
“There is no such thing as part freedom.”
- Nelson Mandela
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)