Narrated version forthcoming.
When North Carolina Senator Walter B. Jones introduced legislation to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" as a sort of punishment for France's refusal to back America's post-9/11 invasion of Iraq, I promptly told everyone I knew just how big of an idiot I thought he was for it. I was only 16 at the time and most of my peers couldn't have cared less, but that didn't stop me from spreading my harsh criticism of the jingoistic chest-beating that was so prevalent at the time.
Fast forward five years and Jones has had a change of heart, converting from one of the Iraq war's biggest cheerleaders to one of its harshest critics and voters have not only forgiven him of the insolence of his "freedom fries" bill but have re-elected him twice.
Several years ago, Bob Barr was an ultra-social conservative most famous for his Defense of Marriage Act and undying support for the War on Drugs--he was detestable in just about every way Republicans can be. These days, the former Patriot Act-supporting quintessential Republican says he's had a change of heart and a few weeks ago found himself the Libertarian Party's nominee for this year's presidential race. But despite spending the last four years fighting both to repeal the Patriot Act and end prosecution of marijuana users at the federal level, Barr hasn't received near the amount of forgiveness or welcome that citizens afforded Jones when he re-evaluated his position on the War on Terror.
So what's the difference? Party politics.
In spite of the fact that Barr's nomination will inevitably lead to greater recognition and a much needed increase in the political clout of the Libertarian Party, the absolutist segment of the party doesn't find him ideologically pure enough to be a member, much less their standard bearer. Some view him as an opportunist trying to capitalize on the energy tapped into by Republican candidate Ron Paul. They aren't interested in the practical purposes of politics and if their apprehension were party-wide, the libertarian movement would forever remain a debate team rather than becoming the legitimate political force it has the potential to be. Like teenagers who get upset when their favorite band goes mainstream, many may even chose to abandon the party altogether rather than vote for someone who doesn't have a flawless history of support for libertarian ideals.
Whether Barr has had a genuine change of heart, as I believe he has, or not couldn't matter less--he's not going to be the next president. Supporter or detractor, none of us are ever going to have the opportunity to see if his policies diverge from his rhetoric because he'll never have a chance to implement them. I will probably be voting for Barr in November because he's the only person whose current views my conscience will allow me to endorse. The only other candidate who even comes close is the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin but there are a few glaring contradictions--mainly his lack of respect for homosexuals and the CP platform that attempts to use the 1st amendment as a justification for banning pornography-- that I simply can't overlook.
It's not just that Barr's the best choice left, he's the only choice in a field of idiots and charlatans. Hope and change, Mr. Obama? A leader we can believe in, Mr. McCain? I won't hold my breath, and neither should you.
June 20, 2008
May 27, 2008
Click it or Ticket? No thanks.
Click here for a narrated version of this commentary.
The first time I heard about the nationwide state police "Click it or Ticket" campaign I was on a weekend trip to Louisville, Kentucky--a 1500 mile journey I was able to make without having a fatal accident or receiving a ticket despite never making use of my safety belt.
I found out about the program via a series of radio commercials which vary from state-to-state, the one constant being the condescending, threatening tone invoked by the speaker who insists that a ticket is inescapable for those who wish to drive without their seatbelt buckled. The Arkansas ad in particular is disturbing in that it informs the listener that our state troopers are "working over time" to bust violators of seatbelt laws. Why do I find that disturbing? Because it effectively means our tax money is going to pay law enforcement officers for extra hours so they are better positioned to fine people for violating an illegitimate law.
There is no serious rationale that can be used to argue in favor of seatbelt laws, one of the most egregious and obvious invasions into personal freedom perpetrated by those who see government as a perpetual nanny, whose job is to take care of the citizenry from cradle to grave. It is of no consequence to anyone else whether or not you or I decide to make use of the device in the privacy of our respective vehicles--just ask any of the thousands of drivers I shared the road with during my trip. The implication of its illegality is that otherwise intelligent and capable people are no longer fit to make personal decisions about their safety. It's a little insulting to me as a man, and as an American it's ridiculous.
A personal decision that affects literally no one else should seem like a trivial consideration to most people, especially noting the confluence of rapes, murders and thefts in the news daily. Does anyone really think our police should spend their time enforcing "Click it or Ticket" instead of trying to catch actual criminals?
If they were honest, the spokesmen for this campaign would tell you seat belt laws exist not to save lives, but because they're a cash cow for the National Traffic Safety Administration, the organization that promotes "Click it or Ticket." But in a world where people not only accept, but in some cases demand, bad government for the sake of good intentions, the truth becomes increasingly hard to discern from misguided philanthropy.
Do seat belts make driving safer? Absolutely, but the only person who can protect me from the danger I pose to myself is me; the government can't make me a better person, no matter how hard they may try. If protecting people from the consequences of voluntary personal choices was a legitimate function of the law, cheddar cheese and apple pie would be illegal as well, given that cardiovascular diseases caused by high cholesterol are the number one cause of death in the United States.
Many who read this commentary may feel like I'm painting a target on the back of my head by writing it, and rightly so. In increasingly unreasonable times, when self-reliance and self-responsibility take a back seat to government intervention, it's not hard to imagine that voicing my opinion on this particular topic might make me an easy subject for harassment. If that turns out to be the case, my point has been made for me.
The first time I heard about the nationwide state police "Click it or Ticket" campaign I was on a weekend trip to Louisville, Kentucky--a 1500 mile journey I was able to make without having a fatal accident or receiving a ticket despite never making use of my safety belt.
I found out about the program via a series of radio commercials which vary from state-to-state, the one constant being the condescending, threatening tone invoked by the speaker who insists that a ticket is inescapable for those who wish to drive without their seatbelt buckled. The Arkansas ad in particular is disturbing in that it informs the listener that our state troopers are "working over time" to bust violators of seatbelt laws. Why do I find that disturbing? Because it effectively means our tax money is going to pay law enforcement officers for extra hours so they are better positioned to fine people for violating an illegitimate law.
There is no serious rationale that can be used to argue in favor of seatbelt laws, one of the most egregious and obvious invasions into personal freedom perpetrated by those who see government as a perpetual nanny, whose job is to take care of the citizenry from cradle to grave. It is of no consequence to anyone else whether or not you or I decide to make use of the device in the privacy of our respective vehicles--just ask any of the thousands of drivers I shared the road with during my trip. The implication of its illegality is that otherwise intelligent and capable people are no longer fit to make personal decisions about their safety. It's a little insulting to me as a man, and as an American it's ridiculous.
A personal decision that affects literally no one else should seem like a trivial consideration to most people, especially noting the confluence of rapes, murders and thefts in the news daily. Does anyone really think our police should spend their time enforcing "Click it or Ticket" instead of trying to catch actual criminals?
If they were honest, the spokesmen for this campaign would tell you seat belt laws exist not to save lives, but because they're a cash cow for the National Traffic Safety Administration, the organization that promotes "Click it or Ticket." But in a world where people not only accept, but in some cases demand, bad government for the sake of good intentions, the truth becomes increasingly hard to discern from misguided philanthropy.
Do seat belts make driving safer? Absolutely, but the only person who can protect me from the danger I pose to myself is me; the government can't make me a better person, no matter how hard they may try. If protecting people from the consequences of voluntary personal choices was a legitimate function of the law, cheddar cheese and apple pie would be illegal as well, given that cardiovascular diseases caused by high cholesterol are the number one cause of death in the United States.
Many who read this commentary may feel like I'm painting a target on the back of my head by writing it, and rightly so. In increasingly unreasonable times, when self-reliance and self-responsibility take a back seat to government intervention, it's not hard to imagine that voicing my opinion on this particular topic might make me an easy subject for harassment. If that turns out to be the case, my point has been made for me.
May 14, 2008
Evolution vs. Creationism -- Who cares?
Click here for a narrated version of this commentary.
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the vitriol exhibited by self-described libertarians when the debate turns to creationism vs. the theory of evolution, re-ignited late last year when that infamous video of Ron Paul saying he "doesn't accept that belief" in an answer to a question about evolution began circulating the internet.
Acceptance of the non-aggression principle aside, libertarianism can basically be boiled down to the philosophy of "live and let live," advocating the idea that if a person's actions aren't infringing on the rights of others they ought to be free to do whatever they want--a reasonable ideology if I've ever heard one. So what is it about the debate over the origins of life that turns otherwise rational people into raving lunatics hell bent on proliferating their particular beliefs? Like everything else, it all depends on perspective.
For many creationists, especially religious ones, it is a matter of fighting the good fight and educating those "evil secularists" on the merits of their particular denomination. Likewise, for those who believe in evolution, it represents an intellectual battle where the ultimate goal is to prove the triumph of the scientific method over faith. For both sides, for all practical purposes, it amounts to little more than an inconsequential good vs. evil showdown.
The only thing that is 100% certain about the controversy is that it's not likely to end any time soon, since the only way to be absolutely sure of how life began is to witness it happening--and in spite of how quickly technology advances these days, we are in no danger of inventing time machines just yet. But don't tell that to vehement contenders on either side of the argument who insist that failing to adopt their beliefs must be evidence of some lack of cognitive ability on the part of the opposing side.
The debate becomes all the more heated when it involves acceptance of either theory by elected officials, in spite of the fact that a politician's personal preference on the origin of life has almost no influence over public policy. Of course it can still be argued that their private beliefs may interfere with good judgment on educational issues. As a minarchist, my solution to that problem is to abolish the federal Department of Education (followed by state-level DOEs), returning control of what children are taught in school to the parents and teachers directly responsible for them.
But don't expect that answer to appease either side of the debate who will argue their stubborn positions to no end, regardless of the fact that it bears no significance to anyone but them.
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the vitriol exhibited by self-described libertarians when the debate turns to creationism vs. the theory of evolution, re-ignited late last year when that infamous video of Ron Paul saying he "doesn't accept that belief" in an answer to a question about evolution began circulating the internet.
Acceptance of the non-aggression principle aside, libertarianism can basically be boiled down to the philosophy of "live and let live," advocating the idea that if a person's actions aren't infringing on the rights of others they ought to be free to do whatever they want--a reasonable ideology if I've ever heard one. So what is it about the debate over the origins of life that turns otherwise rational people into raving lunatics hell bent on proliferating their particular beliefs? Like everything else, it all depends on perspective.
For many creationists, especially religious ones, it is a matter of fighting the good fight and educating those "evil secularists" on the merits of their particular denomination. Likewise, for those who believe in evolution, it represents an intellectual battle where the ultimate goal is to prove the triumph of the scientific method over faith. For both sides, for all practical purposes, it amounts to little more than an inconsequential good vs. evil showdown.
The only thing that is 100% certain about the controversy is that it's not likely to end any time soon, since the only way to be absolutely sure of how life began is to witness it happening--and in spite of how quickly technology advances these days, we are in no danger of inventing time machines just yet. But don't tell that to vehement contenders on either side of the argument who insist that failing to adopt their beliefs must be evidence of some lack of cognitive ability on the part of the opposing side.
The debate becomes all the more heated when it involves acceptance of either theory by elected officials, in spite of the fact that a politician's personal preference on the origin of life has almost no influence over public policy. Of course it can still be argued that their private beliefs may interfere with good judgment on educational issues. As a minarchist, my solution to that problem is to abolish the federal Department of Education (followed by state-level DOEs), returning control of what children are taught in school to the parents and teachers directly responsible for them.
But don't expect that answer to appease either side of the debate who will argue their stubborn positions to no end, regardless of the fact that it bears no significance to anyone but them.
May 13, 2008
The Error of a Ron Paul Write-In
Click here for a narrated version of this commentary.
No other subject evokes a more polarized response from internet politicos than that of the 10-term congressman from Texas turned presidential candidate, Ron Paul. For some he is the subject of immeasurable disdain, either because of a policy disagreement or because of the sour taste left in their mouth by overzealous supporters of the maverick Republican. For others he's a god-send; an answer to years of prayers for a real conservative to take back the GOP from the clutches of neoconservatism.
For my own part, I am unquestionably of the latter group. Like Pat Buchannan for the generation before mine or Goldwater before that, Paul's candidacy not only helped shape my personal beliefs but gave an alternative to those convinced that one must vote Democrat to be right. Though I never ascended to the heights of zealotry displayed by some of his more rabid supporters, I was most certainly enthusiastic about the campaign, donating both time and money to the cause without hesitation.
In spite of my dedication to the man and his ideas, I will not be joining my peers when it comes to writing in Ron Paul on my November ballot. Though I would never profess to tell anyone else how they should vote, I thought I'd share my reasoning and hopefully educate a few people in the process.
Many who argue that a Ron Paul write-in campaign is the only way to go fail to realize just how much of a minority they are. Any hope of "sending a message" to the Republican party quickly becomes dashed when one considers just how few people will be participating in the protest. In fact, I'd wager the number is so small that only people who actually go through with the quixotic campaign will be aware that it happened. Add to that the fact that many states don't even tally write-in votes (especially for those who are not declared write-in candidates) and the prospect quickly becomes an exercise in futility.
Was Ron Paul the best candidate for president this primary season? Absolutely, but that doesn't justify casting a vote for him when he's not on the November ballot any more than writing in God would be justified for a member of the religious right. In fact, when one takes into account how stacked against them the odds truly are, it makes more sense to write in yourself.
At least then you'd be 100% sure you voted for someone whose views match yours exactly, the end result notwithstanding.
No other subject evokes a more polarized response from internet politicos than that of the 10-term congressman from Texas turned presidential candidate, Ron Paul. For some he is the subject of immeasurable disdain, either because of a policy disagreement or because of the sour taste left in their mouth by overzealous supporters of the maverick Republican. For others he's a god-send; an answer to years of prayers for a real conservative to take back the GOP from the clutches of neoconservatism.
For my own part, I am unquestionably of the latter group. Like Pat Buchannan for the generation before mine or Goldwater before that, Paul's candidacy not only helped shape my personal beliefs but gave an alternative to those convinced that one must vote Democrat to be right. Though I never ascended to the heights of zealotry displayed by some of his more rabid supporters, I was most certainly enthusiastic about the campaign, donating both time and money to the cause without hesitation.
In spite of my dedication to the man and his ideas, I will not be joining my peers when it comes to writing in Ron Paul on my November ballot. Though I would never profess to tell anyone else how they should vote, I thought I'd share my reasoning and hopefully educate a few people in the process.
Many who argue that a Ron Paul write-in campaign is the only way to go fail to realize just how much of a minority they are. Any hope of "sending a message" to the Republican party quickly becomes dashed when one considers just how few people will be participating in the protest. In fact, I'd wager the number is so small that only people who actually go through with the quixotic campaign will be aware that it happened. Add to that the fact that many states don't even tally write-in votes (especially for those who are not declared write-in candidates) and the prospect quickly becomes an exercise in futility.
Was Ron Paul the best candidate for president this primary season? Absolutely, but that doesn't justify casting a vote for him when he's not on the November ballot any more than writing in God would be justified for a member of the religious right. In fact, when one takes into account how stacked against them the odds truly are, it makes more sense to write in yourself.
At least then you'd be 100% sure you voted for someone whose views match yours exactly, the end result notwithstanding.
May 10, 2008
Republican Schizophrenia
Click here for a narrated version of this commentary.
In spite of being the Republican party's presumptive nominee, with well over the required number of delegates to secure the nomination, John McCain has failed to receive almost 20% of the vote in the latest batch of primaries. Since the remaining contests are little more than a formality, it begs the question why such a substantial portion of the Republican party has turned out to voice their dissent with McCain, knowing full well that their vote is ultimately meaningless.
McCain has already been adequately lambasted by most of talk radio and the various conservative TV pundits for not being "conservative enough," and rightly so. After championing initiatives like McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and advocating amnesty for illegal immigrants, the senator's remarkable departure from principle lends itself to speculation as to whether or not he has any.
But McCain's lack of conservative principles tells more about the Republican party than it does him. Take his stance on Iraq, for example, which is unquestionably Republican despite not being the least bit conservative. Spending trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives to champion abstractions like democracy to a group of people who have no interest in it and would probably institute Islamic law the moment they got it was never even a good idea, never mind conservative. But don't tell that to his supporters, who insist on nominating a man whose views on international diplomacy are akin to a Rambo sequel in which the answer to any problem is either to blow something up or kill more people.
The truth is that, for most people, modern conservatism amounts to little more than blind faith in the government so long as a Republican is running things. Take away the letter next to his name and George Bush's policies look more like Lyndon Johnson's than Robert Taft's, and in spite of promising a "humble foreign policy" during his 2000 campaign, the United States is involved in more nation building now than we were under Bill Clinton. But none of that matters to Bush's supporters in the media who insist that anything else would be "cut-and-run liberalism."
Yet the same Republican party hacks who take everything Bush says as the gospel of conservatism are the ones criticizing McCain, even though their platforms are practically identical. Nothing is more indicative of the split between traditional conservative ideology and today's GOP than the schizophrenia on display by rank-and-file party members struggling to decide whether or not to question the direction their leaders are taking them.
There was a time in this country when the policies of the Republican party were discernible from the Democrats on more than just superficial social issues like abortion and gay marriage (which, incidentally, will never be legislated on because both sides benefit too much from the status quo to ever change it). But with McCain as the new party leader, don't expect to see a conservative renaissance any time soon, as the limited government philosophy of the past becomes permanently replaced with Jesus and jingoism.
In spite of being the Republican party's presumptive nominee, with well over the required number of delegates to secure the nomination, John McCain has failed to receive almost 20% of the vote in the latest batch of primaries. Since the remaining contests are little more than a formality, it begs the question why such a substantial portion of the Republican party has turned out to voice their dissent with McCain, knowing full well that their vote is ultimately meaningless.
McCain has already been adequately lambasted by most of talk radio and the various conservative TV pundits for not being "conservative enough," and rightly so. After championing initiatives like McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and advocating amnesty for illegal immigrants, the senator's remarkable departure from principle lends itself to speculation as to whether or not he has any.
But McCain's lack of conservative principles tells more about the Republican party than it does him. Take his stance on Iraq, for example, which is unquestionably Republican despite not being the least bit conservative. Spending trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives to champion abstractions like democracy to a group of people who have no interest in it and would probably institute Islamic law the moment they got it was never even a good idea, never mind conservative. But don't tell that to his supporters, who insist on nominating a man whose views on international diplomacy are akin to a Rambo sequel in which the answer to any problem is either to blow something up or kill more people.
The truth is that, for most people, modern conservatism amounts to little more than blind faith in the government so long as a Republican is running things. Take away the letter next to his name and George Bush's policies look more like Lyndon Johnson's than Robert Taft's, and in spite of promising a "humble foreign policy" during his 2000 campaign, the United States is involved in more nation building now than we were under Bill Clinton. But none of that matters to Bush's supporters in the media who insist that anything else would be "cut-and-run liberalism."
Yet the same Republican party hacks who take everything Bush says as the gospel of conservatism are the ones criticizing McCain, even though their platforms are practically identical. Nothing is more indicative of the split between traditional conservative ideology and today's GOP than the schizophrenia on display by rank-and-file party members struggling to decide whether or not to question the direction their leaders are taking them.
There was a time in this country when the policies of the Republican party were discernible from the Democrats on more than just superficial social issues like abortion and gay marriage (which, incidentally, will never be legislated on because both sides benefit too much from the status quo to ever change it). But with McCain as the new party leader, don't expect to see a conservative renaissance any time soon, as the limited government philosophy of the past becomes permanently replaced with Jesus and jingoism.
May 06, 2008
Who benefits from a "gas tax holiday"?
Click here for a narrated version of this commentary.
As the price of gas continues to rise to historic highs, reaching $5/a gallon in many states, along with it rises the generosity of campaign promises from the current crop of presidential candidates.
True to form, both of the remaining Democrats insist that the profits of oil companies are "just too high," and continue to assure voters that, if elected, they will do something about it. Even if one ignores the moral implications of allowing the government enough authority to decide what amount of profit is "fair" for a given company, the economic results are equally distressing.
First consider that while yes, the profits of oil companies are at historic highs, their PROFIT MARGIN has remained about the same throughout history, around 9%. Far from the greedy robber-barons Obama and Hillary would have you believe they are, most gas and oil companies are just trying to maintain steady profits as their costs continue to rise--much like everyone else. The high price we pay at the pump is a result of a loss in purchasing power--both ours, and the oil companies'-- attributed, as always, to the Federal Reserves' inflationary monetary policy.
Basing an economic policy on such an obvious fallacy should seem dangerous enough that it doesn't warrant further explanation, but don't tell that to the self-described progressives who want to institute a price ceiling just like the in 1970s. And just like in the 1970s, that same ceiling will make gas almost impossible to find as demand for the product rises and gas companies keep a low supply to stabilize profits.
Not that John McCain's any better. His proposal for a "gas tax holiday" certainly sounds good on paper, and indeed would lower gas prices in the short term, giving a much-needed break to consumers. As time went on, however, and demand for the lower-priced gas continued to rise, so would prices until ultimately, when the gas tax was reinstated, we'd be paying even more than we would have had prices continued to rise without a holiday. Add to that the fact that 100% of the gas tax goes to repair and maintenance for public roads (which, in my experience, definitely need it) and we've cheated ourselves twice.
So who benefits from a "gas tax holiday"? No one except the politicians posturing as "champions of the people" by calling for one.
As the price of gas continues to rise to historic highs, reaching $5/a gallon in many states, along with it rises the generosity of campaign promises from the current crop of presidential candidates.
True to form, both of the remaining Democrats insist that the profits of oil companies are "just too high," and continue to assure voters that, if elected, they will do something about it. Even if one ignores the moral implications of allowing the government enough authority to decide what amount of profit is "fair" for a given company, the economic results are equally distressing.
First consider that while yes, the profits of oil companies are at historic highs, their PROFIT MARGIN has remained about the same throughout history, around 9%. Far from the greedy robber-barons Obama and Hillary would have you believe they are, most gas and oil companies are just trying to maintain steady profits as their costs continue to rise--much like everyone else. The high price we pay at the pump is a result of a loss in purchasing power--both ours, and the oil companies'-- attributed, as always, to the Federal Reserves' inflationary monetary policy.
Basing an economic policy on such an obvious fallacy should seem dangerous enough that it doesn't warrant further explanation, but don't tell that to the self-described progressives who want to institute a price ceiling just like the in 1970s. And just like in the 1970s, that same ceiling will make gas almost impossible to find as demand for the product rises and gas companies keep a low supply to stabilize profits.
Not that John McCain's any better. His proposal for a "gas tax holiday" certainly sounds good on paper, and indeed would lower gas prices in the short term, giving a much-needed break to consumers. As time went on, however, and demand for the lower-priced gas continued to rise, so would prices until ultimately, when the gas tax was reinstated, we'd be paying even more than we would have had prices continued to rise without a holiday. Add to that the fact that 100% of the gas tax goes to repair and maintenance for public roads (which, in my experience, definitely need it) and we've cheated ourselves twice.
So who benefits from a "gas tax holiday"? No one except the politicians posturing as "champions of the people" by calling for one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
