Libertarian or fiscal conservative?

Reducing federal spending on "social programs," and reducing taxation, should always be priorities for libertarians, however, they are not necessarily the top priority. Especially at a time when the government is committed to waging "perpetual war for perpetual peace" and shredding the Bill of Rights in the name of freedom, reducing domestic social spending might not be our highest priority. It does not serve libertarian goals to have an imperialistic state with a balanced budget that controls our lives through freedom-stifling laws and regulations. especially since running an empire is one of the most expansive projects a government can undertake--a fact that seems to have escaped the notice of most "fiscal conservatives" inside the beltway.

Yet, too many libertarians have made focus on "fiscal conservatism" the litmus test for whether a politician deserves libertarian support. Thus, someone can support the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, domestic spying, the Marriage Amendment, new Federal regulations on indecency, yet still be considered a "libertarian" if they vote for Bush's tax cuts and against some domestic social spending. Again, I am not saying that taxes and welfare spending are unimportant issues. I am merely saying that a commitment to balanced budgets and reductions in the marginal tax rate does not necessarily equal a commitment to liberty.

Originally posted at the LewRockwell.com blog.

Oppose a personality cult? You're a leftist!

Free Liberals might be interested in this post originally posted at the Lew Rockwell blog:

Glenn Greenwald comments on the new definition of liberal popular with many on the right:

"It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" --is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush."

I am sure many (most? all?)LRC contributors have been called a left-liberal, left-winger, DNC spokesman, etc. for criticizing "conservative" policies like crusades for democracy, nationalized education, warrantless wiretaps, or even budget-busting expansions of Medicare.

Greenwald has further comments on how the conservatism has degenerated:

"That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) explosion of deficit spending under this Administration – and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government’s eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush’s decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush’s ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

We have heard for a long time that anger and other psychological and emotional factors drive the extreme elements on the Left, but that is (at least) equally true for the Bush extremists. The only difference happens to be that the Bush extremists control every major governmental institution in the country and the extremists on the Left control nothing other than the crusted agenda for the latest International A.N.S.W.E.R. meeting.

A movement which has as its shining lights a woman who advocates the death of her political opponents, another woman who is a proponent of concentration camps, a magazine which advocates the imprisonment of journalists who expose government actions of dubious legality, all topped off by a President who believes he has the power to secretly engage in activities which the American people, through their Congress, have made it a crime to engage in, is a movement motivated by lots of different things. Political ideology isn't one of them."

Post 9-11 hysteria may explain a lot of the right's sacrifice of limited government principles on the alter of Bush worship. However, I believe the roots of the replacement of ideology with leader-worship is rooted in the Clinton years when to many on the right replaced their hatred of statism with hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and defined the goals of their movement strictly in terms of limiting Clinton's power instead of limiting state power in general. Since the problem was not the welfare-warfare state but the degenerate running the state, it was not so hard for conservatives to embrace the state when "their guy" was in charge, replacing their blind hatred of Clinton with blind support for Bush.

No Barriers to Exit, or Shunning

Swedish thinker Per Bylund recently questioned TFL’s Carl Milsted essay “The Need to be Anarchists.” Bylund will have none of Milsted’s view that certain peacekeeping institutions might better be delivered by a State, even if the services delivered more than compensate the taxpayer.

Apparently anyone with Milsted’s view (or anything that smacks of small government) is a “statist,” according to Bylund. Since Bylund and others who call themselves “anarchocapitalists” don’t call for an immediate end to the State, it follows that anarchocapitalists are “statists” themselves, if only temporary ones. (See my blog “Push the Button?.”) I’m not sure what’s accomplished by such name calling, but there it is.

Still, Bylund has a point. If a person doesn’t want to pay a few hundred dollars for defense, police and courts, isn’t that their right?

Perhaps it is. The question, for me, is what to do about that?

It strikes me that if someone absolutely doesn’t want to pay for the basics, they first and foremost should have the right to emigrate out of a nation. That seems only fair.

But say this recalcitrant doesn’t want to leave, what then? If we grant them that their property was gotten fair and square, then maybe the escalation clause should be physical shunning. OK, Mr. Nation of One, you can secede. But stay on your property. We consider you persona non grata, however, and we will consider your leaving your property an act of trespass. We cannot allow any trading with you, either, since your free riding is an inherent threat to our domestic tranquility. We wish you all the best, and you may re-enter our community when you pay what we consider to be abundantly reasonable and low taxes – cumulatively, of course.

We have that right, too, do we not?

-Robert Capozzi

Cartoon Violence

Pow! Smack! Wham! The madness escalates across the Muslim world as protests against the Danish cartoon of Muhammed continue. This Houston Chronicle story says that 15 people were killed in Nigera today. One poor fellow met his death at the hands of a lynch mob.

"An Associated Press reporter saw mobs of Muslim protesters swarm through the city center with machetes, sticks and iron rods. One group threw a tire around a man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze."

I suppose if you can't kill the person you really want to, you might as well settle for some random pedestrian. That makes perfect sense.

For more on the absurdity of the whole situation I recommend this recent article from Tech Central Station.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Options, Asymptotes and “Imperatives”

Prof. Foldvary’s column here on TFL asks a very good question:

“So, given the option of geoanarchism which provides a uniform rule of law, and therefore harmony without tyranny, why aren’t you an anarchist?”

In this case, he’s asking that we have an “option” as to what label to call ourselves. Surely, there’s no “geoanarchist” party, with a slate of candidates and specific, achievable planks in the next term of office, or even in the next, say, 20 terms.

As a model for an “ideal” society, Foldvary and the geoists make points that I find very appealing…in concept and in the very long run. And it can help us think about issues in the here and now, too. But, as to whether the Central American Free Trade Agreement was a net plus or minus, it’s not obvious to me that geoism helps us all that much.

As Foldvary points out at the outset of his essay, using the term “anarchist” is just, well, offputting to most. It’s not a term one uses to persuade. Rather, it’s a means to ensure irrelevance, except, perhaps, among the most free-thinking. Where is the imperative to label oneself at all, much less with a term that almost assuredly will shock and alienate the overwhelming multitudes?

But, OK, if I must label myself, I’m a “less-archist.” I want less government, across the board. Asymptotically, that leads to a day when the geoists and anarchocapitalists can have fascinating debates about how to retire the vestiges of the State. Best case, that’s many generations from now.

-Robert Capozzi

Assume We Do

Scott Adams has a very funny Dilbert today about making assumptions based on assumptions to make business decisions. It isn't just economists who are prone to make an "ass out of you and me."

Like the old joke (courtesy of Alan Xian Yang's website):

"Q: How many mainstream economists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Two. One to assume the existence of ladder and one to change the bulb."

Or perhaps even worse:

"Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. If the light bulb needed changing the market would have already done it."

Of course, there are plenty of things that need doing but haven't been done for one reason or another. Creativity and individual initiative are still needed to make the free-market a nice place for us to live. If everyone sat around assuming that someone else would do everything, not much would get done.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Cheney and Spin

The weekend hunting accident with Vice President Cheney has been the story of the week. One cannot turn on the TV or talk radio without it being discussed. I think it is interesting, if the story is accurate, as a story told only once. I do feel sorry for the gentleman shot but that is the extent of concern I have for the whole incident. However, there is something that I do find truly interesting that CNN discussed last night as it relates to the incident. They had a former Clinton Administration official on during the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer discussing how Cheney has done the ‘damage control’ all wrong. It was fascinating to listen to this man discuss the layered steps that are necessary in order to get ‘control’ of the story and ‘guide it’ to a planned conclusion. He was giving the American people who happened to be fortunate enough to be watching CNN at the time an inside look into public relations which is not about honesty and integrity but about control and manipulation. I hope the American people were paying attention to how ‘spin’ and ‘damage control’ works and how it is such a part of the political culture that it can be discussed so openly on TV. My concern however is that the people missed the importance of that part of the story and only used it to help them decide if Mr. Cheney handled the situation correctly.

Michael D. Ostrolenk
mostrolenk@terabolic.net

Not Very Open-Minded, Not Very Transpartisan

Last week while conservatives (and some libertarians) toasted their own at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Rep. Mark Souder was on the floor of the US House denouncing what he felt was a betrayal of conservative values.

"One can imagine a conservative's surprise to read on the CPAC 2006 agenda that a representative of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) is slated to moderate-yes, moderate-a panel Friday discussing drug policy. For those who are unacquainted with it, the pro-marijuana MPP has been funded by Soros in the past. Also represented on the panel is the Drug Policy Alliance, which is Soros' principal pro-drug arm. Incidentally, the moderator himself is a convicted drug dealer."

Evidently, Souder doesn't even think conservatives should be able to discuss the matter, even amongst themselves. Conservatives have been in favor of the drug war and therefore can't ever reconsider their position. Worse, he thought that it was sufficient to use an ad hominem attack pointing out that the moderators and panelists were on the team of a "bad guy."

Remember you are either with us or against us! It doesn't matter how reasonable an argument "the others" offer, they are the enemy.

Souder sinks especially low when tries to paint Rob Kampia of MPP as a "convicted drug dealer." Rob Kampia isn't exactly a hardened criminal. There are many upstanding people around the country who have been convicted of drug "crimes." That's why the conservatives were discussing the issue, afterall.

Such unrelenting close-mindedness will not help conservatives achieve intellectual victory over their adversaries. By being doctrinaire and dismissive of other viewpoints, they become as intellectually weak as the socialists on the left they criticize so often.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Also: You can read more outrageous outrage from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in the Media.

Is Orwell's "Perpetual War" Here?

Call me paranoid, or maybe call the Pentagon paranoid, or perhaps self-aggrandizing. Your choice.

But this piece from the WSJ's Opinion Journal about the "Long War" sounds eerily like the "Perpetual War" in Orwell's 1984.

Can one agree that there are "threats" and "zealots," and yet that planning a long, perpetual war is, perhaps, an over-reaction?

I say yes.

-Robert Capozzi

Corporate State and Medicine

The Bush Administration, their Republican and Democratic friends in Congress and their hi-tech contributors are pushing for (meaning mandating and funding with tax money) the creation of an electronic medical records national infrastructure. This effort follows an Executive Order from Bush that turned into bi-partisan legislation in the House and Senate. This new system is 'supposed' to save us billions in healthcare costs by making the system more efficient. The House bill is H.R. 4157, the "Health Information Technology Promotion Act." and has not passed yet. The Senate bill passed at the end of last year.

CBO estimated the cost of the health IT bill that passed the Senate to be $652 million over the 5 years 2006-2010 with no offsetting savings. The president’s 2007 budget has increased outlays for 2007 by another $6 million. So, more tax monies will be going to help create the system that is supposed to save us billions of dollars. Although it was touted as a plan to save us billions of dollars, the budget actually does not say it will save money. It says that,

"The Administration supports the adoption of health information technology
(IT) as a normal cost of doing business to ensure patients receive
high-quality care."

Further it states that "the Administration's goal is to promote conditions for a thriving free market."

Imagine a government mandated and tax payer supported system ‘promoting’ the conditions for a free market. This is just more Orwellian double speak from the Administration who is now famous for such creative use of language.

This is just more corporate welfare and anti-free market managed economic planning where the profits are privatized ( hi tech companies) and the costs are socialized (tax payers). Another example of the medical industrial complex at work.

For more information:

Uncle Sam Watch: Big Brother & Your Medical Records by Liz Moser, Town Hall
http://www.townhall.com/blogs/c-log/LizMoser/story/2006/02/06/185452.html

AAPS Letter in opposition to H.R. H.R. 4157, the “Health Information Technology Promotion Act”.
http://www.aapsonline.org/confiden/hr4157-letter.php

Michael D. Ostrolenk

Offensive and Intolerable

Depicting the prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head was “offensive” say some Muslims. Other Muslims have gone as far as calling it “intolerable.”

There are many things in the world which fall under the “offensive” label, but not the other. If something is intolerable, it must be removed, changed, or destroyed. That is apparently where blasphemous cartoons are held by members of the Islamic faith. By extension, there is no tolerance for freedom of speech, because it would allow such blasphemy. The screaming mobs throughout the Middle East have called for the murder of those responsible for the cartoons. Effectively, these people are saying, “Give up your free speech or we will kill you.”

While it is possible that the cartoon was in fact offensive, it is hard to believe that it actually could be intolerable. No one is forced to read Danish newspapers, right? I disagree with many things my fellow citizens say every day. I either ignore them or confront them with an alternative position, but I don’t threaten to kill them.

What is offensive *and* intolerable is the proposition that it is OK to murder someone simply because you disagree with them. It is intolerable to effectively threaten the populations of many nations with an ultimatum to change their social policies or suffer violence.

Muslims demanding the censorship of the free press, under threat of violence, should know that they have deeply offended lovers of liberty like myself throughout the world. We speak out when any person’s basic human rights are threatened -- including Muslims. We oppose anyone who uses the tyranny of murder to stifle opposition – including Muslims.

Appeals to human rights only work when you consistently apply them. Reserving them for yourself and not supplying them to others is a sure way of losing all moral standing. The West should respect the citizens of the Middle East, but so must the Middle East respect the citizens of the West.

-- Kevin D. Rollins