14 posts tagged “liberal”

All true.

Lew Rockwell has an excellent chapter in his book Speaking of Liberty on how government entered the pictured of the medical field. The amount of statist cartelization, monopolization, regulation, and so forth is staggering. Somehow people think that the laws of economics do not apply here. But they do. They do not go away anymore then the laws of mathematics disappear on the moon. No amount of statist intervention is going to make medicine and medical services anymore efficient or “fair.” This is one of the most governmentally regulated areas of life. It is no wonder it is so frustrating, inefficient, costly, and slow. (Compare that to the relatively freer market of the production of television sets.) Adding on-top of that even more government is a fools errand. And for the life of me, I cannot understand anti-war statists. All for the good that they are anti-war (at least so they believe), but thinking that government is all wonderful, efficient, and moral at home is beyond me. Government’s point of the gun does not go away; it just conceals or hides itself. So it is just as immoral and inefficient at home as it is aboard trying to micromanage the world by force.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Shocking as it may be, a politician said that. It was Thomas Jefferson. Just comes to show that some of the framers were obviously much more wiser than anyone we have today, from either political party. (Ron Paul being one notable exception, of course.)

Too bad this wisdom is lost on many people these days. People possess a gun phobia. Their solution? Just get rid of those evil and scary guns. Suppress them. And, then what? We can hold hands and sing. Peace on earth with come.

There are lots of problems with this unfortunate attitude. For a start, these people obviously do not believe in ridding the world of all guns. Instead they believe that they should be handed over to the Bush gang (or whoever else is in office). This is particularly true of left-liberals. ... Funny. They sure are trusting of the Bush administration with a monopoly on guns! (I'm not! Yikes.)

The gun issue highlights one of my views about today's left-liberals. When it comes to prohibition laws they are much more dangerous than today's conservatives. (But conservatives today, overall, are more dangerous than liberals because most of today's statist conservatives are very pro-war and pro-Bush.) The sad fact is I do not hear liberals calling for an end to the drug way. But they are declaring wars or bans on tobacco or fatty foods (or ...guns).

...You know, ain't it wonderful that the politicians walk around crime infested Washington, D.C with armed body guards?

Us little people? No, we should be helpless and depend totally on the wonderful government savior.

Politicians are sipping their wine in Washington, D.C. armed with private guards with guns. What a world! Only the politicians should get some protection. The average Joe should not.

The McLaughlin Group confirmed my fear of the left-liberal reaction to the horrible tragedy in Virginia. A couple of the panelists said that guns are an "unfortunate part of American culture." What? Protecting oneself against criminals is unfortunate? Or something like hunting is unfortunate? . . . What?

Guns may be more than an average "tool," but it is a protective tool. Someone's security --- their family's security --- goes up because of gun ownership. They are more secure because they can fight off (or most likely scare away) any criminal that breaks into their property.

John R. Lott, Jr. has written extensively on this subject. His LRC article archives are here. In one article he talks about about an "armed Granny in a wheelchair" in NY defending herself against some mugger who started choking her. She shot him in the elbow. And that was the end of that.

I go to news places like Rational Review News Digest to get these stories day-after-day. Guns save lives. Does the mainstream media report this stuff? No....of course not. I do not completely blame them. Bad news is the news that they report. But they without a doubt have a bias against guns.

We have stories where someone, who has no criminal background whatsoever, owned a gun in a particularly bad neighborhood. They have had to defend themselves on more than one occasion. (Thank goodness those occasions they had a gun!) When they called the police, guess what happened? They took their guns away from them! We are in the land of the free, right? Well, that is what they tell us.

Banning something will never get rid of it. Banning guns will never get rid of guns. Maybe we should ban certain kinds of drugs too... Crime will go down and we will all be happier, right? Oh, never mind.... "Prohibition Blowback" occurs in dangerous black markets.

John Lott writes: "A police officer could have handled it, but cops can't be everywhere, and they virtually always arrive after a crime has occurred." Statists that want to take away guns, as an unintended consequence of theirs, will give gains to the criminals.

As the personal security goes up for the individual owning a gun in a microcosmic sense, it goes up in the macrocosmic sense. Several elderly people in my neighborhood own guns. Anyone that says that they are less secure as individuals is a foolish statement. They are much more secure as individuals. And, thus, groups of individuals are more secure too against the small minority of truly evil-criminal people. We can observe states and/or cities that have high regulations relative to those that do not. What we find is that crime is less in areas that are more "liberal" (in a classical sense) in guns laws.

Believing that government should have a monopoly on ownership is as bad as believing that government should have a monopoly on the media (e.g. the internet ---- watch what would happen). Cops cannot be everywhere (nor should they!). Giving them a monopoly on gun ownership --- what you will get is a less secure public because they are defenseless against criminals. It empowers criminals and does the opposite for good law abiding people.

Turning our guns over to the state also makes us more dependent on the state. The results will be an increase in government control in our lives. I cannot think of a better example of a police state then one that takes people’s guns away. And that is exactly what happened in New Orleans.

Lew Rockwell is Shocked!:

Barack Obama (or is that Obomba?) is a warmonger. Who ever would have guessed that a redistributionist "peace" candidate, beloved of the statist media and the entire militarist establishment, would turn out to be pro-war? (Thanks to David Kramer.)

(Via the LRC Blog.)

The Paleo Blog entry on what the next generation of conservatism briefly addressed the issue of marriage. Here the topic will be expanded upon.

Around a half a year ago I was trying to sway a left-liberal on the proposal to separate the government from marriage, in effect to private it. Wasn’t able to do it.

Shouldn’t this be a slightly easier leap to make for a liberal then your average conservative? Well, maybe not. Throughout the conversation we were speaking a different language. My argument kind of went like this...

If one is really “open minded” and “tolerant,” then one must be those things in regards to individuals that believe in a different definition of marriage. (I assume that most left-liberals define “marriage” as something. That is to say, they have a definition by its very nature that is discriminatory.*) Imposing some vision on another is incompatible with being “open minded” and “tolerant.” The real answer is to separate the state from marriage. Leave people alone and let people decide for themselves what marriage "is" and "is not." Imposing by government fiat is not the answer. And all it does is create conflict.

That seems to be truly the “liberal” answer. It certainly is in the classical sense.

What this means: “Homophobes” can have as much homophobia as they wish, i.e. they can discriminate as much as they want---whenever they want. But they cannot impose their vision (by force) on anyone. You, as an individual, can redefine “marriage” as whatever you want.

What this does not mean: Forcing people, groups, churches, etc. to accept your vision by force is unacceptable. Disallowing discrimination is also unacceptable.

Now I have no interest, as a paleolibertarian, to use any kind of coercive action to those that engage in non-coercive sexual relationships. I do not believe that marriage can be redefined ---- to claim that it can is nonsensical. (*What will it mean next? Two men; two women; three men; four women; two men and a woman; one parent and a child; two women and a piece of plastic; one man; etc?) However, I do have an interest when there are people that want to use coercion as their method to force people to accept their redefined definition of “marriage.” Someone that truly believes in personal liberty in regards to this issue cannot principally support government regulated marriage.

(Paleo)Conservatives that believe that marriage will fall apart with the state “allowing” homosexual couples to get together is ridiculous. I’m not married. But homosexuals (or whatever) are not going to somehow stop me from getting married to someone of the opposite sex. It will in no way damage me. The area of overlap where I would agree with conservatives is that if the State sanctions perverse definitions of "marriage," this would undermine the belief that moral standards and norms exist.

Left-libertarians that support the State opening up “marriage” to also include homosexual couples are confused. They are in support of the expansion of government involvement in society. In this case this means that they support the government to force individuals/businesses/institutions to accept this new expanded definition. This is not libertarian.

Closing Comments: The solution is privatization. As they say, Can’t we all get along? Left-liberals leave cultural conservatives alone. Cultural conservatives you too leave left-liberals alone. To be diplomatic, that is what I say.

Barack Obama, who is this guy?

Why such the fascination? OK, OK, I do get it. But the fascination is for all the wrong reasons.

Does the Left like him because he is antiwar? Hardly. He is your typical war party member. (When will liberals realize this? I guess never. Socialist Dennis Kucinich is probably the closest thing. But he is more politics then substance on this issue. Talk radio show host Charles Goyette really pinned him down during an interview. All that Kucinich was about was "Vote for me." He would not criticize the Democrats for their role in the war. If you really want a antiwar candidate, ... ever heard of Ron Paul?)

What are the "positives"? Why does the left and the media love this guy?

• He is a nobody. This makes him appear as someone who is outside the political establishment.
• He is a good speaker. And unlike Hillary Clinton, he actually has a Clintonism about him.
• He is [part] black. (Or a so-called "wigger"?) The establishment will give him an added boost of affirmative action.

Not only is he your typical warmonger and he is your typical leftist in economic affairs. (I like what Anthony Gregory said on the LRC Blog some months ago: “I don't see why any of them [left-liberals] would oppose the war that is the health of the state they so love.”)

I actually found something that I like about Obama. He will never utter such (correct) views again, though.

Mike Tennant writes on the LRC Blog:

Finally, to prove what an extreme leftist Barack Obama is (and I'm sure he is, but not because of these comments), there's also a link to a NewsMax article which quotes Obama as follows: "I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice."

An outrage! How can he say such a thing!?

Barack Obama will fizzle out. While he is a possible VP, he will most likely not be the front-ticket runner.

See Also:

• Arianna, Obama, and the Hollywood ‘Left’ by Justin Raimondo
• O-bomb-a and the War Party by Justin Raimondo
• The Paleo Blog: Two Wings of the Washington Party; The Democrat Party is not Anti-War
• The Paleo Blog: Barack Obama – "shill for the War Party"

My Reddit.com Comment / Reply: America's Most Persecuted Minority

(In reference to the following Murray Rothbard article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard138.html)

Certainly they are a persecuted minority. Those that wish to regulate want to use coercion to force people not to smoke at particular locations, e.g. restaurants and bars. These locations are not public establishments. They are owned privately. Tobacco users that expose their smoke to non-smokers to these particular locations are not violating the "rights" of the non-smokers. The non-smokers voluntarily entered those private businesses. They have accepted the possible risks, just as equally as have the smokers. [I am very skeptical of the dangers of second-hand smoke. They are extremely overblown. But this is irrelevant.]

Both smokes and non-smokers have the same underlying rights. No one can smoke or not wherever they want. Smokers cannot force non-smokers to sit by them. This is a two-way situation. Non-smokers cannot (and should not) run up to a smoker to force them to stop. Etc. When someone enters a building, the owner will have rules. These so-called "public" establishments will pander to their respected (voluntary) clients.

Those that wish to be in smoke-free environments have the right to seek out these locations. Those that wish to be in smoke-filled environments also have the right to seek out these locations. It is not right to deny one group at the point of the gun (or the drop of the bomb), which apparently so many people believe to be a panacea to all problems and supposed "problems" of the world.

All choices are discriminatory in nature. When one choices a restaurant or bar one is being a discriminating person. There does not need to be laws banning smoking any more than there needs to be laws banning "bad" food or "bad" service.

LRC - "Pseudolibertarian"?

Someone replied on how LRC is filled with “pseudo”libertarians. LRC is “pseudo” --- a fake libertarian website.

Hmmm... What is the difference between “pseudo”libertarian and libertarian?

Murray Rothbard, “Mr. Libertarian” as he was called, is a “pseudo”libertarian? Learn something new everyday!

Am I just “technically correct” but not “practically”?

If I am technically correct, then I am correct all the way. There is not a breakdown. Smoking is justified in non-coercive ways. When those act against non-coercive activates with coercive activities then this is not justified. Smokers don’t draw a gun, but when non-smokers create laws *they are*.

Customers are supreme to restaurant and bar owners. Restaurants that have “bad” food generally suffer. If they do not change their ways, then they will most likely go out of business. Customers make active---discriminating---choices. If, let’s say, 99% of people, did not want to be around smokers, then it impossible in the practical world that restaurant and bar owners would not adjust to this demand.

When increasingly larger numbers of people demand non-smoking, then the incentive exists to pander to that. To claim that, without laws, nonsmokers would be “forced” to say home, would only exist if nonsmokers were in the vast minority. Therefore, the “technical” meets the “practical.”

I find it hard to believe that people have not seen an increasingly rising number of restaurants that have voluntarily banned smoking. I certainly have. (These may be “the higher end” restaurants, but that is usually where these trends start.) My guess is if one looked, they would find a restaurant, and perhaps a bar, that panders to their non-smoking demand.

But in brief: Conflict resolutions are not to be solved through ever higher centralization of government. This breeds more conflict. Because it limits choices and options. Classical liberalism understood this. Today's left-liberals want to impose their vision on other people. What makes anyone, a smoker or non-smoker, have claim to tell if a particular owner, of a particular property, should allow or not allow smoking? Do they have more rights than the given property owner?

There is a second article in the latest TAC that I would like to point out here at The Paleo Blog. It’s Daniel McCarthy’s “The Failure of Fusionism”. You can read it here.

Brink Lindsey, Cato’s director of research, has suggested an alliance between libertarians and liberals. In doing this, he suggests libertarians make several very bad comprises on economic issues.

As McCarthy notes, this idea of an alliance is somewhat similar to the alliance between the New Left and the libertarians in the Vietnam years. (But no compromises were apart of this.) Murray Rothbard seems to have regretted this alliance. In the 1990s another war was waging with the first Bush in the Middle East. This time Rothbard had an alliance with the old style conservatives, the paleoconservatives. (The term paleolibertarian was born during this time by Lew Rockwell.) They were (and still are) very anti-war and, for the most part, decentralists in political outlook.

But the only problem is that it may be true, as has been suggested several observers, that right now there is a polar realignment in the political sphere, as McCarthy writes:

More plausible than either liberaltarianism or a revival of 1990s-style paleo-libertarianism, however, is a gradual reconfiguration of conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism alike under the pressures of the War on Terror. Lindsey may have been more right than he realized when he wrote, “the real problem with our politics today is that the prevailing ideological categories are intellectually exhausted”; it may already be anachronistic to talk about libertarians aligning with the Left or the Right, when different factions of Left and Right are even beginning to align with one another, not in some grand theoretical project but in support of or opposition to the extreme measures that have so far characterized the War on Terror.

At the end of the article McCarthy gives the correct suggestion for libertarians: This is to stay true to principle and not to compromise. (Alliances can be okay, but this does not mean that we libertarians should throw out principles.)

In “Other News”: Anarchy and Law

Roderick T. Long reports at the Mises Institute’s Blog that Edward P. Stringham released his edited book Anarchy and Law: The Political Economy of Choice. It has writings from Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Morris and Linda Tannehill, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Gustave de Molinari, Lysander Spooner, Bruce Benson, and more.

Here is the Table of Contents:

1. Introduction—Edward P. Stringham

Section I: Theory of Private Property Anarchism

2. Police, Law, and the Courts—Murray Rothbard
3. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (excerpt)—David Friedman
4. Market for Liberty (excerpt)—Morris and Linda Tannehill
5. Pursuing Justice in a Free Society: Crime Prevention and the Legal Order—Randy Barnett
6. Capitalist Production and the Problem of Public Goods—Hans Hoppe
7. National Defense and the Public-Goods Problem—Jeffrey Rogers Hummel and Don Lavoie
8. Defending a Free Nation—Roderick Long
9. The Myth of the Rule of Law—John Hasnas

Section II: Debate

10. The State—Robert Nozick
11. The Invisible Hand Strikes Back—Roy A. Childs
12. Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State—Murray Rothbard
13. Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand—Roy Childs
14. Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?—Alfred G. Cuzan
15. Law as a Public Good: The Economics of Anarchy—Tyler Cowen
16. Law as a Private Good: A Response to Tyler Cowen on the Economics of Anarchy—David Friedman
17. Rejoinder to David Friedman on the Economics of Anarchy—Tyler Cowen
18. Networks, Law and the Paradox of Cooperation—Bryan Caplan and Edward Stringham
19. Conflict, Cooperation and Competition in Anarchy—Tyler Cowen and Daniel Sutter
20. Conventions: Some Thoughts on the Economics of Ordered Anarchy—Anthony De Jasay
21. Can Anarchy Save Us from Leviathan?—Andrew Rutten
22. Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable—Randall Holcombe
23. Is Government Inevitable? Comment on Holcombe’s Analysis—Peter Leeson and Edward Stringham

Section III: History of Anarchist Thought

24. Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition (excepts)—David Hart
25. Vindication of Natural Society (excerpt)—Edmund Burke
26. The Production of Security—Gustave de Molinari
27. Individualist Anarchism in the United States: The Origins—Murray Rothbard
28. Anarchism and American Traditions—Voltairine de Cleyre
29. On Civil Government—David Lipscomb
30. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (excerpt)—Lysander Spooner
31. Trial by Jury—Lysander Spooner
32. Relation of the State to the Individual—Benjamin Tucker
33. Political and Economic Overview—David Osterfeld

Section IV: Historical Case Studies of Non-Government Law Enforcement

34. Are Public Goods Really Common Pools? Considerations of the Evolution of Policing and Highways in England—Bruce Benson
35. Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law—Joseph Peden
36. Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case—David Friedman
37. The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagne Fairs—Paul Milgrom, Douglass North, and Barry Weingast
38. Legal Evolution in Primitive Societies—Bruce Benson
39. American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West—Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill
40. Order Without Law (excerpt)—Robert Ellickson

As a follow-up to my criticism of the “Right” it seems only appropriate to go after the “Left” a bit. Seeing the left attack President Bush and the Iraq war brings peace to my heart. Reading blog-after-blog of typically bright lefties is a positive sign in this regard. However, when they embrace the warmongers of “their” party, this is something completely different. Either they are consistent and principled or they are not.

Many of them treat President Bush and the Republican Party as some kind of anomaly or deviation to the normal operations of the political establishment. (The truth, however, is that in so many ways President Bush has been carrying on the policies of the Clinton administration.) A good number of them (of course, not all) fail to really recognize that there exists only one party and this is the Washington Party. There may be two wings of it, but it is part of the same underling establishment. To be principled on the war issue, at the very least, requires consistency. Favoring the generally popular candidates to-be for president under the Democrat ticket is not compatible with this consistency. (They should become regular readers of AntiWar.com to see, for example, how someone such as Barack Obama is a shill for the war party. ... Another example of the pro-war reality of the mainstream left is how I have been seeing ridiculous “draft Gore” suggestions for 08. I guess the Clinton-Gore wars and imperial actions were A-OK, because it had a “D” by it.)

Either left-liberals see this and really are not principled or anti-war; or they are truly naïve in the typical binary-thinking that the political debate is infested in.

A Topic that Drives Me Nuts

No, I do not smoke. (But these anti-smoking nuts may drive a person to start!) Something, something drives me a little nuts on this topic. Maybe because it shows what a bizarre world we live in. It demonstrates the fundamentally wrong view people have towards government and democracy.

The majority of the public believes that the sacrosanct form of government called democracy allows any and all violations on private property. When a gang beats up on the minority, this suddenly becomes acceptable in our democratic age. Democracy excuses all wrongs. It is the magical word. (It even excuses wars.) Maybe this whole topic helps to underline in my mind why democracy is such a bad form of government. Indeed, all forms of governments are bad. But democracy only makes government worse. It is the free-for-all type of government: Everything is up for grabs. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is correct to say that democracy is a "soft variant of communism.” That it certainly is.

So with that, let me continue this Blog entry...

Chicago Area - Temporarily Lifting Smoking Bans

Jeremy Horpedahl writes in the Strike-The-Root.com Blog:

The Chicago Tribune (maybe rr, bugmenot) informs us that several towns in the Chicago area are temporarily lifting their smoking bans for the upcoming football games. While I’m no fan of either sports or smoking, of course this is welcome news to any libertarian. But the real question is, why just a temporary ban of the bans? The only logical explanation I can think of is that some of the alderman are Bears fans. And smokers. Or they own bars.

Hmmmm...Lifting the ban temporarily? You mean they figured out that actually letting the market place work will give their respected towns an advantage! These towns, obviously filled with anti-smoking NAZIS, actually concede to this fact. How dare they do this! They can’t allow the booboisie to choose for themselves where and where not to eat, drink, smoke, and be merry! How dare the booboisie be allowed to choose! We, the anti-smoking NAZIS, know best! And because we know best, we masters will dictate at the point of the gun what and where the booboisie eat, drink, smoke, and be merry.

The Left: For Personal Freedoms? Give Me a Break!

This brings me to another topic: The Left vs. Right One Dimensional Line.

Here may be a good example of why the "Left" and "Right" scales are all out of whack. The “Left” is typically said to be the personal freedom fighters: Legalize Drugs! But to the lefties' stonded out minds, illegal drugs are wonderful-great things, but tobacco!? It must be banned in “public” places! It is evilllllll. (I am obviously exaggerating and being dramatic, but the overall point is clear.)

Rothbard on the Topic:

Quick: which is America's Most Persecuted Minority? No, you're wrong. (And it's not Big Business either: one of Ayn Rand's more ludicrous pronouncements.)

The answer? The great Murray Rothbard said the answer is the poor smoker.

The crusade against smoking is only the currently most virulent example of one of the most malignant forces in American life: left neo-Puritanism. Puritanism was famously defined by my favorite writer, H.L. Mencken, as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." ...

And so, smokers! Are you mice or are you men? Smokers, rise up, be proud, throw off the guilt imposed on you by your oppressors! Stand tall, and smoke! Defend your rights! Do you really think that someone can get instant lung cancer by imbibing a bit of smoke from someone sitting twenty feet away in an outdoor arena? How do you explain the fact that millions of people have smoked all their lives without ill effect?

“AMERICA'S MOST PERSECUTED MINORITY” (Aug 1994). Read the entire article here.

See Also:

• The Paleo Blog: “Propositions – A Reflection of the Evils of Pure Democracy”

Excerpt---

Now I give the readers (if there are any!) the benefit of the doubt for understanding where I am coming from, but let me review my position on these anti-smoking propositions that have been popping up all over:

My complaint against such a proposition is grounded in private property rights. You know, people often talk about how they love democracy and freedom and choice. Well, I love freedom and choice. But they come from the free market. Choice and freedom does not come from uniform homogeneous commands from high above (from the government). When the government or the majority mob creates such a law, all that happens is the limiting of freedom and choice. The ideal version of “democracy” comes from the free market.

So, if you smoke and want to go to a restaurant that panders to you, then do so. If you hate smoking and don’t want to be around it, then use your freedom and choose to find a place that panders to you too. In fact, don’t you already do this? Don’t you actively discriminate and sniff out bad restaurants? Don’t you do that without the help of monopolistic government laws? Of course you do. You enter a place and something smells bad - What do you do? You leave! A restaurant has bad service and bad food? You take a mental note and avoid it and seek out other restaurants. (Do we need to make a law banning restaurants that have “bad” food?)

In the market place it is really not that difficult to find a willing restaurant that panders to your demands for smoking or non-smoking --------- especially today when smoking has been so stereotyped as a bad thing. (You don’t think restaurants and/or other establishments know that!?)