Logan Ferree makes a strong case that the Constitution is not a libertarian document, and that libertarianism is new, and not the same as classical liberalism.
Because of its anarchist implications, it is virtually impossible to design a "libertarian" government or Constitution. And the Constitution shouldn't be viewed as sacred by libertarians or anyone else. But there are good reasons to appeal to it, defend it, and frame public policy around it.
1. It is what we have already. Calling a convention to try something new will likely result in an even more statist constitution than the current one.
2. When leaders ignore or violate even an imperfect constitution, and even for a just cause, they set the precedent for future leaders to abuse their power and endanger our liberty.
3. Despite some of its flaws and statist assumptions, the Constitution does limit the federal government and so a return to Constitutional limits will set the nation in a libertarian direction.
4. The number of "Constitutionalists" is greater than the number of hard-core libertarians, and are committed to the same goals of economic freedom, individual liberty (at least vis-a-vis the federal government) and non-intervention. A coalition of the two can be more influential in steering the country in the direction of liberty than working separately.
5. The Constitution can serve as a "gateway" to libertarianism. I was personally drawn to the Libertarian Party seven years ago not because I thought I was a libertarian, but because it was the only party that would restrain the federal government to Constitutional limits. The type of mind that is persuaded of the necessity of checking tyranny by adhering to the text of the Constitution is the type of mind open to libertarian ideas.
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Reasons to Oppose the War in Iraq
Too often, the debate surrounding the Iraq War revolve aroud only parts of the issue, such as the absence of WMD's, or Bush's incompetence. What's disappointing about this is that it assumes a "given," that the USA has a right to overthrow governments that do develop WMD's. This is not the case. Here are some valid reasons for having opposed the War on Iraq four years ago. The WMD question is just a small part of it. I was not blogging four years ago, but let's pretend I'm writing this in early March, 2003:
1. Even if Saddam is developing WMD's, it is preposterous to assert that this secular dictator would hand them over to jihadists to detonate on the U.S. mainland.
2. Even if Saddam is developing WMD's, the only "threat" that poses is to Israel - but not to its security, only to its hegemony. And Israel has its own nuclear deterrent. Israel is a big boy and can take care of himself.
3. If Iraq does have WMD's, so what? Does a country not have the right to defend itself through deterrence? What's a greater deterrent than nuclear weapons? If we have them, why can't other countries?
4. Alas, there is no evidence that Saddam has WMD's anyway.
5. Saddam is already severely handicapped and contained by harsh sanctions, an enforced "no-fly zone" and a ten-year bombing campaign. He is certainly not an "imminent threat" or a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. Even if the U.S. won't establish normal relations with Iraq, it is certainly safer and easier to maintain the status quo and wait him out. That's what we do with Castro.
6. Despite Iraq's weakened condition, Saddam keeps order. How was it in America's interests to destabilize this situation?
7. Saddam may be judged harshly for slaughtering political opponents and separatist groups, but this is by no means unusual for dictators of ethnically and religiously diverse countries. As the Somalia headache goes to show, holding a country together and maintain a functioning government is preferable to anarchy - at least in the eyes of the international community.
8. Despite Iraq's weakened condition, Saddam's presence maintained a balance of power in the region that checks Iran.
9. Iraq isn't a threat to the United States. It is thousands of miles away and its armed forces were very weak.
10. The best policy to guarantee low oil prices is peace, not war.
11. Even if this isn't the case, oil interests shouldn't dictate American policy. If the Middle East devolved into chaos and leading to higher oil prices, the market would adjust with greater incentives for conservation and alternative fuels - which can only be a good thing.
12. According to the Constitution, Congress must declare war before a President can execute it; it can not merely "authorize" the President to start a war at his discretion.
13. It is obvious that in terms of Bush's intent, Iraq has nothing to do with the "War on Terror."
14. And Saddam has no terror ties anyway.
15. It is foolhardy at best to expect to establish a liberal democracy in a country with neither liberal nor democratic traditions.
16. To impose liberal democracy by force is a contradiction of liberal democratic ideals. Ideological crusades are even less justifiable than religious crusades.
17. It makes no sense to enforce the UN's resolutions without the UN's consent or will.
Several, not all, of these arguments can be used today to a) withdraw from Iraq immediately and b) oppose a war on Iran.
1. Even if Saddam is developing WMD's, it is preposterous to assert that this secular dictator would hand them over to jihadists to detonate on the U.S. mainland.
2. Even if Saddam is developing WMD's, the only "threat" that poses is to Israel - but not to its security, only to its hegemony. And Israel has its own nuclear deterrent. Israel is a big boy and can take care of himself.
3. If Iraq does have WMD's, so what? Does a country not have the right to defend itself through deterrence? What's a greater deterrent than nuclear weapons? If we have them, why can't other countries?
4. Alas, there is no evidence that Saddam has WMD's anyway.
5. Saddam is already severely handicapped and contained by harsh sanctions, an enforced "no-fly zone" and a ten-year bombing campaign. He is certainly not an "imminent threat" or a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. Even if the U.S. won't establish normal relations with Iraq, it is certainly safer and easier to maintain the status quo and wait him out. That's what we do with Castro.
6. Despite Iraq's weakened condition, Saddam keeps order. How was it in America's interests to destabilize this situation?
7. Saddam may be judged harshly for slaughtering political opponents and separatist groups, but this is by no means unusual for dictators of ethnically and religiously diverse countries. As the Somalia headache goes to show, holding a country together and maintain a functioning government is preferable to anarchy - at least in the eyes of the international community.
8. Despite Iraq's weakened condition, Saddam's presence maintained a balance of power in the region that checks Iran.
9. Iraq isn't a threat to the United States. It is thousands of miles away and its armed forces were very weak.
10. The best policy to guarantee low oil prices is peace, not war.
11. Even if this isn't the case, oil interests shouldn't dictate American policy. If the Middle East devolved into chaos and leading to higher oil prices, the market would adjust with greater incentives for conservation and alternative fuels - which can only be a good thing.
12. According to the Constitution, Congress must declare war before a President can execute it; it can not merely "authorize" the President to start a war at his discretion.
13. It is obvious that in terms of Bush's intent, Iraq has nothing to do with the "War on Terror."
14. And Saddam has no terror ties anyway.
15. It is foolhardy at best to expect to establish a liberal democracy in a country with neither liberal nor democratic traditions.
16. To impose liberal democracy by force is a contradiction of liberal democratic ideals. Ideological crusades are even less justifiable than religious crusades.
17. It makes no sense to enforce the UN's resolutions without the UN's consent or will.
Several, not all, of these arguments can be used today to a) withdraw from Iraq immediately and b) oppose a war on Iran.
Labels:
Iraq
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Why Elites Still Believe in Government
Vache Folle(here and here) and Steve Scott address the problem of elites ruling a corrupt people. As articulated by Folle:
For a long time, I had trouble wondering why believers in Big Government did not realize this. If people are stupid, ignorant, irresponsible, evil, and weak, how will they get wise, informed, responsible, virtuous, and strong leaders? Getting a good King is a role of the dice; an aristocracy will just use force to maintain their economic privileges and ensure that social injustices are entrenched. And a "democracy" - particularly a large one in which suffrage is universal but the actual number of representatives is small (such as one for every 700,000), virtually guarantees a Congress full of con artists. If people are evil and stupid, even a constitution with checks and balances won't work for long.
But now I'm beginning to think, Big Government advocates do know this to be true. They just don't think it's relevant, or that it applies to them. They are not interested in utopia, but see instead a long war for the "soul" of the people and will accept incremental progress. "Strong government is necessary, and it is far better that we controlled it instead of somebody else."
For the Christian conservative who believes that people are evil, government service is a means of making the world less bad than it otherwise would be. Government can restrain the bad folks, and prevent them from corrupting our youth. It is better for the righteous to exert at least some influence in an otherwise un-righteous environment, like Daniel in Babylon or Joseph in Egypt. Moreover, "anarchy" to them will mean chaos for the very reason that individuals are evil; the heavy hand of the State is necessary to keep order. Better to suffer occasionally excessive force or corruption in the State than be totally unprotected in a war of all against all. Therefore, electing Christians to office is a top priority.
For the leftist, who believes that social conditions have made people weak and ignorant, the State is the means of their improvement and salvation. With the right values taught in the public schools, and with the proper social reforms, over the long haul individuals will be less ignorant and corrupt than they are now. The government and the people will mutually make each other better.
In both cases, increased government power is acceptable if the "right people" are in charge. And here is where they really part ways with libertarians: to them, the benefits of holding power is worth the risk of it falling into the wrong hands. Though they won't admit it, it might even be beneficial for the other party to gain power for a while. After all, the precedent Bill Clinton set in attacking Serbia allowed a right-wing President to invade Iraq, which will in turn give the green light for a left-wing President to invade Sudan and "save Darfur." The nationalization of education standards under the Left - initially criticized by the Right - made way for the Right to exert even more federal control of the schools. Whoever strikes first allows the other to do the same. For example, if a right-wing Administration arrests Howard Stern for obscenity, then a left-wing Administration will feel justified in arresting a right-wing preacher for using his church for political action. Both will say that the First Amendment doesn't apply. Both will honestly believe that their oppressive actions will actually benefit the country.
If you ask either side, "Aren't you afraid that the increased powers of government you endorse will eventually be used against you?" the answer is a shrug. It will just be another issue to energize their base with.
Those who believe they are among the "chosen few" with the right beliefs, ideas, and talents to lead the country won't be interested in logic. They're not in politics because they "have faith in Democracy" or the Constitution or whatever, they're in politics because they believe they have the right to rule. "Sure, the masses are evil and stupid," they tell themselves, "but I'm good and wise, and that's why I deserve to lead."
The authoritarian elitist position has at its core a paradox. If humans are naturally evil and stupid, then their human rulers will probably be evil and stupid as well. Accordingly, any government constructed by humans will inevitably be the fruit of evildoing and stupidity and not a check thereon.
For a long time, I had trouble wondering why believers in Big Government did not realize this. If people are stupid, ignorant, irresponsible, evil, and weak, how will they get wise, informed, responsible, virtuous, and strong leaders? Getting a good King is a role of the dice; an aristocracy will just use force to maintain their economic privileges and ensure that social injustices are entrenched. And a "democracy" - particularly a large one in which suffrage is universal but the actual number of representatives is small (such as one for every 700,000), virtually guarantees a Congress full of con artists. If people are evil and stupid, even a constitution with checks and balances won't work for long.
But now I'm beginning to think, Big Government advocates do know this to be true. They just don't think it's relevant, or that it applies to them. They are not interested in utopia, but see instead a long war for the "soul" of the people and will accept incremental progress. "Strong government is necessary, and it is far better that we controlled it instead of somebody else."
For the Christian conservative who believes that people are evil, government service is a means of making the world less bad than it otherwise would be. Government can restrain the bad folks, and prevent them from corrupting our youth. It is better for the righteous to exert at least some influence in an otherwise un-righteous environment, like Daniel in Babylon or Joseph in Egypt. Moreover, "anarchy" to them will mean chaos for the very reason that individuals are evil; the heavy hand of the State is necessary to keep order. Better to suffer occasionally excessive force or corruption in the State than be totally unprotected in a war of all against all. Therefore, electing Christians to office is a top priority.
For the leftist, who believes that social conditions have made people weak and ignorant, the State is the means of their improvement and salvation. With the right values taught in the public schools, and with the proper social reforms, over the long haul individuals will be less ignorant and corrupt than they are now. The government and the people will mutually make each other better.
In both cases, increased government power is acceptable if the "right people" are in charge. And here is where they really part ways with libertarians: to them, the benefits of holding power is worth the risk of it falling into the wrong hands. Though they won't admit it, it might even be beneficial for the other party to gain power for a while. After all, the precedent Bill Clinton set in attacking Serbia allowed a right-wing President to invade Iraq, which will in turn give the green light for a left-wing President to invade Sudan and "save Darfur." The nationalization of education standards under the Left - initially criticized by the Right - made way for the Right to exert even more federal control of the schools. Whoever strikes first allows the other to do the same. For example, if a right-wing Administration arrests Howard Stern for obscenity, then a left-wing Administration will feel justified in arresting a right-wing preacher for using his church for political action. Both will say that the First Amendment doesn't apply. Both will honestly believe that their oppressive actions will actually benefit the country.
If you ask either side, "Aren't you afraid that the increased powers of government you endorse will eventually be used against you?" the answer is a shrug. It will just be another issue to energize their base with.
Those who believe they are among the "chosen few" with the right beliefs, ideas, and talents to lead the country won't be interested in logic. They're not in politics because they "have faith in Democracy" or the Constitution or whatever, they're in politics because they believe they have the right to rule. "Sure, the masses are evil and stupid," they tell themselves, "but I'm good and wise, and that's why I deserve to lead."
Labels:
ideologies,
Iraq
Friday, February 23, 2007
Exhibit A for Read the Bills Act
I've posted this at Downsize DC. Excerpt:
So, the Bush Administration "duped" Congress into consenting to an Attorney-packing scheme which allows Presidents to appoint friends and political cronies to the crucial position of U.S. Attorney, without Senate confirmation. Let's assume almost no one in Congress knew about this provision, or noticed it. Whose fault is that? Ten Senators and 171 Representatives voted against the Patriot Act Reauthorization. Is it their fault this repugnant provision was inserted in the Patriot Act? Or is it the fault of those who, like Sen. Feinstein, didn't know what was in the bill but voted for it anyway?
Labels:
Downsize DC
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Hopeless
On the news, it was reported that in response for an alleged rape by a Shiite cop on a Sunni girl, 300 Sunnis have volunteered to go on suicide missions of revenge.
Considering the number of American atrocities against Sunnis (plus the number of perceived atrocities), and if similar numbers of Sunnis volunteer to fight after each one, how do can we possibly defeat them?
Considering the number of American atrocities against Sunnis (plus the number of perceived atrocities), and if similar numbers of Sunnis volunteer to fight after each one, how do can we possibly defeat them?
Labels:
Iraq
Finding Truth When There's Too Much Information
This is my latest at the Partial Observer.
Labels:
9-11,
media,
Partial Observer
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Times Change
In one episode of the 1970's series Hawaii 5-0, Dano ("book him, Dano"), while off-duty and after having a couple of beers, shoots and kills an apparently unarmed kid (Dano claims he had a gun). He is publicly denounced by name by a radio commentator, charged with first-degree murder. He turns himself in. Obviously, McGarrett and the rest of his team try to find what really happen to get him acquitted.
What's so unusual about this plot? Thirty years ago, nothing. These days, it is more than probable that the a cop in a similar situation would be see his name kept out of the paper, be put on paid leave, and suffer through an "internal investigation" that largely blames the kid and maybe slapping the cop on the wrist.
What's so unusual about this plot? Thirty years ago, nothing. These days, it is more than probable that the a cop in a similar situation would be see his name kept out of the paper, be put on paid leave, and suffer through an "internal investigation" that largely blames the kid and maybe slapping the cop on the wrist.
Labels:
Entertainment,
Stormtroopers
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
The Tory Mocks the Whig
George Will's contemptuous article on Ron Paul is the perfect illustration of the division within conservatism.
Will represents the "conservatism" that worships executive power, imperial dominance, and rule by elites. His is a Tory conservatism. Such conservatives in America, if they were intellectually honest with themselves, would have admired King George and consider George Washington a traitor. But most are not honest with themselves. They think they're inheritors of the Founders' legacy.
Paul represents the conservatism that believes preserving a nation's Constitution, the supremacy of the legislative branch representing the people, and an organic government that reflects the culture and traditions of the people (as opposed to dominating foreign peoples). This conservatism reflects both what the founding generation built, and also the philosophy of Edmund Burke, a Whig. (Whig is also the name of an American political party formed in reaction to President Andrew Jackson's dictatorial style that sought to reclaim Congressional supremacy.)
It's incredible how Tory-Imperialists and Whig-Constitutionalists got along so well for so long. If it wasn't for their mutual hatred of "the Left," they wouldn't have held together at all; they really don't have anything in common. But now they are finally splitting up, primarily over Iraq.
The question is, which side will woo the Religious Right and the populists? That's where the votes are - and the future of the Republican Party.
Will represents the "conservatism" that worships executive power, imperial dominance, and rule by elites. His is a Tory conservatism. Such conservatives in America, if they were intellectually honest with themselves, would have admired King George and consider George Washington a traitor. But most are not honest with themselves. They think they're inheritors of the Founders' legacy.
Paul represents the conservatism that believes preserving a nation's Constitution, the supremacy of the legislative branch representing the people, and an organic government that reflects the culture and traditions of the people (as opposed to dominating foreign peoples). This conservatism reflects both what the founding generation built, and also the philosophy of Edmund Burke, a Whig. (Whig is also the name of an American political party formed in reaction to President Andrew Jackson's dictatorial style that sought to reclaim Congressional supremacy.)
It's incredible how Tory-Imperialists and Whig-Constitutionalists got along so well for so long. If it wasn't for their mutual hatred of "the Left," they wouldn't have held together at all; they really don't have anything in common. But now they are finally splitting up, primarily over Iraq.
The question is, which side will woo the Religious Right and the populists? That's where the votes are - and the future of the Republican Party.
Labels:
ideologies,
Iraq,
politics
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Next They Will Extradite Blasphemers to Pakistan
Do you know the one reason I might doubt whether the Holocaust really happened? Because the authorities are so intent in prosecuting Holocaust-deniers. Truth doesn't need jail cells for its protection. As I wrote last year regarding the David Irving case, "Why bully the kooks and cranks with the threat of jail, unless they were on to something?"
Unfortunately, Canada doesn't feel the same way. They've had "hate speech" laws - which covered Holocaust denial - for over two decades now. But now they took the extraordinary step of deporting a resident to Germany to stand trial there, for actions committed on Canadian territory:
What B.S. A "human rights" group would protect freedom of speech, not attack it.
Unfortunately, Canada doesn't feel the same way. They've had "hate speech" laws - which covered Holocaust denial - for over two decades now. But now they took the extraordinary step of deporting a resident to Germany to stand trial there, for actions committed on Canadian territory:
A German court on Thursday convicted far-right activist Ernst Zundel and sentenced him to five years in prison for Holocaust denial in a case that underlined Germany's determination to prosecute people who claim the Nazis didn't murder six million Jews.The 67-year-old Zundel, who was deported from Canada in 2005, was convicted on 14 counts of inciting hatred for years of anti-Semitic activities, including contributing to a Web site devoted to denying the Holocaust - a crime in Germany.
[...]
Born in Germany in 1939, Zundel emigrated to Canada in 1958 and lived in Toronto and Montreal until 2001. Canadian officials twice rejected his attempts to obtain Canadian citizenship, and he moved to Pigeon Forge, Tenn., until he was deported to Canada in 2003 for alleged immigration violations.
Mannheim prosecutors were able to open a case against Zundel because his Holocaust-denying Web site is available in Germany.
In February 2005, a Canadian judge ruled that Zundel's activities were not only a threat to national security, but 'the international community of nations' as well.
A Canadian law, passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, allows the government to hold terrorism suspects without charge, based on secret evidence that does not have to be disclosed to a suspect or his defense.
Zundel was deported a few days later
Would Canada have treated Salman Rushdie the same way, deporting him to Iran? How about the Danish Cartoonists? Would Canada have sent them back to Pakistan to stand trial? Okay, probably not - but what if a Pakistani immigrant living in Canada drew the offensive cartoons? After all, pissing off a billion Muslims is a tad greater threat to international security and stability than pissing off 20 million Jews, is it not?
Aside from the free speech problem, there's the sovereignty problem. If an American ex-pat buys drugs in the Netherlands, should he be sent back to the U.S. for violating American drug laws?
One final point. The article also says,
The German prosecution won praise from Bnai Brith Canada, a Jewish human rights group.
What B.S. A "human rights" group would protect freedom of speech, not attack it.
Labels:
Canada,
free speech
Friday, February 16, 2007
Global Warming
Where global warming differs from other controversies is that it shouldn't really matter in terms of public policy. That is, the same policies would curb the problem and mitigate the problem, but would work just as well if the global warming didn't exist at all. In any scenario the sound policy is to tax land, don't tax anything else, cut government spending and government-created perverse incentives, and let free markets work:
-If global warming didn't exist, pollution is still pollution. It is smarter to tax "bads" rather than "goods" like working and saving. Taxing harmful emissions would be beneficial even if there is no globabl warming. It would discourage pollution and encourage public health.
- Taxing non-renewable resources would internalize the costs. Companies wouldn't be able to sell a precious resource at windfall prices only to have the community pay later on for its scarcity. This would encourage more efficient use and alternatives. This would help globabl warming, but would be beneficial in any case.
- Taxing land values, - while not taxing other property, work, savings, or consumption - will put land to its best use. Populations will live in denser, more prosperous areas. This will preserve more forests and agricultural lands, helping the carbon problem, biodiversity, and the food problem as well.
- Beyond taxing these forms of "land," the free market would mitigate harmful effects of global warming. For instance, if more floods are predicted, insurance companies will stop insuring property in the most vulnerable areas. Populations would migrate to safer areas. On the other hand, if global warming isn't happening and insurance companies have no reason to be concerned about the risks, then insurance policies will stay the same.
- Free markets mean the end of direct and indirect subsidies. The State and Defense Departments wouldn't be in the service of oil companies, for example. We wouldn't waste money on grossly inefficient ethanol subsidies at home while keeping out cheaper ethanol from abroad.
- Smaller government and lower taxes will allow each person to do what they think is best to help solve our problems, whether it means installing solar panels, or donating that money to make water cleaner abroad.
Such policies, and others like them, would work best if they were put in place everywhere, but that can not be imposed. In any case, they will help mitigate global warming wherever they are tried. We should each start locally, then move nationally, and see other countries follow our example.
-If global warming didn't exist, pollution is still pollution. It is smarter to tax "bads" rather than "goods" like working and saving. Taxing harmful emissions would be beneficial even if there is no globabl warming. It would discourage pollution and encourage public health.
- Taxing non-renewable resources would internalize the costs. Companies wouldn't be able to sell a precious resource at windfall prices only to have the community pay later on for its scarcity. This would encourage more efficient use and alternatives. This would help globabl warming, but would be beneficial in any case.
- Taxing land values, - while not taxing other property, work, savings, or consumption - will put land to its best use. Populations will live in denser, more prosperous areas. This will preserve more forests and agricultural lands, helping the carbon problem, biodiversity, and the food problem as well.
- Beyond taxing these forms of "land," the free market would mitigate harmful effects of global warming. For instance, if more floods are predicted, insurance companies will stop insuring property in the most vulnerable areas. Populations would migrate to safer areas. On the other hand, if global warming isn't happening and insurance companies have no reason to be concerned about the risks, then insurance policies will stay the same.
- Free markets mean the end of direct and indirect subsidies. The State and Defense Departments wouldn't be in the service of oil companies, for example. We wouldn't waste money on grossly inefficient ethanol subsidies at home while keeping out cheaper ethanol from abroad.
- Smaller government and lower taxes will allow each person to do what they think is best to help solve our problems, whether it means installing solar panels, or donating that money to make water cleaner abroad.
Such policies, and others like them, would work best if they were put in place everywhere, but that can not be imposed. In any case, they will help mitigate global warming wherever they are tried. We should each start locally, then move nationally, and see other countries follow our example.
Labels:
Environment,
Taxation
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The Unpatriotic Right
Paul Mulshine writes:
To defend Bush these days, you have to be willing to defend throw ing border agents in jail for shooting smugglers, blowing CIA agents' cover for political gain and getting thousands of GIs killed to create an Islamic republic.
The only thing saving Bush, I suspect, is that the party of Wilson is every bit as internationalist as the Grand Old Party. Democrats are therefore unable to mount a coherent critique of Bush's bungling. Good thing for him or he'd be the first president to have a popularity ratings in the single digits.
Labels:
ideologies,
politics
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Hidden Inflation
It is hard to determine the "cost of living" or "consumer price index" when goods and services change over time. So much information is at our fingertips that could once stump a reference librarian - if you had the time to go to library in the first place. How does one asseess the value of that?
On the other hand, it was clear by real estate and energy prices in 2005-06 that the cost of living was far above the government-determined Consumer Price Index. And despite our technological gains, not all things are getting better. I came across an article from December '05 at Mason Gaffney's website that suggests counter-examples - largely in the form of quality-dilution. In other words, things are "cheaper" in quality but not in price, which is evidence of inflation. Here is Gaffney's list:
On the other hand, it was clear by real estate and energy prices in 2005-06 that the cost of living was far above the government-determined Consumer Price Index. And despite our technological gains, not all things are getting better. I came across an article from December '05 at Mason Gaffney's website that suggests counter-examples - largely in the form of quality-dilution. In other words, things are "cheaper" in quality but not in price, which is evidence of inflation. Here is Gaffney's list:
Labels:
Money
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Equality, Exploitation, and Freedom
Ideological differences are often described as a struggle between liberty and equality. The primary concern about the inequality, however, is exploitation. Political problems boil down to four questions:
1. When does private property itself become monopolistic and coercive - i.e., exploitive?
You can pick the apple from the tree, and it's yours. But can you pick more than your share and sell the rest? Can you pick it clean? Can you claim ownership of the tree and use force to keep others from touching it? Do you have a right to chop the tree down?
Do you have the right to claim ownership of a mountain pass, even if you were there first?
If land and resources are held by the few, they could coerce and exploit the rest. But if there's no private property at all, there is no growth, no improvement, no civilization.
2. When is the individual self-responsible, and when is he manipulated by more powerful forces into making decisions that hurt him and benefit them?
People with greater power and knowledge can take advantage of others in inferior positions. A man who charms a lonely widow and walks away with her cash may be a jerk, but not as bad as if he tricks a mildly retarded man into parting with his money. We don't hold children to be as responsible as adults. In what circumstances should individuals be responsible for their own behavior, and when should they be considered victims duped into giving their consent to something against their own interests? Thus drug dealers are treated harshly by society; they are perceived to prey on the young and the already-addicted. And many people believe that no woman would ever voluntarily go into pornography or prostitution; they are thought to be the victims of those who use them, who should be punished.
3. When must individual and tribal/national interests give way to universal humanitarianism and morality?
We tend to believe that moral law applies to everyone the world, but our loves and loyalties are far more local. Under what circumstances should we sacrifice for the rights of far-away peoples, and when should we mind our own business? When should we be idealists, and when should we be relativists?
4. Who decides questions 1-3?
Often, two or more questions apply to the same issue. Take the hysteria against smoking in restaurants, bars, even apartments. The "dangers" of second-hand smoke are minimal. However, there is a general backlash against Big Tobacco, and restrictions on smoking is a way to "stick it to them."
From where does this hatred of Big Tobacco stem?
1. Dating back to slave days, the tobacco industry has been the beneficiary of stolen land and exploitive practices which today's major companies have inherited.
2. The power of manipulation through advertising has deliberately lured new generations of young people not mature/responsible enough to make rational decisions regarding smoking.
3. The nicotine content has allegedly been spiked, making it harder to quit.
4. For a long time, Big Tobacco denied the dangers of smoking, or at least evaded the questions. Big Tobacco executives are viewed as the moral equivalent of criminals.
Because individual responsiblity is denied (question 2), private property rights (the freedom to set one's own smoking policy) are denied (question 1). Smokers are the victims of evil Big Tobacco. To punish Big Tobacco, we must make it ever-more inconvenient to smoke.
Moreover, those who work in smoke-filled environments are deemed to be exploited by the economic system; if more and better jobs were available, surely they would work somewhere else. They have "no choice" but to work in smoke-filled areas and put themselves at risk to the dangers of second-hand smoke. They must be protected; smoking must be banned in those workplaces.
The War in Iraq relates to question 3. In one sense, we are "humanitarians," in another, we are tribalists. That is, America has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow foreign governments on the grounds of "humanitarian intervention." Why is America uniquely qualified to favor war over peace and meddle in other countries affairs - powers we wouldn't want other countries to exercise over us? The reason boils down to, we're Americans. We're the exception. Our "tribe," our nation, gets to play by special rules because we're superior.
In any case, these concerns about economic exploitation based on private property rigths, moral and economic exploitation by people in positions of authority, and conflict based on cultural differences will persist. Many people who advance un-libertarian solutions do not think of themselves as anti-liberty, they are just concerned by the exploitation that results from inequalities in property, power, and culture. They don't believe that any market can really be "free" or result in just outcomes, since real-world societies of the future will always inherit the real-world inequalities and injustices of the past and present.
I think this is why, no matter how strong an argument we may make against, say, the minimum wage, or our drug laws, a large number of people will shake there head even when they can't mount a rational rebuttal. I believe that, at heart, they believe that individuals are just too weak, and the forces of injustice too strong, for libertarian solutions to work.
I'm not saying that they're right, I'm just saying there's a reason why it's hard to persuade them.
1. When does private property itself become monopolistic and coercive - i.e., exploitive?
You can pick the apple from the tree, and it's yours. But can you pick more than your share and sell the rest? Can you pick it clean? Can you claim ownership of the tree and use force to keep others from touching it? Do you have a right to chop the tree down?
Do you have the right to claim ownership of a mountain pass, even if you were there first?
If land and resources are held by the few, they could coerce and exploit the rest. But if there's no private property at all, there is no growth, no improvement, no civilization.
2. When is the individual self-responsible, and when is he manipulated by more powerful forces into making decisions that hurt him and benefit them?
People with greater power and knowledge can take advantage of others in inferior positions. A man who charms a lonely widow and walks away with her cash may be a jerk, but not as bad as if he tricks a mildly retarded man into parting with his money. We don't hold children to be as responsible as adults. In what circumstances should individuals be responsible for their own behavior, and when should they be considered victims duped into giving their consent to something against their own interests? Thus drug dealers are treated harshly by society; they are perceived to prey on the young and the already-addicted. And many people believe that no woman would ever voluntarily go into pornography or prostitution; they are thought to be the victims of those who use them, who should be punished.
3. When must individual and tribal/national interests give way to universal humanitarianism and morality?
We tend to believe that moral law applies to everyone the world, but our loves and loyalties are far more local. Under what circumstances should we sacrifice for the rights of far-away peoples, and when should we mind our own business? When should we be idealists, and when should we be relativists?
4. Who decides questions 1-3?
Often, two or more questions apply to the same issue. Take the hysteria against smoking in restaurants, bars, even apartments. The "dangers" of second-hand smoke are minimal. However, there is a general backlash against Big Tobacco, and restrictions on smoking is a way to "stick it to them."
From where does this hatred of Big Tobacco stem?
1. Dating back to slave days, the tobacco industry has been the beneficiary of stolen land and exploitive practices which today's major companies have inherited.
2. The power of manipulation through advertising has deliberately lured new generations of young people not mature/responsible enough to make rational decisions regarding smoking.
3. The nicotine content has allegedly been spiked, making it harder to quit.
4. For a long time, Big Tobacco denied the dangers of smoking, or at least evaded the questions. Big Tobacco executives are viewed as the moral equivalent of criminals.
Because individual responsiblity is denied (question 2), private property rights (the freedom to set one's own smoking policy) are denied (question 1). Smokers are the victims of evil Big Tobacco. To punish Big Tobacco, we must make it ever-more inconvenient to smoke.
Moreover, those who work in smoke-filled environments are deemed to be exploited by the economic system; if more and better jobs were available, surely they would work somewhere else. They have "no choice" but to work in smoke-filled areas and put themselves at risk to the dangers of second-hand smoke. They must be protected; smoking must be banned in those workplaces.
The War in Iraq relates to question 3. In one sense, we are "humanitarians," in another, we are tribalists. That is, America has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow foreign governments on the grounds of "humanitarian intervention." Why is America uniquely qualified to favor war over peace and meddle in other countries affairs - powers we wouldn't want other countries to exercise over us? The reason boils down to, we're Americans. We're the exception. Our "tribe," our nation, gets to play by special rules because we're superior.
In any case, these concerns about economic exploitation based on private property rigths, moral and economic exploitation by people in positions of authority, and conflict based on cultural differences will persist. Many people who advance un-libertarian solutions do not think of themselves as anti-liberty, they are just concerned by the exploitation that results from inequalities in property, power, and culture. They don't believe that any market can really be "free" or result in just outcomes, since real-world societies of the future will always inherit the real-world inequalities and injustices of the past and present.
I think this is why, no matter how strong an argument we may make against, say, the minimum wage, or our drug laws, a large number of people will shake there head even when they can't mount a rational rebuttal. I believe that, at heart, they believe that individuals are just too weak, and the forces of injustice too strong, for libertarian solutions to work.
I'm not saying that they're right, I'm just saying there's a reason why it's hard to persuade them.
Labels:
ideologies,
libertarianism
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Remains of the Day
I'm not normally one to make a big deal about pro-freedom film or literature. Movies about rebels and individualists can be wildly popular yet fail to transform the political culture. Children cheer on Han Solo, but grow up to become state troopers dedicated to violating Constitutional rights on our highways, or imperial warriors in far-away deserts. They are more like stormtroopers than freedom-loving rebels, and they don't even realize it. People don't get parallels and metaphors. Entertainiment is viewed primarily as just entertainment. After all, people watched MASH and All in the Family in the 1970's only to vote for Ronald Reagan in the 1980's.
That said, I recently saw Remains of the Day starring Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson again, and I wonder if it's an overlooked classic for individualists. Not because it perpetuates the Munich Myth that Britain was somehow responsible for the security of small European countries. Rather, because it's essentially a cautionary tale.
Hopkins' character, Mr. Stevens, is an English butler whose lord is part of the aristocracy involved in high-level affairs. Stevens dedicates his life to serving someone dedicated to public service. It makes sense; this is one way to be part of something bigger than oneself. By serving his lord, Stevens is also serving King and Country.
And Stevens would suspend judgment, override conscience, sacrifice love, and lose his own individuality for his job. Time and again, he remained silent when he could have spoken up; he wouldn't intervene in affairs he was sure were far over his head. But the whole time, he was serving a gullible Nazi dupe.
Remains of the Day is certainly a warning to all who feel a "devotion to duty" in one of the traditional institutions of society. You could easily just end up wasting your life following orders from incompetents. Who wants to spend their life serving stupid and evil men? And who wants to look back on years of misplaced faith? Who wants to sacrifice everything only to end up with nothing - not even a clear conscience?
Better to make one's own judgments and make one's own mistakes. Subordinating one's own self to some "higher calling" actually helps no one in the long run.
That said, I recently saw Remains of the Day starring Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson again, and I wonder if it's an overlooked classic for individualists. Not because it perpetuates the Munich Myth that Britain was somehow responsible for the security of small European countries. Rather, because it's essentially a cautionary tale.
Hopkins' character, Mr. Stevens, is an English butler whose lord is part of the aristocracy involved in high-level affairs. Stevens dedicates his life to serving someone dedicated to public service. It makes sense; this is one way to be part of something bigger than oneself. By serving his lord, Stevens is also serving King and Country.
And Stevens would suspend judgment, override conscience, sacrifice love, and lose his own individuality for his job. Time and again, he remained silent when he could have spoken up; he wouldn't intervene in affairs he was sure were far over his head. But the whole time, he was serving a gullible Nazi dupe.
Remains of the Day is certainly a warning to all who feel a "devotion to duty" in one of the traditional institutions of society. You could easily just end up wasting your life following orders from incompetents. Who wants to spend their life serving stupid and evil men? And who wants to look back on years of misplaced faith? Who wants to sacrifice everything only to end up with nothing - not even a clear conscience?
Better to make one's own judgments and make one's own mistakes. Subordinating one's own self to some "higher calling" actually helps no one in the long run.
Labels:
Entertainment
Taking Bets
1. Which Law and Order program will rip off Anna Nicole Smith's death: the original or Criminal Intent?
2. Will they rush a script together and air the show by May this year, or will it air next year?
2. Will they rush a script together and air the show by May this year, or will it air next year?
Labels:
Entertainment
Thursday, February 08, 2007
What You Need To Believe To Be A Republican
This came into my inbox:
What You Need To Believe To Be A Republican
1. Jesus loves you and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.
2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and
a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
4. The United States should get out of the United Nations and our
highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
without regulation.
6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies,
then demand their cooperation and money.
9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing
health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies
have the best interests of the public at heart.
10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.
12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the
Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the
Internet.
13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
Bush's drunk driving record and assault on the Vice President (Poppa
Bush)is none of our business.
14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.
15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born,
who will be born, or who might be born (in perpetuity.)
16. What Bill Clinton smoked in England in the 1960s is of vital
national interest, but what Bush snorted in the '80s is irrelevant.
17. Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame other hunters for
wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.
If you don't send it to at least 10 other people, we're likely to be
stuck with more Republicans in '08.
What You Need To Believe To Be A Republican
1. Jesus loves you and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.
2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and
a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
4. The United States should get out of the United Nations and our
highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
without regulation.
6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies,
then demand their cooperation and money.
9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing
health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies
have the best interests of the public at heart.
10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.
12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the
Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the
Internet.
13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
Bush's drunk driving record and assault on the Vice President (Poppa
Bush)is none of our business.
14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.
15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born,
who will be born, or who might be born (in perpetuity.)
16. What Bill Clinton smoked in England in the 1960s is of vital
national interest, but what Bush snorted in the '80s is irrelevant.
17. Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame other hunters for
wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.
If you don't send it to at least 10 other people, we're likely to be
stuck with more Republicans in '08.
Labels:
politics
Can Anything Be Done?
This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:
The problems concerning immigration come down to this: a) in theory, government should control for immigration, if for no other reason than to prevent the economic disruptions of overcrowding, but b) government doesn't work, and any additional power we give it will only be abused.
In the absence of any good solution to the problems of border security, immigration, and particularly illegal immigration, the best recourse is to find a way to mitigate the negative effects of immigration.
Labels:
immigration,
Partial Observer
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Iran
Everywhere I look, there's another columnist predicting war with Iran. Some were predicting it a year ago. And some blamed the high gas prices in the summer on rumors of war. DownsizeDC.org developed their campaign against war with Iran at that time.
But I can understand why people are skeptical. First, why are gas prices lower now? Second, it is really hard to believe that President Bush would be that evil and that stupid, that careless of America's present and future.
Of course, I felt the same way four years ago. I didn't understand why Bush spent a year rattling sabres against Saddam Hussein, but I literally could not believe Bush would actually go through with an invasion. Each day we didn't invade, I thought, was a sign that we would never invade.
And then we invaded.
To this day, I will not condemn any layperson who supported the invasion of Iraq. Their main fault is that they believed their leaders. But we must be very clear here:
Any paid pundit, policy advisor, or politician who recommended or advocated war with Iraq embraced what was essentially a wacko position. There was nothing to be said in favor of invading Iraq. To have supported the war is to have been one or more of the following:
1. Extremely cynical and evil
2. In the service of Israel but not the U.S.
3. A fanatical, delusional idealist with absolutely no regard for or respect for actual human lives.
Let's say we had two Presidential candidates. One of them voted for the Iraq resolution. The other sells crack to children but knows that only a nutjob would have supported the invasion. Which one would I choose?
Classic "lesser of two evils." The one who is merely evil is a far better choice than the one who is evil, stupid, and crazy.
But I can understand why people are skeptical. First, why are gas prices lower now? Second, it is really hard to believe that President Bush would be that evil and that stupid, that careless of America's present and future.
Of course, I felt the same way four years ago. I didn't understand why Bush spent a year rattling sabres against Saddam Hussein, but I literally could not believe Bush would actually go through with an invasion. Each day we didn't invade, I thought, was a sign that we would never invade.
And then we invaded.
To this day, I will not condemn any layperson who supported the invasion of Iraq. Their main fault is that they believed their leaders. But we must be very clear here:
Any paid pundit, policy advisor, or politician who recommended or advocated war with Iraq embraced what was essentially a wacko position. There was nothing to be said in favor of invading Iraq. To have supported the war is to have been one or more of the following:
1. Extremely cynical and evil
2. In the service of Israel but not the U.S.
3. A fanatical, delusional idealist with absolutely no regard for or respect for actual human lives.
Let's say we had two Presidential candidates. One of them voted for the Iraq resolution. The other sells crack to children but knows that only a nutjob would have supported the invasion. Which one would I choose?
Classic "lesser of two evils." The one who is merely evil is a far better choice than the one who is evil, stupid, and crazy.
Labels:
Downsize DC,
Iran,
Iraq
Monday, February 05, 2007
Power of Perception
Over the weekend, ESPN Classic ran a program on the Five Reasons You Can't Blame Scott Norwood for losing Super Bowl XXV.
Buffalo lost that game, 20-19 to the New York Giants, and Scott Norwood was the Bills kicker who missed the game-winning field goal at the end. His name is now part of Super Bowl lore.
But it's funny how the legend grows. Few people at the time blamed Norwood for the loss. He was asked to make a 47-yard field goal on grass, something he'd never done before and at the time it was a less-than-50% shot for even the best kickers. Norwood was an accurate kicker at close range but had the shortest range among all kickers.
To the extent that the game was Norwood's fault, it was because he just wasn't good enough to do what he was asked to do, which is far different from "choking" or folding under pressure.
All of this was known sixteen years ago. The Bills would have been lucky if Norwood made the kick, so much so that he would have deserved MVP honors if he had made it.
So why, now, is the perception that Norwood blew it so prevalent that ESPN puts together a program to debunk this view? Why does something so obviously and demonstrably false become common knowledge?
Perhaps for the same reason that an error in a tied game six of the 1986 World Series is blamed for the Red Sox losing the entire series, or a dropped touchdown pass in the third quarter is blamed for the Cowboys losing Super Bowl XIII. Mistakes and failure make the events even more dramatic.
The worst play in Super Bowl history was John Kasay kicking the ball out of bounds with a minute left, giving Tom Brady the ball at the 40 yard-line with a minute left in Super Bowl XXXVIII. That was overshadowed that year, however, by Janet Jackson's boobie.
Today, much of the media is doing a pretty good job blaming the Bears' loss yesterday on their quarterback Rex Grossman, even though the Colt's defense made more experienced quarterbacks look ordinary in this year's play-offs. The perceptions could run Grossman out of Chicago.
If this is the way the sports media can influence people, it's scary what the news media can do, on issues that are actually important.
Buffalo lost that game, 20-19 to the New York Giants, and Scott Norwood was the Bills kicker who missed the game-winning field goal at the end. His name is now part of Super Bowl lore.
But it's funny how the legend grows. Few people at the time blamed Norwood for the loss. He was asked to make a 47-yard field goal on grass, something he'd never done before and at the time it was a less-than-50% shot for even the best kickers. Norwood was an accurate kicker at close range but had the shortest range among all kickers.
To the extent that the game was Norwood's fault, it was because he just wasn't good enough to do what he was asked to do, which is far different from "choking" or folding under pressure.
All of this was known sixteen years ago. The Bills would have been lucky if Norwood made the kick, so much so that he would have deserved MVP honors if he had made it.
So why, now, is the perception that Norwood blew it so prevalent that ESPN puts together a program to debunk this view? Why does something so obviously and demonstrably false become common knowledge?
Perhaps for the same reason that an error in a tied game six of the 1986 World Series is blamed for the Red Sox losing the entire series, or a dropped touchdown pass in the third quarter is blamed for the Cowboys losing Super Bowl XIII. Mistakes and failure make the events even more dramatic.
The worst play in Super Bowl history was John Kasay kicking the ball out of bounds with a minute left, giving Tom Brady the ball at the 40 yard-line with a minute left in Super Bowl XXXVIII. That was overshadowed that year, however, by Janet Jackson's boobie.
Today, much of the media is doing a pretty good job blaming the Bears' loss yesterday on their quarterback Rex Grossman, even though the Colt's defense made more experienced quarterbacks look ordinary in this year's play-offs. The perceptions could run Grossman out of Chicago.
If this is the way the sports media can influence people, it's scary what the news media can do, on issues that are actually important.
Labels:
media
Saturday, February 03, 2007
What Kind of Country Is This?
The President of an independent country of 20 million people announces that all 11 and 12 year-old girls would be forced to have a cervical cancer vaccine. The country's legislature is bypassed in this decision. The drug company that provides the vaccine has close ties to the President; it has given him financial help, and his former top aide and mother-in-law of his current top aide works for this drug company, which stands to make tens of millions of the taxpayer's money from this order.
What would you call this country?
a) corrupt
b) undemocratic
c) a totalitarian dictatorship
d) all of the above
Well, actually, I'm not talking about a foreign, independent country, I'm talking about the state of Texas. Butler Shaffer has some good remarks on Governor Rick Perry's attack on liberty.
What would you call this country?
a) corrupt
b) undemocratic
c) a totalitarian dictatorship
d) all of the above
Well, actually, I'm not talking about a foreign, independent country, I'm talking about the state of Texas. Butler Shaffer has some good remarks on Governor Rick Perry's attack on liberty.
Labels:
Police State
Super Bowl Picks
My favorite Prince Songs are
- When You Were Mine
- Alphabet Street
- Seven
But I think a really fun half-time show would go like this:
- Let's Go Crazy
- Delirious
- 1999
Also, I'll pick the Colts to win the game, because they appear to be all-around a better team.
- When You Were Mine
- Alphabet Street
- Seven
But I think a really fun half-time show would go like this:
- Let's Go Crazy
- Delirious
- 1999
Also, I'll pick the Colts to win the game, because they appear to be all-around a better team.
Labels:
Enertainment,
Sports
Friday, February 02, 2007
Why Didn't They Report the Lies?
Why weren't Bush's lies in the State of the Union not front-page news the following day in the New York Times and Washington Post, and the lead story on the major networks' new programs?
Why did it take Keith Olbermann to point them out a whole week later?
This just increases the perception that the MSM is too much a part of the Establishment to be trusted.
Why did it take Keith Olbermann to point them out a whole week later?
This just increases the perception that the MSM is too much a part of the Establishment to be trusted.
Labels:
media
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Getting Out of Iraq
From DownsizeDC.org:
Tell your Representative and Senators to co-sponsor and pass H.R. 413 by clicking here.
President Bush has had four years to bring peace to Iraq. Every experiment he has tried to achieve that goal has failed. Now he wants to expend more American lives and money on yet another experiment.
The Democrats, by contrast, seem to have adopted a "stay the course" strategy. They oppose the President's new experiment, but seem in no hurry to leave the laboratory.
U.S. policy is adrift, at the cost of innocent American lives and hundreds of billions of your tax money. It is time to stop the experiments.
We think the verdict from the laboratory is already clear. Too many Iraqi's prefer war to peace. This is their decision, and their responsibility.
If the Iraqi factions want peace, they can negotiate a settlement. American diplomats may have a role to play in this, if the factions desire it, but our troops are not needed for this purpose. Their presence in Iraq merely clouds the issue.
Are we supposed to choose sides? Which side are we supposed to favor, the Sunni or the Shia? The Sunni are the minority, but the Shia are tied to Iran. Do we really have a horse in that race? Are we supposed to attack both at once, and assume that this will lead to a peace settlement?
There are no American answers to these questions. There is no place for U.S. soldiers in this equation. It is an Iraqi question, that only the Iraqi's can answer.
That is, after all, what self-determination is all about.
It is time to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. We believe HR 413 provides the correct means to achieve that goal. HR 413 would de-authorize the occupation.
We got into this mess because Congress authorized it. We must get out of it by having Congress de-authorize it.
De-authorizing is a superior first step to de-funding. If Congress starts by de-funding the occupation the President will claim that Congress is really de-funding the troops. Congress can sidestep this rhetorical game-playing by first removing the President's authority to continue the occupation.
Once that is done, if the President tries to continue the occupation on his own, Congress can begin the de-funding process from a position of moral and legal strength.
Congress must reassert its Constitutional control over the war-making power. The President has no Constitutional authority to make war or occupy foreign countries on his own. Only Congress has the Constitutional power to authorize war, and what Congress has authorized, it can de-authorize.
HR 413 is simple and direct. It reads as follows . . .
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM IRAQ.
The President of the United States shall provide for the withdrawal of units and members of the United States Armed Forces deployed in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom in a safe and orderly manner.
Tell your Representative and Senators to co-sponsor and pass H.R. 413 by clicking here.
Labels:
Downsize DC,
Iraq
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
