Between God and Man

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Whether it's economic redistribution, the jailing or forced "rehabilitation" of the nonviolent, or forced taxation to build war machines, people of "faith" seem to place their real faith in the State, rather than in their God. And because the State is nothing but a monopoly of the use of force, faith in the State means faith in violence.

Christians: Tell Me How I'm Wrong

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

War and coercion are not just phenomena of the Christian Right. I've known Christians who, in all good conscience, think that Christian pacificism is entirely consistent with the police enforcing restricitons on polical speech and forcing individuals to purchase a narrow range of healthcare options from privately-held corporations. I've been aware of public Christian spokespersons who thought themselves to be the inheritors of Martin Luther King's legacy, while publicly or tacitly endorsing the bombing of innocent Serbian civilians and the enforcement of economic embargoes on other nations, leading to the starvation of the world's poorest people.

S&M Christians

I came across this clip from 1986 that originally circulated through the Net a couple of years ago:



What was amazing, absolutely amazing, is how, all these decades later, the perspectives on what transpired and who "won" could be so fantastically different.

Here's one view: Burn In Hell, Frank Zappa!

This blogger, who relishes the thought that Zappa is in hell, believes Zappa was lying when he claimed he was a "conservative," or that Zappa was a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Why is this? Because Zappa believed in freedom of speech.

And the opposite view: Watch Frank Zappa Wipe the Floor With John Lofton

The first comment to this post also cheers Zappa's eternal torment, though most of the rest of the comments ridicule the first one.

I love the irony. Those who condemn Zappa for defending "filth" are themselves totally into S&M. Well, maybe not S&M, more like pure sadism.

After all, what excites them? Police batons, handcuffs, and dungeons. And not just for dangerous people who have done harm to others, but also for people they don't like. See someone doing or saying something you wouldn't say or do? Arrest them! Jail them!

Why do these people believe that Jesus endorses their perversion? It doesn't make sense.

It's not wholly a sectarian or right-wing phenomenon. There are fundamentalists, and conservative Catholics, who are also anarchists. And there are extremely "liberal" Christians who would conduct police raids on bars that allow smoking, or draft your daughter to liberate Zimbabwe. There are libertarian Christians in all sects, and S&M Christians in all sects.

And to the latter I say, please, just keep your weird fantasies of coercion and domination in your fantasy life. Or act them out with a consenting adult. Just leave the rest of us alone!

Christians and the State

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I question why people who do believe in God, specifically Christians, attach so much importance to the State. I don't question why they would obey the State, but I do question why they would be so emotionally committed to it.

Consider that neither Jesus nor the Epistle authors call on Christians to take or assume any sort of earthly political power, which is the control of land and domination of its people through a monopoly of force. Jesus says his kingdom is "not of this world."

Left-libertarianism revisited

Update 12-29-08: I clarify some points in the comments section. Please read them before responding yourself.

Update 12-31-08: I understand there has been some additional comments about this post here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, urgent matters of a personal nature have come up and I won't have time to address them.

Over three years ago, when I joined the Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left, I explained my reasons here and here.

I still agree with what I wrote.

But, while I was once linked to at LeftLibertairan.org, at some point I must have committed enough heresies to be kicked off that reservation. Which goes to show that "left-libertarian" can mean different things to different people. A couple of years ago, I recall posting at Ilana Mercer's blog, defending the position that the U.S. should give no aid to Israel (although I can't recover the specific link, I remember it). She agreed, but also wondered why "left-libertarians" weren't as critical of Palestinians as they were of Israel. In other words, we were, at least mildly, anti-Semitic. In contrast, and more recently, Richard Spencer conflates left-libertarianism with the views of Reason magazine.

So "left-libertarianism" is whatever those who find affinity with the Right don't like about some libertarians with whom they disagree. Of course, the same goes the other way. Left-libertarians can sneer as "conservative" anyone whose radicalism manifests itself in different ways. If I'm not "really" a left-libertarianism, it's because my own priorities may be different, even if my same basic commitment to equal rights is the same.

(By the way, Wikipedia holds that different definitions of left-libertarianism are contradictory.)

The problem with both "right-libertarians" and "left-libertairans" is that they place a higher priority on their cultural affinities (or prejudices, if you will) than on their anti-Statism, when the whole record of human existence establishes that it is the State, its laws, and its wars, that have created greater evil than personal prejudices and dislikes.

As Left-libertarians, we should remember that equality of rights is the only equality that is possible, and that that the expansion of State privileges masked as "rights" is the inverse of both actual rights and real equality.

• The discrimination against single people by State sanctions promoting marriage is bad. The expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex, polygamous, or inter-species marriage does not promote "equality" or "fairness," it just increases the real and hidden taxes on single people who must pay for state-funded and and legally-mandated privately-funded benefits and privileges to "spouses." The State marriage laws are a redistribution racket and have no other reason for existence. Left-libertarians ought to be calling for their abolition, not for their expansion.
  
• Let's agree with the left-libertarian argument that there should be open borders, and that this is indeed good for the economy. Is it not, then, even more so the case that: a) every native-born citizen should have an absolute and equal right to work as any imported unskilled laborer? And at any price, even if she is 15, 10, or 5 years old? (Oh, is that "going too far? Than you're not a left-libertarian, or any kind of libertarian; you're a mere conservative utilititarian.) b) no one should be entitled to welfare benefits of any kind, and it is easiest to cut immigrants (and especially undocumented immigrants) off from the trough first? c) When there are so many prohibitions on residents in the United States, why make a fetish on the "freedom of movement" right of foreigners to migrate here? Does it make more sense for left-libertarians to focus on smearing the anti-immigration forces as "racist," or to promote greater freedom for people already here (and thereby making a more welcoming place for immigrants seeking opportunity while discouraging those seeking handouts?)
  
• Let's agree that free trade is good. But which is worse, a completely free domestic market with a 100% tariff on imported goods, or a highly-taxed and -regulated market with "free trade" of imported goods? (This idea I've borrowed from a commenter at Taki; the original context is lost.) If we lived in Singapore, perhaps we'd prefer free trade. But we live in the fourth-largest country on earth with the third-largest population. Doesn't it make much more sense to open the internal market (such as, by legalizing industrial hemp production), than by surrendering U.S. sovereignty to supra-national trade "agreements?"
  

As libertarians first and left-libertarians second, we should be aware that it isn't just the policy in itself, but rather the agenda behind the policy that counts. "Same-sex marraige" won't advance equality if it only broadens the Welfare State. "Open borders" won't help the cause of freedom if it just helps create a North American Union. And "free trade" won't help the cause of freedom if it creates a World Government based on uniform trade laws, from which uniform social policies follow.

I think the left-libertarian agenda may be too closely perceived as a war against "traditional conservatism" and the "Christian Right" and whatever it may stand for. I myself loathe what has passed for the Christian Right and what it stands for. But the enemy is not any real or imagined mystic or bigot. The enemy is The State.

If we forget that, Left-libertarianism loses all credibility.

The Good Intentions of an Ignoramus

Almost all of my knowledge is from hearsay, not direct experience. But most of it is reliable. I knew that Manhattan existed before I arrived there on a road trip, and even though I've never been to London I trust it exists on the same kind of reliable testimony that had told me Manhattan exists. The theories that the Earth is a spherical planet and is orbiting the sun, I accept on similar grounds. Everyone else tells me so, as do the books and tv shows. In the same way, I trust that persons I was told existed and events I was told happened did indeed exist and did indeed happen, and that the world today is the Effect of their Cause. I believe this is more reliable wherever there is clear continuity in the record-keeping. It is more believable that U.S. President Millard Fillmore actually lived, than that Moses or Jesus lived as described in the Bible - even though the latter two allegedly accomplished more important things. That's because the existence of Moses and Jesus depend on more remote hearsay evidence; there are definitive records of Fillmore's existence in our federal government's archives, and, presumably, in the archives of the Foreign Offices of foreign countries. In contrast, you have to accept Moses and Jesus on faith, not evidence.

But a lot of what I know amounts to associating names and categories to visual recognition: gold is an element, water is a compound. Chimps and humans are both primates. Housecats and tigers are felines. Wolves and poodles are canines.

And so I am also told that oil from the ground comes from fossils of preexisting life on earth. The Big Bang happened because it makes the most sense, I am told. "Darwinian" Evolution is true because it makes the most sense, I'm told.

Then I'm told that Evolution somehow proves there's no God, as if progression in four-dimensional space-time is the only Reality there is. But then physics tells us there are more dimensions than that, and one wonders if consciousness and creation can't exist in those dimensions, and that some sort of God or spiritual/supernatural force might exist after all.

And then I'm told that Global Warming is real, and then I'm told it's a myth. That it's impossible for the Twin Towers and Building 7 to have fallen as they did according to the official story on Sept 11, and then I'm told it is quite possible for them to fall.

Because I have a lot of Oscar and Super Bowl trivia in my head, I don't see how I'm expected to form an intelligent opinion on these matters. Heck, the only reasons I know it's foolish to microwave a metal plate or drop a radio in the bath is because I've been told about these dangers - I wouldn't know enough to figure them out for myself. On most matters relating to the physical universe, I am an idiot, and have no way of knowing when "respectable" science is corrupted by greed and power, or when "alternative" theories and therapies become too paranoid or cult-like. Is the homeopath selling snake oil? Is the hospital grossly overcharging? How am I supposed to know? And why should I trust the "mainstream" and the "respected" as opposed to the despised and rejected?

I don't know if I'll ever trust my own judgment. Every sound argument for an "established scientific fact" is countered by, to me, an equally persuasive counter-argument. I'm not smart enough to figure it all out, and even if I did have the time and intelligence to get it right on one subject, I wouldn't know enough about other subjects to form an educated opinion.

I do know that what has appealed to me about Christianity and other religions and philosophies is the degree to which they express genuine love and respect for every human being. The more theological and technical their dogma becomes, the more I'm turned off. And that's also why I'm attracted to Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment theories of Constitutionalism, Classical Liberalism, and Libertarianism. They also invoke similar love and respect for every human being, including giving them room to make choices I may disagree with, provided they don't harm anybody else. They don't reduce other people to pawns in ideological struggles, but treat individuals as ends in themselves.

That is why, as much as I would love to kill Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or the junta in Burma, it is simply not my decision to make. Bad as the inflation is in Zimbabwe, and the post-cyclone misery in Burma, an invasion or civil war in either country will probably bring even more suffering. I don't believe it's my call to make, nor is it the call of the U.S. President or Congress.

I'd kill Mugabe and the Burmese junta because I hate them, not because I believe killing them will actually accomplish anything good for the suffering in their countries. Should I act on my hatred, or should I do what I can on behalf of the innocent and helpless? Ideological justice says "Kill the tyrant!" but real justice is motivated by love for the innocent, not hatred for the guilty. In any catastrophe, the poor, the innocent, and the weakest will always suffer most of all. Taking the meek and humble path means that not every one of these will be rescued. But they won't be rescued in any case. Not by authoritarian means. And certainly not by an invasion or civil war.

What I'm saying is that I believe Love is the Ultimate Reality, and the only true God. Though I may err in situations, I hope I never abandon my best intentions.

Don't Blame Britney and Miley

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

By 1997, some Christians decided to boycott Disney because Disney - which was never anything remotely like a Christian company - started to give out same-sex partner benefits to their gay employees. If your business employs large numbers of animators, make-up artists, costume designers, and dancers, this sounds like a sensible business decision. The new generation of Christians, however, demanded "wholesome" entertainment from a "wholesome" company, when their grandparents would have warned that seeking "entertainment" was itself the problem. The very fact that a Christian boycott of Disney was called for was proof-positive that the Old Time Religion had died and the boycott could never work. The real problem was not Disney, but the fact that conservative Christians watched Disney videos and vacationed at DisneyWorld. The problem was not the symptoms of sex, violence, or profanity in the movies, but the disease that Christians caught when they had fallen into the hypnotic trap of mass media and pop culture. They would watch the same television shows as everyone else and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the same movies. They would watch the same sports and the same news programs. They would be swayed to want something they didn't need through advertising. They would be presented with a narrow range of choices in the ballot box, and be told this was "freedom" and "democracy."

Had the old-time Christians been as vehemently against radio, records, and television as they were against cards, alcohol, and shows, conservative Christianity may actually have become a counter-cultural movement today, rather than a whiny, paranoid subculture within the mainstream culture that it has become.

Sexually Mature, Emotionally Mature

It is one thing to have sex with children who are not sexually mature. What about those who are sexually mature, but not considered "emotionally" mature enough to give their consent?

Who's to say they're not emotionally mature, the dominant culture and the laws of the State that the dominant culture produces? What if they're part of a subculture in which physical and emotional maturity coalesce at the same time? In which marriage and the responsibilities of marriages are expected in the teenage years? Why is that culture warped, whereas the culture in which teenagers are treated as "too immature" for sex despite their impulses, and thus do become "too immature" for sex, is assumed to be "normal?"

In The Nativity Story Joseph was depicted as an established, respected adult, whereas Mary was 14 or 15. Their betrothal was considered normal for the time, and Protestants, at least, consider Joseph, this "pedophile," to be a righteous man who is the earthly father/mentor of The Lord Jesus Christ.

(As I understand it, Catholics, apparently, believe that Joseph and Mary never did get it on even after Jesus's birth, because they consider Mary a perpetual virgin and that allusions to Jesus's brothers is a translation that could be interpreted as cousins. This page is vague concerning what this meant for Joseph.)

Christians dismiss this marrying of younger teenage girls as "the culture of the time." It was alright for the earthly father/mentor of The Lord to crave underage girls, but that was way back then. Morals are different today, even though Christians are normally the first to claim that morals are timeless and universal.

So if a religious sect tries to recreate the culture and values that prevailed where Jesus Christ was born, what do these same believers in Jesus Christ do? They (or at least American Christians) would have those people arrested, because in today's culture, sex with "underage" teenage girls is about the most evil thing they can imagine. Torturing Iraqi civilians is okay for them, but a sect in which 15 year-old girls get married? That's inexcusable (except, apparently, for Joseph, earthly father/mentor of Jesus).

I don't want teenage girls to marry. I don't like polygamy. The wives at the El Dorado sect that I've seen are more brain-dead and creepier than the Stepford Wives. I wouldn't want to be a part of that culture, or see children raised there.

But there are lots of cultures that I think are damaging to children. That doesn't mean I have the right to intervene. They're not my children. I believe all custodial rights over children belong to their mothers, and the only reasons to strip mothers of their rights is abuse or neglect. Following a "wrong" or "abusive" belief system doesn't rise to that level. If you think polygamous Mormons should have their rights stripped because of their belief system, perhaps I think you should, too, if I think your belief system is also abusive. Whatever argument you make, you are guilty of the same allegations by somebody else. If you say somebody who makes more money than you is greedy, than I can say the same about you if I make less money than you do. Likewise, if you believe these Fundamentalist Mormon views are quirky, extreme, and dangerous, than I, too could make the same charge against your religious beliefs if I believe they will be similarly dangerous to the status quo.

If the mother is one of many wives, or if the mother has many husbands, that is none of the State's business. If physically immature children are used for sex or in sex rituals, I could see State intervention. But the fact that sexually mature young women in a sub-culture are getting married - at the age they expect to get married by their teachings and upbringing - doesn't seem to me to be a "crime." Especially in a southern state where most people are Christian, and the girls of this sect are marrying at the same approximate age that by all accounts was the age that Mary was betrothed to Joseph.

If "Bible-believing" Christians concede that Mary was just a young girl, and was still young when the marriage to Joseph was consummated, who are they to judge others who today believe it is right and natural for sexually mature young women to get married? Indeed, it seems to me that it is more screwed up to design different ages for sexual maturity and emotional maturity. That might be what we have in this day and age, but it doesn't seem natural. God creates sexual impulses at one age, the maturity to handle them at another age - that is screwed up. Sects and cults that try to right this wrong should probably be encouraged, not obliterated. Otherwise, we will only raise the next generation to be even more sexually neurotic than we are already.

In any case, the initial call against this Fundamentalist Mormon compound appears to be a hoax. So let the children return to their mothers. Children shouldn't be ripped from their mothers to accommodate some aberrant Victorian rule about the "appropriate" age to get married.