Basement Bunker Libertarians

First fruits of getting the Blogrolls working - snorting coffee through my nose.

If you keep emailing me, the mockery will continue

Andrew Sullivan continues to send his minions to attempt to annoy me to death. He fails to understand that this is Pandagon, and we are professionals at the art of pointless blog warring. He also fails to understand that I know cartoonists who also consider the entire existence of the Cheeto-munching moral and intellectual midgets that drive the continued popularity of Ayn Rand novels to be as hilarious as I do. You can click them to get the full size.

August’s take on libertarians.

Harrmumph. As a Libertarian, I must take slight exception. I wish both critics and cricised would stop confusing Libertarianism with Malignant Narcisissm. I know, I know, there's that whole pile of Ayn Rand to confuse the issue. But in point of fact, John Galt was an arsonist who betrayed the interests of his client and tried to justify it to himself. The fact that Rand portrays him as a hero speaks a great deal about her, and a great deal more about the ethics of those who point to Galt as an example of Principle.

I was particularly amused by this one comment - as often is the case, I find the comments to be as good or better as the original - and I do so envy such blessings...

I actually think this whole thing is wonderful fun; I hope Amanda continues forever. I really, really like the No True Scotsman supporters who take such furious umbrage that Amanda uses “libertarian” in the way it de facto means instead of the way that (according to them) it de jure means. Heh.

Essie Elephant on 04/30 at 01:04 PM

As a conscious, de jure Libertarian; and antiauthoritarian to the very core of my being - I have more than once observed that in terms of outcomes - the greatest individual Liberty for the greatest number - Canada is a FAR more Libertarian country than the United States.

You see - and you will find this point made in core libertarian writings - liberty requires social infrastructure in order to ensure basic, common wants; otherwise those wants and needs can be and WILL be used by the minority against the majority to reduce them to a state of permanent serfdom.

Unless you can afford to say "take this job and shove it," you are not free. Arguably, it should not be a trivial step, without consequence, but it absolutely MUST be possible - or you are not living in a free society.

Likewise, there must be robust regulations and vigilant guardians watching over the markets and the commons, so that - well, so that what is happening in economic terms in the US and Europe, does not happen. And in Canada, that is the case. Canada has not abandoned regulatory oversight of critical industries in order to pander to would be Madoffs and Enrons and the result is more - not less - economic opportunity and practical liberty for more people.

But US Libertarians are of the opinion that Liberty is the same as License. It is a movement of the self-indulgent, those who cry that "I have mine, and you are a luser who deserves nothing from me."

This of course denies reality - that all persons who succeed in life to any degree are aided in this success by the entire matrix of society and it's infrastructure - benefited by education, libraries, early learning opportunities, the Internet, access to government funded research data, materials science developed at public universities, transportation networks funded by taxpayers by one means of social investment or another - in other words, they were free to act to their own benefit - and the consequent benefit of others - because their society affirmatively invested in and agressively defends that individual liberty.

People who think that living in a mountan-top bunker stocked with five years of food, water and ammunition is the ultimate expression of Liberty are, sadly, idiots. They are as restricted in their practical opportunities as any person languishing in a medium-security prison. Furthermore, they are institutionalizing their children with their various ignorance initiatives. But I digress.

Liberty is for everyone, with opportunity as broadly spread, and with a dedication to the eradication of the serfdom of poverty, or it's simply a chaotic struggle for dominance on a winner-take-all basis.

There is never any way of predicting who will win such a struggle - but having high motivation for a better life, and the grim reality of having little or nothing left to lose - has been a consistent factor in throwing out the old bastards and throwing in the new.

Real libertarians believe that taking the profit OUT of authoritarianism and putting it into advancing the total amount of collective cussedness and amused tolerance of The Other is the only route to a truly free, open and Libertarian culture.

And if this be Socialism, make the most of it.

The Project for a New American Peonage

It seems a bit narcissistic to reference my own words, but 'twas a long post and this point may have gotten lost in the underbrush.

Graphictruth: My Muted Obamamania: "Reality is not optional in Politics. We have had far too much post-modern bullshit, and quite frankly, it's making ME want to cling to the hard cold reality that a handgun represents. A gun is simple, understandable and comforting in times of trouble - even when it's an utterly useless comfort. Even when you know perfectly well that your troubles are not ones that can be dismissed with 'a whiff of grape-shot' or rightfully blamed on the symptoms of malfeasance and greed, such as outsourcing and illegal immigration.

We have the right to expect leaders who understand that it's their job to keep things from getting to such a point where we start to think wistfully about deploying Occam's Machine-Gun."

And there's another point in there that I wanted to sharpen a bit more.

We do have a right to be bitter about the results of being exploited and pandered to for political gain as a substitute for actual competent, compassionate and intelligently conservative management of our interests on our behalf. Hell, conservative voters have completely given up on the idea of government or their taxes bringing them any benefit - so long as it benefits nobody else, and so long as their frustrations are expressed in making the rubble jump somewhere far away.

But it's not enough, and it's certainly not worth three four dollar gasoline and milk at $3.50 when your wages have been stagnant for a decade or two.

"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." I think P.T. Barnum said that, and such philosophies were the root of an amazing and improbable fortune.

Now, let me conflate this with something I learned at my father's knee - he being a traveling salesman - was that the only way to sell was to totally convince yourself that what you were saying was true. The more dubious the proposition, the more skill it took to do that.

Of course, an honest person would look at this and think, "well, that's easy enough, don't sell things people won't want and don't need."

But look around you. Or just turn to the Home Shopping Network for a minute or two, and you will realize that they are not selling you the crappy cheap bauble or appliance of dubious utility, but rather a "lifestyle," a sense of security, of prosperity, of entitlement; of belonging to an "in group."

Do not think for a moment that those feelings deliberately raised in your hind-brain and attached to your choices in shopping, fashion, entertainment or politics are in any way genuine. It's a scam, and I can tell you that, because as I said, I learned to do this at my father's knee.

Now, the beauty of this from the viewpoint of our supposed Lords and Masters is that if we are indebting ourselves for a sense of false community with an an illusion prosperity and security, we will never actually build real communities that can provide real prosperity and security.

For instance - five families can individually go broke trying to maintain a cardboard McMansion apiece - or they could pool their skills, labor and buying power to build five real solid houses that would be more suited to each and far more valuable in the long run. If you want to learn all you need to know to do this - spend some time volunteering for Habitat for Humanity.

A substantial something - a solid home, a paid-off vehicle, a meaningful job doing what you would do anyway - is a far valuable than any appearance of prosperity built on debt, even if it seems like you are "less prosperous." And when this choice puts money in the bank at interest, you have options that no wage-slave can even imagine.

This is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning, and yet somehow we trip over something that is even more basic. Our need for community is such a powerful thing that it can completely override our self interest and make us fools for slavers and demagogues.

Even unreasonably well-paying jobs and tremendously important and meaningful careers may have a huge downside. If it places great stress on you either because of it's nature or because you absolutely hate doing it, you are actually converting your health into money - at a net loss. The same is true for jobs that have unavoidable health consequences or irreducible risks. If you are investing your future well-being into maintaining a paycheck-to-paycheck "lifestyle," you are freakin' hosed.

That is the mass delusion we have bought into - that it's better to go into debt to have new shiny crap than something that does what you need with total reliability, and that it is sensible to buy into a community on the condition that you continue to pay into it month by month with either money or labor.

A real community gives an unconditional crap about you; will take care of you if you are ill and raise your children if you die. A real community will not need to refer to a contract to do the right thing in either case because at the most basic, a community is an extended family, composed of individuals who depend upon one another and who know precisely to what degree, in what ways and with what resources each other individual may be presumed upon at need.

These ARE "Traditional Family Values." It has nothing to do with gay marriage, patriarchal structures, religious choice or morality. It's all about shared trust and mutual self-interest; whatever works to that end is Good, and whatever gets in the way of that is Bad.

Right now, there's an awful lot of Bad getting in the way of applying those values to practical outcomes.

It would be tragic enough if our fixation upon shiny trinkets and false profits (pun intended) were merely a common delusion of individuals - but in fact it's infested our government and our entire leadership class. Indeed, I rather imagine that there are quite a few people living "the good life" in "hunt country" with all the trappings of old money that are in fact leveraged to the eyeballs, to the point where any questions raised about ethical choices merely provokes bitter laughter.

Far too many of us have found that we are in situations where, seemingly, we have lost the option of even WISHING to be ethical people living blameless and productive lives. Even our religions have become mechanisms for shifting blame; if they had to rely on the good will of honest people, they would certainly be unable to support their institutional selves at the level of luxury and influence to which they have become accustomed.

But it's never too late to make a choice. The answer to all councils of despair and accommodation is this; YOU may not be able to "make a difference" if that effort depends on other people changing their lives and making choices you think they should make. If you wish to bring about a positive change in your life and the lives around you, change your life. Don't try to force others to change for your benefit - it's rude and it never works.

Enticements succeed where even naked force will fail, which is why capitalism and the free market is such a powerful idea - one that persists in spite of all attempts to co-opt it's power for the benefit of plutocrats and Party Members.

This is where I return to the example of five families building five homes, or five businesses, or five cars - or any such obviously mutually beneficial thing. Am I advocating socialism or some sort of Commune? Hell, no! It's pure Capitalism with direct conversion of sweat into equity.

Realize that it's always most profitable to get a direct benefit from your own effort. The use of money to pay for labor always translates into doing more work than you would have had to do. Ideally, you wish to trade labor for labor, not labor for money. But in order to do that effectively, there must be a large enough talent pool. Money is only a means to that end, as is credit. This is the point that both doctrinaire Capitalists and Communists miss to the point that they make practical forms of economic co-operation with either emphasis impossible in practice.

Money is simply stored labor. Labor is a form of capital, then. The more skilled the labor, the more valuable it is - but only if it can be applied to create real and persistent assets. Some types of labor do not produce "real" assets that are of direct value, they are "intangibles," such as art, music, literature, but they are also the things that make our lives livable and keep us entertained while our hands are busy.

Both are tools that you need, but should try to avoid using to avoid minor inconveniences and slight frustrations.

The real key here is when you work at a job in our current economy while using the proceeds of that job to service debt and "maintain a lifestyle," you are not free. You are a serf - tied to a job by means of debt. This is all the more true if your medical coverage depends upon that job.

This is a very damn expensive way to provide medical care, since it divides the risk pool into many shallow puddles, and indeed, quite a few corporations are whining about the huge expense and the need for universal health care.

But in fact, the price is rather low, compared to the thugs, dogs and fences that would otherwise be required to maintain a captive work-force.

So, here's my question: "Who are you working for?" Look at your budget, look at your real assets - the ones that you truly own. Look at your savings and future security. Look at your access to health care.

Are you, in fact free? Run the numbers. If you cannot afford to just say "shove it" and walk away from your job, you are not free and you cannot meaningfully call yourself a free citizen.

The most fundamental reason why the Franchise was first limited to free white property owners is that Free White Property owners were the only people economically independant enough to be contrary as a matter of principle.

The ideal of a proper government is to expand the meaningful franchise - which means expanding that degree of liberty as widely as possible.

Right now, the average person cannot afford principles. You probably cannot say "no" to outrageous presumptions, whether it be uncompensated overtime, sexual harassment or committing acts you know to be immoral, illegal or just plain stupid. You cannot insist on either doing the job right, or not at all. And these days, it's becoming iffy as to whether or not you even have the "right" to insist on being paid.

Let's go back to those five families. Consider all the capital they would build up by working together to provide comfortable homes for themselves. At some point, about the time college comes around, they have solidly feathered physical nests and money in the bank. One or more of those children is probably well-suited for a career in medicine. Doesn't it make sense to pool together to put one or two through medical school in return for a promise from that person to provide primary care to all five families? Hm. And a business degree or two might come in handy...

Of course the shiny new professionals will need things to do and places to do them ... so while those kids are in school, the families literally build a practice, and now, from the start of bare earth and sweat, we are on our way to building real wealth, because again, rent is simply money down the drain. If rent is to be paid, it should be paid TO the enterprise, not come out of it.

These are real old-fashioned family values. Me first, family second, clan third and country last - because each of those things depends on all needs of the more basic unit being fulfilled fully and first. Anything less than that is, in fact, a hidden debt or a concealed tax.

If you are sacrificing yourself for your family, your job, your cause or your nation, you literally have the cart before the horse, for none of those things will do all that well if the foundation of them - the individuals such as you - are not properly rewarded and fulfilled in doing so.

Real freedom requires that we invest in the freedom of others.

The Ghost of Barry Goldwater: Barry Knows Dead and Conservatism Ain't It

Yep. I'm a Conservative. Or a Progressive. Funny how it all boils down to the ability to question authority and laugh at the answer.

The Ghost of Barry Goldwater: Barry Knows Dead and Conservatism Ain't It

There's more...

The Conservative supports the right of workers to unionize and bargain collectively for their own Betterment. But he also supports the right of the individual to eschew forced membership in such groups as his conscience dictates.

The Conservative supports access to education for all and the formation of public services that “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty”. But Barry insists that these services be controlled at the local level, where they are accountable to the people who benefit or suffer under them.

The Conservative supports free enterprise and, as a direct consequence, sees Corporatism, as anathema to individual liberty, honest government, and democracy. As such we oppose laws that protect corporations from public accountability, specialized tax incentives for specific businesses, public funding or stipends of any kind for business, protectionism from foreign or domestic competition, and policy that subordinates the greater public good for the narrow corporate good.

The Conservative supports legislation that protects people from discrimination, enables and facilitates free speech, holds moneyed interests accountable to the people, seeks equality under the law, and protects the liberty of the individual. But we do not support legislation that treats the individual like dull witted chattel, who must be corralled and trained to better their natures. That’s the providence of T.V. preachers and Liberal do-gooders.

Bleeding Heart Libertarianism

Bleeding Heart Libertarian T-Shirt by webcarve
Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

I confess freely that I might be accurately described as a "bleeding heart libertarian."

I honestly believe that it is an objective good to care about my fellow man, his health, her welfare, their socioeconomic outcomes. But unlike a liberal, I will not try to convince either you or myself that is a purely altruistic concern, or that you should put their welfare before your own.

I believe that because I believe it to be rather obvious that my personal welfare and that of my neighbors and fellows are inextricably entangled, and that the only sure way to ensure my rights and to meet my needs is to be rather insistent about theirs not being infringed.

Indeed, I would much rather be loud and obnoxious about trespasses against others than against myself. It means I can meet the enemy on the ground of my own choosing. My tender concern here is better advised by Sun Tsu than by Mother Theresa, frankly.

Liberty is in many ways a paradoxical concept. Frankly, liberty is made possible by choices and most of our choices are made possible by infrastructure and agreements made, held and maintained in common, which, unavoidably, are enforced by regulations by one means or another; in secular societies, short of truly unreasonable expectations of one's fellow man, that regulation and infrastructure is provided by and overseen by government; a body which in my view of libertarian philosophy is the "trusted third party" in any exchange of value.

As a Libertarian, I believe in a free market, by which I mean a market in which all persons are able to participate on an equal footing, trading what they have for what they wish at a fair rate of exchange so that everyone involved feels as if they got the better end of the deal. If that sounds like an idealized and highly simplified description of capitalism, it is. It's also, you may note, an idealized description of Communism, in that it really is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." If you ignore the ugly black Marx on the idea, it's pretty much the definition of a fair trade within a properly regulated free market. "I do this, I need that. You have that, and you need this." It works fine, every day in every small town in North America - though of course none would call it Socialist, much less Communist.

(There may be a lesson in this as to what happens when you try to make common sense compulsory, inasmuch as those who see the need pretty obviously have none to begin with and are therefor bound to fail by definition.)

Nonetheless, left to their own devices, and without the advantage of the information provided them by Limbaugh and various free-lance parasites of the left and the right, the idea that co-operation is a lot easier and a lot better and for damn sure cheaper than conflict is pretty obvious.

Communism and Capitalism as philosophies useful for the exploitation of others assume that "needs" are a negotiable, or subject to the definition of others. A cynical, free market, second-amendment absolutist like I realizes that the only way in which MY actual needs are negotiable or definable to YOUR advantage is this - if you get in the way of my needs, how much damage are you prepared to suffer and inflict before one of us meets their needs over the dead body of the other

Civilization is a means of meeting basic needs without violence, and even more importantly, without the overhead of having to prepare to defend against it on a routine basis. Any political philosophy (and depressingly, that seems to be all of them, including the political party disguised as the Southern Baptist Conference) that willfully denies this reality will sooner or later experience some form of hot lead enema, and is therefore by definition worth less to any sensible being considerably less than the powder required to blow them to hell. It's a bitterly obvious truth that the usual response to this clearly obvious calculation is to artificially inflate the price of powder, rather than the real worth of the philosopher.

I don't know about you, but I have a very basic need to avoid hot lead enemas. Therefore, at the most basic level, I try my best to arrange things so that meeting MY needs does not require denying others having their needs met. Aside from being a Libertarian, I'm a lazy bastard, and I don't want to work that hard just to break even. And that, folks, is what zero-sum politics is, a situation in which a consistant break-even would be the only rational strategy - except that, of course, the cost of being in the game in the first place makes break-even strategies impossible. The only way to truly win, then, is to create conditions in which all the other suckers in the game lose.

Unless you are smart enough to realize that it's stupid to play that game. And frankly, you don't have to be all that smart to realize that, or to choose to play a non-zero-sum game.

As someone who does not let dogma and wishful thinking blind him to reality, I observe and argue that an "unregulated free market" is a contradiction in terms. Sooner rather than later, someone will realize that by cheating they will gain an advantage. This means that everyone else must play dirty - or not play at all. So now we DO have regulation - and it sucks. Further, that means that the ultimate question of who prospers is not the person who brings the best product, service or idea to the table, but the person who is able to use force most effectively to reduce the options of others.

Virtual though this force is, it cannot be argued that it is in any effective sense different in outcome than a fist to the face or a gun to the head. This, then, brings the ideal of "lazez-faire Capitalism" into focus as being an inherent violation of the Libertarian ideal of "non-initiation of force," because in Lazez-fair Capitalism, the winner is determined by who uses their force first and most effectively. Whether or not this exception is well understood or admitted by libertarians to my "right," it is nonetheless an obvious thing - and it brings an obvious libertarian response to the fore.

"The fact that you act as if you have the right to use force against me to gain my co-operation entitles me to use such tactics and such means of evasion, retaliation or subversion as I think best, without consideration of the consequences to you or yours."

Civilization developed, to explore a third option; the attractive possibility of banding together, hunting down the cheatin' bastards and prevent them by such means seem expedient from ever doing that again. After all, a rogue war-lord or President is no less dangerous than a rogue cougar. It could easily be argued that he's a lot MORE dangerous - a rogue cougar can kill only one person at a time, and won't kill more than they actually need to eat.

This cannot be said of George Bush.

Or, in all fairness, of Bill Clinton; who's record in terms of the use of military force for political advantage is only better in terms of having a lower body count.

That pretty much sums up the social and political climate we live in at the moment. Charitably, it is a clusterfuck. And I have to say, some of the worst offenders in terms of justifying the underpinnings of this particular clusterfuck are my fellow Libertarians.

The problem, of course, is that most self-described Libertarians are no more libertarian than most people who call themselves conservatives are Conservative. They are, indeed, as genuinely rare as Democrats that actually value the exercise of democracy. That is to say, only to the extent that the the philosophy enables them to play a zero-sum game at the expense of their fellows. No person who truly values liberty can in consonance deny it to others save when those others confuse liberty with the license to prey upon others. Then, those that value liberty should view those persons for what they truly are - their most personal and immediate enemies, who will have to be dealt with, sooner or later, by one means or another.

Because we, as a people, are lazy, short sighted, intemperate, selfish, uninformed and more than willing to allow ourselves to be shat upon in the name of "a little security," we have come to accept, somehow, that we deserve no better leaders than we have.

After all, we would have to choose to be worthy - to expect of ourselves standards that would allow us to hold our leaders to them without feeling like total asses.

So we live in a culture - using the term in the loosest sense - where a "libertarian" values his liberty in comparison and by means of denying as much liberty to others as they can manage, where a "democrat" values democracy only to the extent where it can be contrived to achieve predetermined conclusions, and where "republicans" are terrified of the consequences of permitting the election of representative representatives from the states to the Grand Old Republic.

Our political leaders can only compare themselves favorably, it seems, to televangelists, in terms of living up to the terms of their implied contracts with their social constituents. Certainly polls agree that in general, that's our opinion of them. But then, while having adulterous affairs with the vulnerable and under-aged may be no great recommendation for higher office, it is not a disqualification by definition.

But we accept that standard in our moral leadership, while proudly proclaiming, "This is a Christian Nation." Well, yeah, by THOSE standards!

It seems the more "Christian" you wish to be seen to be, the more likely it is that you are actively guilty of something that should disqualify you from being christian by definition.. Well, people get the leaders they deserve; and the church has no immunity in that respect. Pardon me if I cordially refuse to follow your leaders, political or moral.

You could contract a social disease that way, as one of the better possible outcomes.

Goodness, we have come to a point in our culture where we have begun to reasonably suspect that those who most deride drug usage use drugs by definition, that those who moralize the loudest against sexual misconduct are perps by definition and worst of all, even so cynically believing and accepting this truism as having far more truth to it than it should - we have yet to punish those most conspicuously guilty of such outrages in any significant way.

Well, folks. I don't think it's particularly prideful of me to say that I'm an exception, and to the extent possible I try to hold others accountable to an acceptable standard of behavior that is nonetheless more forgiving than what I expect of myself.

And that, folks, is what makes both civilization AND a decent degree of individual freedom possible at all - the expectation that we will each first govern ourselves, that we will ensure that we, at least, are not examples of what we should most despise - and therefore not be shy of expecting the same of those who think themselves qualified to lead and worthy of being an example to others.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Well, that should be good men and women - and not because I'm being politically correct. It's because I'm pointing out that we should expect twice the response that Burke could.

I ask of you, my good fellows of all genders; how deep does it have to get before you decide to start doing something about the evil seeping into your life?

"What can I do" is a stupid response. Noticing, pointing, and grabbing either a virtual mop or a virtual rifle is what is required. If it's gotten to the point where it's grown teeth and is attempting to eat your children - such as the evil of this war most certainly is - it's due to you and your failure as a citizen, just as it is mine. Let us at least try to act before the virtual must become actual, and our only choices are reduced to which end of the gun we are on.

This IS a Republic, with a Constitution, with rights taken with blood and thunder from the cold dead hands of people no worse than those occupying Washington right now. How ELSE could it be? And how could you possibly defend the right to expect anything better at this point in time?

I am a bleeding-heart Libertarian, and I would GREATLY prefer not to suffer so. I hate seeing the rights of my fellows and their economic options reduced by those too greedy and stupid to realize that they are twirling their mustaches in glee on their way to their own private Armageddon, the place of decision where the only decision left to the great majority will be which of that most arrogant, foolish and careless minority will first to go up against that wall. The fact that they undoubtedly deserve such an outcome does not make me willing to pay the price of enforcing it. I would much rather that enough were dragged kicking and screaming into the light by their moral and intellectual betters - that would be you - to make a difference.

It's a damn foolish thing to get between a free person and their needs. The only thing more foolish is to think that standing anywhere NEAR such a fool is an insurable position. Our Museums of History are littered with the shattered artifacts that sort of fool bought to commemorate their "victory" over those they thought sufficiently oppressed. But then, perhaps that is why our dear social betters are so resistant to the funding of those museums. Denial comes in many forms, does it not?

Free the iPhone : Support wireless freedom!

If you've ever accessed the web with your phone, you have probably realized two things: it's ungodly expensive and of dubious utility - in part due to carrier choke-points and built-in incompatibilities. It's not the web you get, per se, it's "the mobile web."

Here's a thought; what about some radical entrepreneur - possibly named Branson - coming up with a truly portable device that could surf networks, possibly on a pay as you go basis? Possibly one that would sort through competitive bids for access, taking the ones that match user priorities. And what if it could actually browse the whole web?

Free the iPhone : Support wireless freedom!: "Apple touts the iPhone as the “Internet in your pocket” — but it’s not. You can’t use it without signing on with AT&T, and once you do they cripple services, limit what you can do and restrict where you can go on the wireless Web.

We need Wireless Freedom — and our elected officials are the only ones who can give it to us: the freedom to use all Internet devices on any wireless network in a market that offers true high-speed Internet and real consumer choice.

Take action today. Demand that the FCC and Congress free the iPhone — and future gadgets like it — and put the Internet in the hands of everyone."

Theocracy; The worst of Socialism and Facism with none of the freedoms.

When Jesus said "feed my sheep," it was within a culture quite used to tripping over the damn things. Sheep are harmless unless they fall on you, inoffensive and have an amazing capacity for innocently wandering into death traps, stepping on feet and crapping indiscriminately. Furthermore, if not taken to where they are literally up to their ankles in food, they will helplessly starve while bleating pathetically. Jesus was a realist, and he was not complementing the flock, nor conveying power with out duty.

"Feeding the sheep" is a chore. A duty. An obligation of those capable of recognizing that for one reason or another, praise Goddess, they are NOT sheep.

I use the word Goddess to underline the fact that the duty is inescapable by simply choosing to become something other than Christian. Indeed, from my perspective, the ethics of the matter are clear enough that I'd be saying the same thing as an atheist.

Government is wholesale. Religion - and it's secular equivalents - are retail. By seeking to become major secular powers, influencing governments and dictating to people in wholesale lots, the various churches have both currently and historically become whores TO government, or become governments themselves.

But the shepherd does not get to choose which sheep they have a duty toward - they run after any sheep in trouble . The dogs may attend to the flock as a whole. And yes, we may indeed use that as a metaphor for Law.

The law is implacable, and for that reason alone it must be as minimal a restriction on individual liberty as possible, so that it does not interfere with our individual rights and responsibilities.

For instance, while it's Unconstitutional (a fact, though it's an often inconvenient fact in the face of the utter failure of our churches to do their rightful tasks) to forcibly take money from Peter to feed Paul, I see no constitutional impediment to it establishing mechanisms whereby Paul can choose to feed Peter.

It would certainly be Constitutional for it to invest in a universal insurance scheme that did not depend on borrowing from the future. Better yet, it could simply serve as a conduit for such schemes, to amortize risk, minimize overhead and serve to ensure that such services did not become schemes for profit or power.

No government - nor for that matter, religion - is truly wise and all-seeing enough to truly know what any of us need to meet our responsibilities, or even directly determine what our needs are and meet them. Were it possible to know, such knowledge would be so totally invasive as to completely strip us of all human dignity.

Therefore, state and church exist in separate, immiscible capacities to advise, and with our consent, provide information, resources and human contacts to help with those most personal and non-transferable duties. Nor may any entity, person, religion, corporation or government claim to be wise enough to know for certain that in the face of a poor outcome, their choices would have been better on behalf of any particular individual.

First attempt define what "better" would be for every single affected person with inarguable accuracy first, with absolute reliability from the viewpoint of those in need and you will see my point. Even the most obvious-seeming judgments rely on assumptions based on your informed guess as to what would be best for most people, with "most" being ultimately defined as "people you know."

Therefore, "judge not, lest you be judged also." It's not a prediction of future consequence, it's an observation of very immediate human reaction. The moment you make assumptions about individuals based on your assumptions about what people "should" do or be able to do, you reveal your own personal inability to accept realities and people outside of your understanding.

To you Christians out there who nonetheless refuse to feed Paul for various transparently false rationalizations - the Bible says that if someone comes to your town and is hungry, and he is not fed, clothed and given refuge, then they may take what he needs from the altar of the Temple. As I recall, it would ordinarily be a lesser offense under the Levitical Code you are all so fond of for them to steal from you.

The Constitution will not force you to act morally, ethically or even responsibly. It does not demand that you "hold up your end," nor will it force others to compensate for your lack. It will not protect you from the consequences of pretending you are when you are not. Nor is there any legitimate religion, system of ethics or morality that will pretend otherwise. Not even Satanism. What the Constitution does is to attempt to limit Government from interfering with your rights - and empowering it to protect your individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the encroachment of others.

If you are genuinely unable by temperament, mental state, or circumstances to act responsibly in all things, then it is your responsibility to seek out help, just as it is your duty to help when called on by those in genuine need. There is a reciprocal responsibility to be helpful, and where government can legitimately make help from over here available over there it must - as our designated agent and adviser.

It's just that simple, and no, you really don't get to pick and choose between the "deserving and undeserving;" not as a Christian, and certainly not as a Deist, a Humanist or indeed, an irreligious, self-centered couch-potato. Refusing to recognize an ethical necessity does not make it go away.

As I study the Constitution, I realize more and more that it deliberately denies the People the comfortable apathy of a state that exists to "take care" of them. Even the sheep have the the minimum responsibility of finding a trustworthy shepherd. Those of you claiming to be shepherds, but who are but shills for the slaughterhouse - well, sooner or later the smell of blood will betray you.

Aint' that right, Messers. Bush and Haggard?

With such examples of "Christianity" in positions of power, it is deeply and damnably ironic to hear comparable asshats intone that "This Is A Christian Nation."

Note: This is a slightly edited excerpt from an earlier post. When I saw the Blog Against Theocracy alert, I realize that this chunk could stand on it's own, even though it's part of a larger post about our personal responsibility to act ethically toward others with the unique skills, talents and insights that we actually have - and that responsibility is something government cannot really absolve us of, nor can religion limit for the sake of our personal comfort.

The Abandonment of Moral Agency in America.

Hugh Hefner with Girlfriend and "Girl Next Door" Kendra

I happen to think that Hugh Hefner demonstrates better morals and is a better example of a socially-concious, patriotic Citizen than any any randomly selected politician or pulpet-pounder you are likely to come up with as a counterexample. Why? Actions speak louder than words.

Lets's start this out with a quote from Tibor R. Machan, Co-Founder of Reason Magazine.

..when someone advocates a disagreeable idea, no one's rights are being violated; when someone engages in self-destructive conduct, once again the culprit isn't violating any rights; when someone sells dope to a willing adult buyer, once again no rights are being violated. Consensual interaction can not be rights violating.

But what, you might ask, about vulnerable folks, with weak wills? Here is where the complications arise, which is why the matter isn't amenable to being treated briefly. If ordinary citizens, human beings, do have free will, as morality and the criminal law assume, they are able, even if with some difficulty, to resist temptations and inducements from others to do what can hurt them. If they refuse to resist, if they decide to take up a bad habit-smoking dope, gambling excessively, hiring hookers-and even get addicted, this is their responsibility to handle. Others may be morally blameworthy for attempting to induce them, tempting them, promoting the bad behavior, but no one has violated their rights in doing this. I can influence others, perhaps, with fancy words, with charisma, and the like but none of this forcibly imposes anything on them, none of it amounts to violating their rights. Even if they are unusually vulnerable, they have the freedom to take measures to protect themselves from my bad influence-they can avoid me, form a support group to keep away from tempting literature I might send their way, and so forth.

Indeed, it is both insulting and presumptuous to assume that others ARE "acting irresponsibly" or subject to "bad influences," and to interfere with their rights, associations and chosen supports, friends and even chemical crutches on that basis is both unethical and immoral. If they wish your advice, they may ask. And of course, to complain of their choices imposes the moral obligation upon you to provide choices that are objectively better than theirs.

..within the framework of the American political and legal tradition, animated by the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence, victimless crimes simply are no proper crimes at all. The people "committing" them may be vicious, evil, acting immorally, and so forth but their doing so does not suffice, in a free society, to make them criminals.

My thoughts, below the fold.
There's more...
As I've said many times and in many ways, morality is not the proper concern of government, it is the proper province of religion and religious leaders, for the very reasons related above.

For religion to become government, or government to become religious is to degrade the legitimate authority of each, with the price of a bastard entity that has less social utility than either separate entity, much less the combined force of each. Don't take my word for this, read some history. It's utterly lousy with examples, from Phillip of Spain to Constantine to the Holy Inquisition.

Government, ideally speaking, places few, and only necessary limitations upon the liberty of individuals in order to protect the interests of all. For instance, driver's licenses and speed regulations.

Aside from having the force of law, speed limits are based on the far more immutable laws of physics - stopping distance, limits of visibility and the like. In other words, aside from the law and it's role in determining accountability should you screw up, it is also doing it's higher duty of providing you with information so that you do NOT screw up in a way potentially harmful to others.

But, ultimately, how fast you drive is your choice, and speed limits (as well as most other traffic laws) are obviously considered advisory by many people. We all put up with the consequences of that with every single commute, yet while it's technically feasible and probably cost effective, you aren't seeing "smart roads" springing up, so that all high-speed traffic is computer controlled. Individual liberty is worth some calculated risks and many inconveniences.

I think it obvious that a single person in their own vehicle under conditions that do not exceed their ability, with no other person's life at risk without consent should have the right to make such calculated risks. I have no problem with that. Nor will you see the highway patrol in any state wasting much time patrolling lonely roads to protect people from miscalculations.

The question as to whether you have the moral right to put yourself at risk is quite another matter - and the answer varies greatly due to the religion. Some would bypass that by saying that you have the moral obligation to obey all laws, so as not to be a bad example to others.

I personally reject that arguement, for it precludes responsible civil disobedience. Worse yet it makes "respect for authority" a moral imperative, irrespective of it's competence or consequences. There is a place for social disobedience as a statement of personal, moral and ethical integrity, with consequences that are no more avoidable for being largely un-addressed in law.

Separation of church and state is not for the benefit of the unchurched, nor is it for the benefit of an "amoral" government. Our government has a Constitution, which is it's particular "morality;" it's legal and ethical boundaries set in stone. It quite properly leaves the moral dimension of individual actions to those with the moral responsibility to handle those choices. For those that have difficulty with making good moral and ethical choices, we have separate institutions, as Machan notes above; churches, AA, Masonic orders and the Rotary Club that each deal with various aspects and dimensions of personal and professional ethics, moral choice and individual responsibility.

Should their advice become law, whatever spiritual benefit that may accrue from making the "right" choices comes rightfully into question, as does the necessity for the institution itself.

Worse yet, these ultimate questions of ethics become identified with particular political viewpoints, economic interests and doctrinal associations. And to the extent that one or another congregation of interest "wins" a point, individual liberty is always diminished, at the expense of both the individual and the consequent life-lesson.

If I avoid "occasions of sin" because consequences for such "sins" have been inflated to the point of absurdity, what need have I for a church? The government will suffice, and then all that is not forbidden is permitted. Conversely, if all "sins" recognized by government are known by their draconian punishments, it becomes far more possible to shrug off the ordinary consequences of mistakes ("sin" means just that, "mistake") that are not deemed illegal.

I humbly suggest that we already see the consequences of this sort of thinking - and most dramatically within the folds of the very strictest denominations themselves. The crusade against "moral relativism" is in fact just this - an attempt to extinguish the idea that a particular action may have particular consequences under particular circumstances that make it specifically a sin for that person in that case - but not in another. This, of course, requires individual judgment informed by specific understandings of ethics and moral choice, a realization that would put a large number of professional moralists out of work.

But if "moral relativism" is so dangerous, we should look at the success rate for "Moral Absolutism, " the choice of dominionists and fundamentalists of most religions.

The metrics for divorce are higher in states dominated by the "big box churches", for example, by significant margins. This is one of many indicators that suggest to me that the conservative churches of America, in focusing on the sins of those outside their congregation and insisting on the general at the expense of the specific have failed their duties to the flock within. That duty is not to the group as a whole, much less to the nation as a whole - it is to each and every separate individual faced with their own individual challenges.

When Jesus said "feed my sheep," it was within a culture quite used to tripping over the damn things. Sheep are harmless unless they fall on you, inoffensive and have an amazing capacity for innocently wandering into death traps, stepping on feet and crapping indiscriminately. Furthermore, if not taken to where they are literally up to their ankles in food, they will helplessly starve while bleating pathetically. Jesus was a realist, and he was not complementing the flock, nor conveying power with out duty.

"Feeding the sheep" is a chore. A duty. An obligation of those capable of recognizing that for one reason or another, praise Goddess, they are NOT sheep.

I use the word Goddess to underline the fact that the duty is inescapable by simply choosing to become something other than Christian. Indeed, from my perspective, the ethics of the matter are clear enough that I'd be saying the same thing as an atheist.

Government is wholesale. Religion - and it's secular equivalents - are retail. By seeking to become major secular powers, influencing governments the various churches have both currently and historically become whores TO government, or become governments themselves.

But the shepherd does not get to choose which sheep they have a duty toward - they run after any sheep in trouble . The dogs may attend to the flock as a whole. And yes, we may indeed use that as a metaphor for Law.

The law is implacable, and for that reason alone it must be as minimal a restriction on individual liberty as possible, so that it does not interfere with our individual rights and responsibilities.

For instance, while it's Unconstitutional (a fact, though it's an often inconvenient fact in the face of the utter failure of our churches to do their rightful tasks) to forcibly take money from Peter to feed Paul, I see no constitutional impediment to it establishing mechanisms whereby Paul can choose to feed Peter.

It would certainly be Constitutional for it to invest in a universal insurance scheme that did not depend on borrowing from the future. Better yet, it could simply serve as a conduit for such schemes, to amortize risk, minimize overhead and serve to ensure that such services did not become schemes for profit or power.

No government - nor for that matter, religion - is truly wise and all-seeing enough to truly know what any of us need to meet our responsibilities, or even directly determine what our needs are and meet them. Were it possible to know, such knowledge would be so totally invasive as to completely strip us of all human dignity.

Therefore, state and church exist in separate, immiscable capacities to advise, and with our consent, provide information, resources and human contacts to help with those most personal and non-transferable duties. Nor may any entity, person, religion, corporation or government claim to be wise enough to know for certain that in the face of a poor outcome, their choices would have been better on behalf of any particular individual.

First attempt define what "better" would be for every single affected person with inarguable accuracy first, with absolute reliability from the viewpoint of those in need and you will see my point. Even the most obvious-seeming judgments rely on assumptions based on your informed guess as to what would be best for most people, with "most" being ultimately defined as "people you know."

Therefore, "judge not, lest you be judged also." It's not a prediction of future consequence, it's an observation of very immediate human reaction. The moment you make assumptions about individuals based on your assumptions about what people "should" do or be able to do, you reveal your own personal inability to accept realities and people outside of your understanding.

To you Christians out there who nonetheless refuse to feed Paul for various transparently false rationalizations - the Bible says that if someone comes to your town and is hungry, and he is not fed, clothed and given refuge, then they may take what he needs from the altar of the Temple. As I recall, it would ordinarily be a lesser offense under the Levitical Code you are all so fond of for them to steal from you.

The Constitution will not force you to act morally, ethically or even responsibly. It does not demand that you "hold up your end," nor will it force others to compensate for your lack. It will not protect you from the consequences of pretending you are when you are not. Nor is there any legitimate religion, system of ethics or morality that will pretend otherwise. Not even Satanism. What the Constitution does is to attempt to limit Government from interfering with your rights - and empowering it to protect your individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the encroachment of others.

If you are genuinely unable by temperament, mental state, or circumstances to act responsibly in all things, then it is your responsibility to seek out help, just as it is your duty to help when called on by those in genuine need. There is a reciprocal responsibility to be helpful, and where government can legitimately make help from over here available over there it must - as our designated agent and adviser.

It's just that simple, and no, you really don't get to pick and choose between the "deserving and undeserving;" not as a Christian, and certainly not as a Deist, a Humanist or indeed, an irreligious, self-centered couch-potato. Refusing to recognize an ethical necessity does not make it go away.

As I study the Constitution, I realize more and more that it deliberately denies the People the comfortable apathy of a state that exists to "take care" of them. Even the sheep have the the minimum responsibility of finding a trustworthy shepherd. Those of you claiming to be shepherds, but who are but shills for the slaughterhouse - well, sooner or later the smell of blood will betray you.

Aint' that right, Messers. Bush and Haggard?

With such examples of "Christianity" in positions of power, it is deeply and damnably ironic to hear comparable asshats intone that "This Is A Christian Nation." With Pharisees in charge, it's time to consult a Samaritan.

Here's an example of a really excellent Samaritan. (NSFW)

Yes, that links to Playboy's "The Girls Next Door." And yes, Hefner has all three of them underfoot. And yes, I'm sure the relationship is mutually satisfactory, sexually and financially.

But the point is, it's not a relationship Hefner has any obvious financial need to have and watching the show is evidence enough that there are some significant downsides. Hef chose to care for three girls who are... erm... well, they are prettier than sheep but not a whole lot smarter.

My wife - the special educator - became fascinated by the show. Kendra is her favorite. She says it gives her hope for some of her students.

You see, responsibility need not be fulfilled out of pure altruism, nor are you expected to be of help where you cannot. Such bizarre ideas lead inevitably to abuse, exploitation and burnout.

Those particular three women would drive me completely, stark raving mad, even were I financially capable of padding life's corners for them as Hefner has. Furthermore, by giving each of them responsibilities commensurate to their talents, such as this show, he is also giving them an individual dignity that few others could.

The show itself makes one smile. That was something I simply did not expect. I thought it would be primarily about cleavage and jiggle, but oddly, it's mostly not. Or rather, cleavage and jiggle is so pervasive it becomes invisible, even when they are wandering around as blissfully naked as happy toddlers. (I actually find the FCC-required blur troubling, it transforms the nudity into a sexualized nakedness that simply doesn't exist without it.)

That's really how they come across, as happy innocents who really do not get what all the fuss is about being naked in the sunshine. It makes one question whether in "knowing better," one is really choosing something that is, in fact "better."

I grudgingly admit that it's forced me to reassess my own prejudices regarding stereotypical "blond bimbos," even as my wife's love for dogs made me reassess dogs in the light of her love and acceptance of the nature of dogs.

Dogs are dogs, and no amount of therapy or exhortation will make them into cats or caterpillars, so one may as well enjoy them for what they are, rather than condemning them for what they are not. As one who has much need to claim such indulgences - I find myself embarrassed that I had un-noticed reservation in giving equal charity to others.

Being factually more intelligent than any of the girls does not make me a better person, and certainly not a less inherently annoying person.

What makes me a better person is being accepted for who and what I am, without shame or embarrassment, and being aided (by my lovely wife) to leverage my abilities to our mutual pleasure, advantage and satisfaction.

In my own unique way, I can exhibit stupidities to rival those of any of those three - and without being nearly as decorative. But under Hef's gentle rule, they flourish, and manage to rise to meet his own, rather unusual needs. I'm not talking sex, per se. Hefner seems to have a need for a degree of isolation from "the real world" that exceeds even mine - and so he has dedicated his whole life toward creating his own private Xanadu. He makes it possible by sharing his idea of beauty open-handedly. There is a price of admission, of course, but one must pay the staff.

And, interestingly enough, the staff does things for Hefner on a routine basis that I cannot imagine that most bosses could expect in their wildest dreams. There's something about Hef that is truly sweet and innocent, that makes one want to keep him safe from the sharp corners of the world.

The result is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - most of which would be pretty dysfunctional without the whole. And yet there are many who would cheerfully "save" these girls from sin, and smash Hef's whole empire out of a moral superiority that obviously blinds them to evident fact.

This is why growups refuse to let the morality of others get in the way of one's own ethics, and such also is the advantage of refusing to be bound by the disapproval of those who would certainly refuse to do the right thing themselves on "moral" grounds. Were these girls to have been in Ireland as little as ten years ago, they could easily have been "helped" by being forced into a Magdeline Laundry.

Such is the "charity" of our churches who would consider that preferable to being safely and well employed being an instructive "occasion of sin" to bluenoses and moralists.

As a Libertarian, I accept the principle that charity is not the province of government. That does not make the duty to be charitable and neighborly, decent and civilized go away - as so many of my fellow Libs and certainly the vocal right wing preach and practice. Charity is OUR duty.

"Charity" such as the Magdeline Laundries, and all other such joyless, cheerless and oppressive substitutes for the plain obligations we have to one another are the result of the religious acting towards others as if they were a government.

Clearly, they do this no better than Governments On Crusade Against The Heathen.

But neither can become such abominations of desolation without our permission and tacit support. Only by abandoning our duty can they achieve such power over the "others" we see as being "the problem." This of course grants them power over us they neither need, deserve nor handle well.

It's time for us to join together in demanding that our government govern constitutionally and our religions and other such groups return to the duties they have long abandoned, which ultimately is to aid each individual who asks in governing themselves and fulfilling their own duties as best they can.

We can make an immediate start by doing two simple things: first, take back our government by impeaching those who have taken and misused that power. Second, we must take back our own moral agency from those who have willfully abused our trust by telling us that we should support this most damnable, immoral, unchristian war.

Not just Christians - groups and supposed "authority" of all stripes that have encouraged us to "trust" this administration, to trust in their good intentions against all evidence and against all principles of just law, just war and the teachings of every scripture and source of wise and tested moral and practical wisdom must suffer correction at your hands.

Shake the dust from your feet. LEAVE your big-box church. TURN the dial on your radio. Reclaim your moral agency and never again suppress your doubts or hold back sharing your reproof for those who's words from the pulpit encourage moral apathy, complacency or seek to make you fearful of the consequences of questioning authority and seeking to know the truth for yourself.

Everything George Bush has said and done, he has done in your name. Everything that Pat Robertson, Sun Myung Moon, James Dobson and others have been able to achieve, socially and politically is because you choose to fund and support them in the face of overwhelming evidence that their alliances, motives and beliefs rendered them untrustworthy by definition.

Are you comfortable with the results you see? Are you happy with the consequences of your misplaced trust? Indeed, have you even bothered to check for yourself? Whether or not you know, whatever you believe to be true, whatever you wish to be the truth is irrelevant.

You are accountable for the consequences of YOUR choices to other actual individuals. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Not just because it's RIGHT, because that's exactly what they will do.

Empowering others to make moral choices and act against the interests of others in your name does not absolve you from any consequences at all, no matter whether you believe in God, Provenance, random chance or merely human nature. Right now, your choice is to stand up and hold yourself accountable for your mistakes - or accept the fact that others will. Because they do, and have every right to do so.

tag: Reason, Morality, Law, Ethics, Government, Libertarian Philosophy, Religious Ethics, Individual Responsibility, Social Obligations, Impeachment, Citizenship, United States, Patriotism, Hugh Hefner, The Girls Next Door, Tibor R. Machan, Christianity, Unintended Consequences, common decency, culture, Christianists, Constitution, cultural warfare

Attenion Ron Paul: I present The No Stupid Rules Amendment

I am a libertarian and a constitutionalist - in that order. Ron Paul seems to reverse that order, but I may be wrong. In order to clarify that matter, I wonder what Ron might have to say about this Constitutional Amendment, which I cleverly title The No Stupid Rules Amendment. It's intended to forestall legislative and executive abuses of power and common infringements of individual liberties.

There's more...

The No Stupid Rules Amendment

1. Congress shall pass no law, nor shall courts uphold any existing law which
   has the overriding effect or intent of financially benefiting one group of
   citizens or corporate entity over another.
   


2. 
   Congress shall pass no law, nor shall courts uphold any existing law which
   has the overriding effect or intent of advantaging or penalizing ethnic
   custom, matters of individual faith and belief, or private behavior.
   
1. 
   This specifically includes taxation and tax exemptions.
2. Nor shall any law or regulation that requires the invasion of privacy or compromise of privilege to be detected be countenanced.
   
3. Evidence derived from such violations of privacy or privileged communication shall be inadmissible in any court or proceeding under color of law.
   




3. 
   The definition of "family" is recognized as being that of those deemed
   involved by mutually agreeable compacts which shall be recognized as being
   governed by ordinary contract law in the state they were entered into.
   




1. 
   States shall not impose unreasonable or unequal costs or requirements upon
   such compacts.
   


2. 
   This shall not be taken to imply that the state has any interest
   whatsoever in religious unions or the intent of voiding limitations or
   requirements placed upon those unions. States shall not require,
   enforce, regulate or forbid any such union.
   


3. 
   States may, at their discretion and as a matter of convenience provide
   standard format contracts which address common circumstances and
   requirements, but it is to be understood that there is to be no
   established preference upon the part of the state, nor may any particular
   form that limits the free choices of the contracted be a requirement.
   
4. 
   This amendment is not intended to override legitimate concerns about
   environmental, social or financial impacts, but all such concerns must be
   addressed by the least restrictive means possible and in no way may such
   concerns override the rights recognized in this Amendment.
   


5. 
   The right to freely self-medicate and to freely refuse to be mediated for
   any reason is recognized.
   
1. 
   Notwithstanding, the responsibility for impairment and other consequences
   is that of the individual.
   
6. 
   Congress shall not pass, nor shall courts uphold existing taxation or tariff
   laws that are designed or have the effect of restricting access to any thing
   to those able to afford the tax, nor in any case or for any reason may such
   taxes or tariffs exceed 100% of the retail cost.
   
   
1. 
   Congress will pass no law, nor shall any regulation be made creating
   product or service standards, regulatory requirements or compliance costs
   that have that same effect, save to the extent that such regulations are
   addressed towards the safety of the user, by the least restrictive means.
   No such extant law may be enforced or upheld.
   

After you read my proposed Constitutional Amendment, (click the "read full article link below" you comments would be very much appreciated. Furthermore, you are invited to participate in refining what is very much a rough draft. And please, forward, digg, stumble and otherwise widely distribute this idea to everyone you know who might be in favor OR passionately opposed.

tag: no stupid rules amendment, ron paul, constitution, constitutional amendment, Domestic Policy, tax inequities, states rights, critical thinking, Constitutional Government, Personal Responsibility, Individual Rights, Individual Liberty

What a long strange journey... (Updated)

Dear George Soros;

Yesterday was a strange journey in linkhopping, which I'm going to try and reproduce from my history, as recording it got interrupted by Life. Checking The Daily Kos (while looking for Cindy Sheehan's Farewell) pointed me at strange events at Free Republic, and checking references to that led me to this Myspace Blog which quoted a statement on Patriotism by Ron Paul. I reproduce it full in a separate post, as it needs to be easily found and widely read.

And THAT led me to write this scrolling monstrosity. More below the fold.

You see, I'm getting to like Ron Paul as a candidate, and I think you might want to lay a few discreet bets on him. Even though I call myself "libertarian," I've never voted for Ron Paul, or indeed, very many Libertarians, inasmuch as most seem to be as doctrinally inflexible as young-earth Creationists. Most seem very much concerned about their freedom from (insert pet peeve here) and at the same time resist any suggestion of any personal responsibility to defend the inalienable rights of other person from abuses - at least, so long as those abuses are not at the hands of the Evil State.

I tend to refer to that sort of Libertarian as an "ah gawt a gawdamn RIGHTist," and it generally devolves in practice to a system of denying any responsibility toward "promoting the general welfare" or heeding the legitimate concerns of others that you may not be properly equipped or actually qualified to be brewing up methamphetimine in your basement "lab."

But this same legitimate skepticism applies with equal ruthlessness to our self-appointed Lords and Masters; given their track record known from the Cold War and earlier, I do seriously question the reasonably of blindly trusting, say, the Army, to be playing with biological or radiological weapons without robust accountability and independent supervision.

Ron Paul has much of that sort of grown-up skepticism tempering his ideology, and he's a rabid Constitutionalist. I'm thinking he's a great counterbalance to an increasingly Progressive-Liberal Congress - one likely to be far further to the Left than now in 2008. Well, as Progressive a libertarian as I am, it's within the bounds of Constitutional limitations, and I think that's a necessary check on the enthusiasms of the Left.

But more importantly, we need leaders to remind us that this mess is the result of the vast majority of the citizenry ignoring their duty to be informed and to participate in some way in the national discourse. While I find Progressives and Liberals better informed in general, and with a realistic view of the errors of the other side, I am not therefore convinced their ideas are better - just perhaps less obviously bad.

There must be a means of ensuring that everyone's interests are guarded, not just those currently unscrewed by the party in power. I think a Libertarian Republican President will influence a Progressive Congress in the correct direction. But mostly I hope he serves to call the people to pay greater attention, and penalize such media that continues it's efforts to misinform and bamboozle the American people into indifferent and unpatriotic apathy.

Just as there are natural rights, there are corresponding natural obligations, duties and responsibilities. Liberty is not freedom from responsibility to others, and it's not even freedom from responsibility to deal with things outside of your ordinary scope of interest. As a free, honorable and ethical person, there are things that we must stand up for, recognizing that it may be at a cost to our own personal comfort, our store of wealth, comfort or even personal safety.

A Libertarian society will never be as "safe" as the warm wet diaper of those Siamese twins of statist rule, fascism and socialism. But in rejecting them as forms of government, let us not presume that they evolved merely as a means of placing power in the hands of a few. They both address real problems with certain social biases - and each can, at least theoretically, do so rather well and certainly more efficiently than a glorious anarchy.

Such "anarchy" is fearfully promised those so unwise as to consider the vision of a society that is truly "self governed" by those who fear either the ability of their neighbors to govern themselves or who prefer to compel them to do "the right thing" by force. But in practice, they needn't worry. Some form of organizing structure is needed, not just practically, but psychologically. True anarchy will never exist for long, and therefore we must aim for the least, best government possible. Part of it's entire raison d'etre is providing occupation for those who do need and desire power over others - while keeping a very close eye and a short Constitutional reign.

While there is no "natural right" to hold power over others but there is often the opportunity, and the capability and experience to do it well and enjoy the task does rather imply a duty to take it. Power is as often thrust upon those who fail to firmly enforce their unwillingness to so serve as it is hotly pursued.

Ain't that right, Mr. Gore?

But as I say, there is no "natural right" to be a Senator or for one party or another to be in power. They must earn that right, and keep earning it by using that power well to further the interests of the broad majority. Those who fail to understand that there is a quid pro quo here - and that would be the entire Republican Party Machine, absent a few stray and marginalized individuals here and there - will soon find themselves paying the price of abusing power in the name of keeping it without having earned it.

But those offices and duties will not go away. Whatever we may think of the job our elected officials are doing, there are damn few willing and qualified and wealthy enough to take those jobs on under the current conditions. Further, our current conditions damn near preclude being able to do any job other than hanging on to the job.

Let us therefore have mercy on those who are equipped to do it well by recognizing that those who have done much cannot reasonably and routinely be expected to do even more at higher levels of risk, cost and time. The founders intended Congress to be filled by citizens, and intended elective office to be an attainable goal at a sustainable cost to the individuals concerned. This may be accomplished by each of us delegating a little less personal power and individual responsibility, while gracefully accepting a little more assistance from our fellow citizens in meeting those obligations.

We here within the Blogosphere are broadly united in our contempt for the job government is doing - forgetting that it is our job, and we have delegated these people to do it, for good or ill. Since it is mostly ill, it's up to us to change that, and some of us will have to step up and do the work that must be done. To complain is to volunteer.

But that's pointless idealism absent any reasonable, simple and seamless means to achieve it. This is a point that most Libertarians (and republicans) seem to miss; if government is to govern less, Individuals must govern themselves MORE. What government does exist should have as it's primary goal making self-government as simple, routine and affordable as possible to as many people as possible.

I am a pragmatic libertarian; I do not automatically dismiss the idea of governmental mechanisms simply because they have been associated with various forms of statism. I simply observe that a tool does what the hand tells it to do, neither more nor less.

Whatever theory of government (or absence thereof), there are certain legitimate common concerns, and if your governing ideology denies the validity of those common concerns, the people will withdraw their consent. Once they have done so, a state may persist for some time via force and oppression, but in historical terms, any semblance of life is provided by maggots consuming the corpse from within. Therefore, the best governing ideology is "That which is constitutional, affordable and widely demanded."

If free men and women are expected to govern themselves, to behave as grownups and voluntarily exercise their duties as citizens, they must have direct access to some version of the actual mechanisms and institutions of state to use toward the common good.

Whatever we choose to call it, some form of universal assurance that the risks of assuming the duties of citizenship and the costs of what responsibilities may land in one's lap are acceptable risks and reasonable expectations. If we wish to dis-empower centralized government and return that authority to the people, the people must have the ability to achieve the same general ends as the centralized authority was created to accomplish. (Assuming, of course, that it was a good idea in the fist place.)

Since we cannot feasibly predict (nor have the right to presume) who can do what or who will succeed and who will fail, we should hedge our bets by investing in our collective security while doubling down on individual triumphs and innovations.

And with that viewpoint, existing government mechanisms as an array of services presented, delivered and indeed administered as a form of insurance becomes obvious, and the idea of government distributing a certain amount of the national GNP to citizens to be entrusted with starts making sense.

For instance, universal access to health care. Personally, I see this as both a moral obligation and one of collective self-interest, just as I see other linked services often dismissed as "evil welfare."

I have a contrary view - I want my fast-food provided by people who can afford to stay home and not sneeze into my cheeseburger! I want them able to afford to deal with the sniffles before their immune system starts giving up and allowing that sneeze to spread streptococci all over the salad bar. And frankly, I'd rather invest in a mom staying home to raise her kids to be responsible citizens than deal with the costs of her working 18 hour days and NOT raising them as best she can.

Our prisons are filled with products of that view of "personal responsibility," which is in fact the denial of the stark reality that in order to be truly responsible in the duties life hands us, we cannot always do so without help. Meanwhile, we have a gigantic bureaucratic organization which has the affirmative duty and presumption that people do not "deserve" help until they manage somehow to prove deserving. Even given how obviously expensive that presumption must be, it manages to cost about twice as much as you would expect. Or in other words, we pay more to say "screw you" to the poor than it would cost to make them less poor, less inclined to take stupid survival-level risks, and more able to take constructive risks, without fear of homelessness as the price of failure.

A working system of welfare, universal health care and unemployment insurance is not anti-business. At least, not according to the US, which tried to pressure Canada to abandon universal health care under GATT as an "unfair subsidy to business." To this I would add a universal free, well-funded education from kindergarten to the second year of Jr. College.

Other libertarians and Conservatives may howl at this, but I believe I have good reasons for it and I'm not precluding a voucher system - though I am in favor of mandatory standard civics and critical thinking curriculae. In order to function and tolerate a great deal of diversity without fragmenting, society needs a basis of common experience and understanding, as well as at least one common language.

All of these things (including universal education) actually remove large diffuse costs and hidden taxes and place them in one, simple, easily accounted pile labeled "the price of doing the national business." Having such a thing in place, we can contemplate serious tort reform too. There's another few billions not being sucked out of the economy in malpractice and liability insurance fees.

Any amount of money you have to pay in order to live your life or conduct your business is a tax. It doesn't matter if it goes to the government or is simply consumed a nickle here and a dime there in fees for this and compliance costs for that. So, anything we can do to reduce the overhead costs of business amounts to the same as a tax cut for business.

My vision is far more a change of attitude than of mechanism. You'd recognize the form of it as an old idea, a Guaranteed Annual Income. The difference in philosophy is this; it's not an "entitlement," it's a provision of means for each person to act more responsibly and more effectively than they could otherwise, with a strong social expectation that they will do so.

It would not be the whole federal budget, but it would be a significant chunk OF it.

Legislation is not needed to enforce this; custom, coupled with education in civic responsibility is far more powerful and far less arguable than legislation.

People do generally live up to or down to the expectations society has for them, and at the very worst, we have empowered a great number of people to stay out of prison.

In passing, and we also replaced block grants, various educational endowments, and the National Endowment for the Arts. All we need to do to achieve this is expect people to do what they ordinarly do with money; we trust people to either live on it, donate it, invest it or blow it on liquor - in all cases it will strengthen economies and causes they individually find important, and it will be done on a finer, more focused scale than pork-barreling and federal grants will permit. It eliminates the need for social security. We take the focus away from making an individual prove they need help and focus instead on the simplest possible means of raising the minimum standard of living tolerable to a civilized nation.

We could tax the principal back from people making above a certain amount, but perhaps (and I suspect this will be the case) we will have saved so much in overhead that it won't be worth the administrative costs of recovery. But we could claw it back in other ways as well. What if you could use that money AND any money you could demostrate had come from that money to fund legislation you favored? We do this by making a certain part of the federal budget into a "wish list" and leave funding those initiatives to the people themselves. Hell, it's not like we don't have the expertise.

We need mechanisms to efficiently alert those who seek a responsiblity to take it on. You are looking at it, and given that it exists, we don't need to re-invent the wheel.

We also need to abandon the idea that all things of value may be measured in money alone. Indeed, that's the very basis of a free market economy - if there were no intangible values, there would be huge sectors of our economy that would be completely unsustainable.

There are such things as overriding social value, such as empowering those who are accomplished at raising children to concentrate on that, while empowering those who suck at it to afford the services of those who are concentrating on raising kids.

Oh, gee; we just did that. And we didn't need a bureaucracy to accomplish it. Mom can afford to stay home, other moms can afford to pay her for daycare because the basics are covered.

The same applies to all sorts of things that need doing. Like say, dedicating one's life to reading legislation. It has a high degree of social utility, but finding a "sponsor" who is uninterested in influencing your conclusions is damn near impossible. So if someone wishes to live on GAIN plus tips and do that - let us not quibble.

Oh, and if we did that, we could abandon the minimum wage, therefore allowing people to choose to invest sweat-equity in small businesses in hopes they become successful. Let's remember that the worker is still worth his hire - and once they have the practical ability to tell the boss to "take this job and shove it," it becomes an inescapable fact.

And while not precluding unions, we have slashed the practical necessity for them. You won't NEED a union to go on strike. In one stroke, we will have eliminated wage-slavery. Of course, the worker will pay a price for such a choice - but there should be a price. We just made the price affordable.

Finally we must recognize the reality that a free society must paradoxically accommodate, tolerate and provide for those who are incapable of being free, either through some defect or inclination. There is no real freedom unless there is a freedom to barter that freedom away, and of course there are those who simply must be restrained to some degree for the safety of others.
In other words, libertarian philosophy has to recognize that people, while equal in the eyes of law and presumably in the eyes of whatever higher power or providence one may acknowledge are not therefore interchangeable, self-sufficient social cogs.

Capability in all areas of life is distributed with vast inequity, so none of us are truly capable of living in splendiferous Randian self-suffiency; not, at least, unless one defines "freedom" as being free do do exactly as one wishes, without expectation of doing anything at all about that one cannot do without help.

But this vision may in practice become far more true than not if we as a society facilitate the building of alliances between persons without predefining the "appropriateness" of those alliances from moralistic or state interest perspectives.

"Marriage" is a special case of such a social alliance, and the only one with the support and color of law. It's role in society is quite distinct from and separable from it's role in religion. It is in essence a simple, straightforward form of incorporation, division of risk and delegations of responsibility. Persons who are religiously married may, in fact, feel no actual need for social or legal acknowledgment or permission to be joined by the forms and rituals of their faiths.

Come to think of it, it's damnably presumptuous!

But such a mechanism is valuable enough that more people, not less, should have access to it without conditions other than being of great enough age and sound enough mind to give meaningful consent.

This has the potential to simply and straightforwardly address a good number of awkward social issues that government currently does nothing to help and a great deal to make worse.

Government should not in any case be passing judgment on the reasons people have for such contractual relationships beyond the usual scrutiny contract and common law demands. Who owes "conjugal duties" to whom, if anyone is really nobody's business unless you choose to make it part of the terms of a particular contract. It should be equally accessible to old folks who wish to pool their assets in order to avoid a nursing home and to five randomly selected young people who want to try to make a go as a band.

By reducing the risks of failure in social participation, innovation and entrepreneurship, spreading out the irreducible costs and and by giving people the means to network and build legally-recognized social alliances, we can afford to start dismantling institutions and organizations that have taken over duties traditionally assumed by families, churches, neighbors and towns. We will have increased the robustness of our society.

I believe that we as individuals deserve a government that if it shows up at all, shows up only to politely ask if we need it to lend a hand, and will go away if we do not.

I see the mechanism for this as the same mechanism by which this little essay has come to your attention. In order to function, there's no need that, say, a situation come to any particular person's attention - just that it comes to the attention of enough people who are empowered by their own sense of responsibility, knowing that they are not expected to do it out of sheer altruism and with no hope of recognition or reward. The United States of America is composed of millions upon millions of people, to the extent that we really can rely very heavily on random factors to address a great many more things than we do.

Whatever we call it, government, instrumentality or Fred, it must meet the test of all sane social organizations; it must serve the vast majority better than it's absence would, and at least arguably better than alternate visions.

Of course, there are caveats and obvious pitfalls. All systems have inherent flaws which means I can leave addressing them to another day. But the essential principle in addressing them is the same as the basis for the system itself. We don't try to failure-proof the system, we try to ensure that when and where it does fail, it fails safely.

I observe that little if any attention is paid in our nation in culture to fail-safeing anything until the necessity has been proven by some disaster. That the primary reason for that is the consequences of being overly reliant on the competence and honesty of our authorities at every level.

I would argue that "final authorities" are dangerous entities and should never be tolerated in principle, even if we accept a functional semblance of one in practice; authority must always be tested, questioned, examined and refined. In other words, we must expect demonstrably authoritative Authorities, and not encourage over-broad ones. That of course means that we have the collective and individual duty to become competant, respectable authorities at least within our own spheres of influence and areas of expertise.

It should be painfully obvious now that a man who can lead a team to political victory is not automatically qualified to lead an army to victory - or indeed, find "victory" with a map and a flashlight. Many of us find the President's failure as Commander in Chief astonishing. What I find remarkable is that so many other Presidents have managed to rise to the task. Consider that half of all military leaders do not succeed at this task by definition!

Within my vision, an authority is trustworthy simply because that trust is limited, discretionary and within demonstrated ranges of competence. Furthermore, that same trust is extended to in the same way, by the same means and to the same extent as it is to every other citizen. To the extent any given citizen demonstrates competence in a field, they are expected to contribute that expertise when available and if needed and if the fair market value of that contribution is over and above GAIN, they will gain more.

We have vast computational power at our disposal, we can write programs that will indeed evaluate every person's "authority" on any topic given any demonstrated interest in the topic.

After all, from a structural point of view, a welfare recipient, an FBI agent and a county clerk are all paid from the same pocket, yours and mine, and may all be seen in a certain jaundiced view as being "on welfare." They are living upon the largess of the public. The only question is, do their contribution justify their price? So let us all take a little bit of that stack and earn our minimum keep, realizing too that gaining more than minimum will be a provable and significant resume' line item.

By leaning less hard on our "elites," and by taking up more of the strain ourselves we are more responsible citizens and just incidentally, will have increased our national security by widely distributing the practical means of government so widely and redundantly that no possible disaster or attack could wipe it out.

We will have created a robust social safety net and made a significant dent in poverty and the the huge collateral costs of poverty. For most of us, it will take less time than we spend checking our email. For some of us, it could be a career. For many, it will be a rewarding and fascinating avocation - and we will all gain better government by being personally responsible for being better at some small part of the business of government.

Edit, update and bump: George, since the writing of this post, I've come into contact with what amounts to a free-market template for the sort of government I envisioned above. It's called PayPerPost, but there are many such agencies. What I'm talking about is the actual PayPerPost interface and it's means of assessing reliability and credibility, similar to EBay ratings.

I'd suggest investing in this company, or at least the concept, because a site not very different from this could easily replace at least a third of our actual Government, simply by "outsourcing" to the American People.

I mean, I'll review any piece of legislation for 20 bucks, so long as it's no thicker than the average novel. Give me a thousand and I'll spend a week checking an environmental impact statement.
The only question is, "am I qualified to do that", and by clicking the bar below this post you will see what amounts to a prototype for such a system. Check it out, George; something like this could be the future.


tag: universal health care, education policy, Supporting the Troops, Citizen-Soldiers, liberty, Constitution, Individual Liberty, Republican Candidates