29 September 2010

Weird, Wacky, Radical Tenthers Need Not Apply

(for Democrats' Approval)

Please read this very good post by Michael Tanner. I have a few comments:
  1. In this post, "Democrats" = "Totalitarian Statists". They likely exist in every party, and certainly outside of any organized party.
  2. Of course they want the courts to decide if any given piece of legislation should be enforced. They've packed most of the courts with Statists.
  3. Rather than the phrase "federal government", we should call it what it is: the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA). Government is instituted to protect individuals so they may be free to produce and enjoy their value. The SBA's purpose is to control people and steal their production, so that people who choose to produce nothing of value can enjoy some of it. Of course, the redistributors--the "brokers" if you will--take their cut and enjoy much more than the average subject.
  4. We have more to show for the SBA's growth than debt. We also have a culture of dependence. The American Declaration of Independence was written by revolutionaries 234 years ago. The American Foundation of Dependence was laid about 100 years ago, by "Progressive" evolutionaries.
  5. I think Mr. Tanner is confusing Conservatives with Fascists. (More likely, he is using the term in the way he does in his book.) He alludes to a conservative's "idea of a good federal program." I can't think of one "program" that the SBA should run. If national defense is a program, then maybe that is a proper federal government role. I'm actually in favor of each state being able to defend itself, and the federal role being simply that of coordination. I am certainly not in favor of any government--federal, state, county, municipal, or home-owner's association--being empowered to enforce morality.

24 September 2010

OK, look:

Now that the primary elections are over (as they are in most places), put your support behind the Republican candidate. Unless there is an insurmountable point of disagreement, just hold your nose and vote for that (R) candidate! This year especially, it is just too important to not let the Marxists win. No candidate is unelectable if we can get enough support behind him or her.

At the very least, don't be like some here in Nevada who just can't stand Sharron Angle and see Harry Reid as their only alternative. Vote for a libertarian if you must, or an "Independent". Please, please, don't vote (D) just because the others don't have a chance of winning!

A Patriot by Any Name Should Still be Free

I grow increasingly disturbed by discussion regarding "conservative" and "libertarian" as two different things. I see them as the same thing. We want maximum freedom for the individual, and the most limited government that can protect us and our freedom.
The distinction I see is between the secular libertarians (SL), who say, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, as long as I don't hurt anyone else", and the (for want of a better word) god-fearing libertarians (GL), who say, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, and I want to never do anything that God would not want me to do." I was taught that God's direction for us is to have as our main motivation our love for him, and by extension for all other people.

Let's look at marijuana as an example. The SL says it is not wrong to use marijuana, even habitually, if it hurts no other people. The GL says that it does indeed hurt other people. If the user is married or has children, the spouse and children may not be getting the best from the user. Even if the user is unmarried, the effects of that use may hurt his parents or siblings, or in extreme cases the rest of society. In these cases, the motivation is clearly not love for others. Therefore, both the SL and the GL would argue against government proscription of marijuana use, but the GL would promote self-directed abstinence.

Of course, the same goes for alcohol, or video games, or involvement in social media, or any behavior that can become addictive.