More socialism from McCain.

Now, he is proposing socializing risk in the health care industry.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is proposing a greater federal commitment to people without health insurance on Tuesday, suggesting that it help funds states to set up non-profit risk pools to help Americans who are denied coverage or can’t afford it.

Sure, this may only cost $7 billion a year (although I suspect that being a lowball estimate, but the expense is not important. This is still socialized medicine. It completely undermines any credibility that McCain may have in calling himself a free-market, small government conservative. If he's willing to have the government intervene to centrally plan (and to steal people's money at gunpoint to do it), even with something at small expense, he's willing to do it everyhwere. Socializing risk in any industry is stupid, but particularly stupid in health care. These pools will be riddled with moral hazard issues, and the cost will increase vastly, particluarly for states.

This is going to be a very long campaign for Repbulicans of libertarian or small-government bend. We have a verifiable socialist as our nominee.

Obama's dangerous arrogance.

Barack Obama has been unfairly targeted by the Clintons and other political cynnics in a vicious personal campaign, and for this I have true empathy for him. He has engaged in negative campaigning himself, this is true, but the level to which his name has been drug through the mud is astounding. Be it the guilt-by-association game with Jeremiah Wright, cynnical race-based tactics, or a combination of both, his opponents have engaged in a horrendous campaign against him for which they should be condemned.

With that said, I have some serious issues with his campaign. Of course, my fundamental issue with him stems from his platform, particularly on economic issues. His economic policies have been described by some as "Libertarian Paternalism" (an oxymoron, I know) and based on the ideas of Behavioral Economics, the school followed by his Chief Economist, Austin Goolsbee. Behavior economics makes interesting observations, and there are smart economists in every school, and Goolsbee is most certainly a smart economist. But like many Behavioral Economists, Goolsbee, while he does adhere to some free market ideas, often comes to the conclusion that not only should government intervene in situations of market imperfections, but that it has the ability in these cases to set everything right. This is certainly something that Obama's personality seems to embrace. From this article on Reuters.com today:

"Is race still a factor in our society? Yes. I don't think anybody would
deny that," Obama said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Is that going to be the determining factor in a general election? No,
because I'm absolutely confident that the American people -- what they're
looking for is somebody who can solve their problems," the Illinois senator said
in an interview taped on Saturday.

Barack Obama comes across as someone who believes he is so great, that he can solve everyone else's problems. He has made similiar assertions like this in the past. This is an extremely dangerous attitude for a chief executive to have. For one, it is an attitude that tends to lead to Presidents going beyond their codified rulebook in the Constitution. This has been a serious problem with the current Administration, which I think many would agree has been incredibly arrogant.

Secondly, this type of mindset tends to motivate policies that often create more problems in the end. A good example is the FDR Administration in the time of WWII. The Administration set price and wage controls, most likely motivated by the idea that they were so smart that they could manage the economy perfectly in war time (or not). But alas, they began to run into a problem: the wage controls and the draft provided massive disincentives to go to work. So how did they try to get around this? With more central planning: they provided tax exemptions to employers to provide health benefits to attract workers. Over time, this has created a massive problem in the health care industry in tying health coverage to employment, which has generated tons of wasteful expenditures through the classic principle-agent problems that arise in third-party coverage, increased health care costs massively, and left tens of millions of Americans without insurance. The politicians who could "solve the peoples' problems" gave them tons more than they ever solved, if they even solved any at all.

But most dangerously, Obama's attitude that he can solve everyone's problems (and that, furthermore, he thinks everyone else wants someone who can solve their problems and will by default come to the conclusion that he can do it) comes with a corollary. Naturally, he will view many things to be problems that others may disagree are problems. Someone who believes they can solve everyone's problems for them not only thinks people incapable of solving their own problems, but believes he has the right to impose his view of what is right and wrong- and what in society are problems- on everyone else in society, including those who disagree with them. And furthermore, he believes he has the right to take their property, at gunpoint if necessary, to address what he views to be problems.

Someone's problems are his or her own. No one else is responsible for solving them, and no one who believes he or she should help someone else solve another's problems has the right to take from others in order to do it. It is in a free society with a free market economy that respects private property that the most problems can be solved, as it is only in this circumstance that the type of natural good will that it takes to motivate large scale action by cooperation of individuals can occur (this is not to say all problems will be solved; they won't be). When the role of helping others is forced upon individuals in society, the role this motivation plays is eliminated and replaced with the idea that money and professional bureaucrats can finish the job. And yet, despite social spending tripling as a percentage of GDP since the early 1960s, here we are with the greatest amount of income inequality we've ever had, the greatest amount of educational inequality we've ever had, the greatest amount of division we've ever had, a health care system increasing starkly in cost and inaccessibility, inflation we haven't seen in more than 15 years, and a whole host of environmental problems.

You can't solve everyone's problems, Barack. Only we as individuals can solve our own unique problems and help others solve theirs. Did you hear that? YES, WE CAN!

Shame

That's what I feel for my party after watching this ad.



This is absolutely disgusting. The ugly collectivism of this ad flies right in the face of a the underlying principle of individualism that is the bedrock of a free society. This ad is the tactic not of someone or some people interested in protecting individual liberty or who possess the quality of leadership, but in dividing us into group and promoting group stereotypes solely for the purpose of gaining power. Only this ad will not get North Carolina Republicans one inch closer to power, as it will surely alienate the very people we must build bridges with in order to build our party and reduce government. This ad will damage the campaigns of Republican candidates around the state, especially those like B.J. Lawson who are fighting so hard for the principle of limited government in a heavily Democratic district.

Shame on the Party for this ad. I am especially disappointed in Linda Daves, who up to this point I held in the highest regard, for endorsing this. She lost some respect from me in the last couple of days.

Wesley Snipes: Victim of tyranny.

Today, Wesley Snipes became a victim of tyranny, being sentenced to 3 years in prison for misdemeanor "crimes" for not filing his taxes. I will leave aside the fact for now that there is no law specifically requiring individuals to pay income taxes, and thus Mr. Snipes committed no crime. I am nearly as troubled, if not more troubled, by the judge's justification for his draconian sentence:

During the sentencing, Snipes apologized for his actions, but the judge indicated that a major reason for the maximum penalty was to deter others from trying something similar.

This is tyranny in an especially heinous form. The role of the judicial branch is to interpret laws and, in the case when laws are broken, to apply punishment based solely on judgement of what is suitable for the crime committed. To use sentencing as a mechanism to promote your own agenda (and clearly, this judge has an agenda) is not only dishonorable, but it violates the mandate of the judiciary.

A truth you dare not tell.

Today, Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, suicided his political career by suggesting that it's time for Republicans to "get over" Ronald Reagan.

Gov. Daniels: People need to get over Reagan, already

POSTED April 21, 12:19 AM

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels elicited several hushed gasps and raised eyebrows late last week as he lectured a conservative crowd that it was “time to let Ronald Reagan go.”

The governor delivered his remarks to a room full of fellow red-staters at the Fund for American Studies’ annual conference and donor retreat at the Newseum.

“Nostalgia is fine and Reagan’s economic plan was good,” Daniels said. “But we need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.” Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Sen. John McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.

While he prefaced his remarks with the disclaimer that his thoughts were “somewhat controversial,” he hoped that he “would not be misunderstood.”

Incidentally, applause was somewhat less enthusiastic as he left the stage than when he began by poking fun at Barack Obama.

In reference to Obama’s recent comments about “bitter” small-town folks, Daniels remarked that he had to “release the iron grip from [his] gun” in order to make the flight into D.C. from the Hoosier State.

Quite frankly, I have never understood the religious observance that conservative Republicans (or at least Republicans who say they are conservatives) have paid to Reagan. (I especially don't understand the sometimes-bordering crypto-homoerotic rhetoric in which so many supposedly turbo-man, anti-gay Republicans describe the man. But hey-ho.) The Reagan legacy was not one of minimalist free market economics as is claimed, but rather one of the type of socialist planning firmly reminiscent of FDR. (Well, it's reminiscent of economic policy the U.S. has employed since Hamilton, but I digress.) The point of supply-side tax cuts is inherently to attempt to engineer market activity through manipulation of a variable, in this case tax rates. However, Reagan's form central planning went well beyond simply cutting taxes, but to run deficits that to this day compose record percentages of GDP expand government spending more than the Kennedy/Johnson and Clinton Administrations did in their respective 8 year tenures. (Although his record of expanding government has been blasted by King George II, and in just 6 fiscal years no less.) Sure, most of this expenditure increase went toward the military, but the necessity of doing this to "knock out the Soviet Union" was debatable, and much of it was just flat out corporate welfare. And for his famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) tax cuts, he was a royal tax raiser, as well: the 1982 "rollback" of taxes is to this date the largest tax increase in U.S. history as a percentage of GDP (and is comparable in cost to the health care programs offered by the two Democratic candidates for President, for reference), and it pushed through a massive increase in Payroll Taxes to cover projected shortfalls similiar to the ones coming as the baby boomers begin entering retirement. (So much for the ideas of shattering the welfare state and promoting individual liberty.) The Reagan Administration was anything but a small government, its tenure was anything but fiscally conservative, and his economic policies where anything but lasseiz-faire.

That Reagan was a skilled politician is not debatable. I would even say his ascent provided benefits for camp seeking to reduce government and promote liberty, if for no other reason than that he provided an effective mouthpiece for a period. However, the consequences of his Administration abandoning the mission to reduce government (if that was ever their intent in the first place) are most of the economic problems the U.S. has faced since its tenure and will begin to face soon, and this has been quite harmful for this movement in significantly damaging its credibility. The numerous scandals plaguing the Reagan Administration, a history that has reared its head again in the Bush 43 Administration, have further contributed to this. But perhaps the most disastrous consequence of Reagan's tenure for conservatives fighting for small government the tight marriage of the Republican Party with certain members of the religious right, which has resulted in them essentially controlling the reigns of the Party. The Party is no longer primarily associated wiht less government, but rather with being the party that hates gays, feminists, and any aspect of culture that does not resemble that constructed by the Taliban in its fervent insistence on imposed religious fundamentalist code. Not only has this led uncountably many with pro-small government leanings who would otherwise vote Republican from quite simply being too fightened to do so, but it has left the Party under the contol of those who really love the government and seek to use it to promote their ends. In other words, the Republican Party has turned into exactly that which most members claim to hate. And voters sense this.

While Daniels did not go the next step and call out the Reagan Administration, he took a courageous first step in the public eye that needs to be taken if the Republican Party is to counteract the building of a storm that will lead to much, much larger government. If Republicans continue making reverance to a ghost as a primary aspect of their pitch to voters, its relevance will reduce to nothing. It is certainly necessary to jettison Reagan from their rhetoric if Republicans are to again be taken seriously as people who want to reduce the size of government.

Announcing a new writer.

I am pleased to announce an exciting addition to the Liberty Republicans team. Kris is an old friend of mine from College Republicans and Student Congress days at UNC-Chapel Hill and has since moved on to Law School at Wake Forest. He is brilliant and a terrific writer and will contribute much to the blog, particularly on legal and philosophical issues.

On libertarian opposition to Bob Barr.

Anyone who is a libertarian knows that libertarians can be some of the hardest people to please. (Guilty) Elections and choices of candidates are no exception. Rarely will you ever hear a libertarian (big or small L) voice great satisfaction with the Libertarian Party. Considering that a Libertarian Presidential candidate has garnered more than 1% of the vote and approached 1 million votes just one time in its history, why should we? Given our natural aversion to government, it goes without saying that we rarely voice happiness with any individual candidate for office even from our own party, much less a Republican or Democratic candidate/politician. (Ron Paul is a tremendous exception, although you'll find a number of libertarians who even found him unacceptable for various reasons.)

Almost every election year when it seems as though libertarians (again, big L and small l) have a candidate who has the potential to launch our movement into a strong and perhaps permanent foothold in the political mainstream, it seems as though there is a violent backlash against said candidate from a sizable chunk of libertarians. The Rothbardians despised Ed Clark in 1980 for his "low-tax liberalism" style of libertarianism. Pro-Choice libertarians had major problems with Ron Paul in 1988, an election year of less consequence, and of course they and pro-open borders libertarians had issues with him again this time around as his campaign really picked up steam. Other issues libertarians had with Paul included his insistence on federalism, his "making the perfect the enemy of the good" on many economic issues, and mistrust of him on the issue of race in light of newsletter-gate.

Again this year, another high-profile libertarian candidate with the potential to take the movement to a mainstream foothold is Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia. Congressman Barr was a high-profile participant in the impeachment of President Clinton in the 1990s, which gained him considerable notoriety at this time. Since 9/11, he has been a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's incursions on civil liberties, building his pedigree through numerous media appearances and speaking engagements around the country. Given that he is a notable former Congressman, and the expanded profile of libertarianism in light of Ron Paul's surprisingly successful Presidential campaign, he is in an unprecedented position to take libertarianism to the next level.

But alas, numerous libertarians have been quick to the draw to voice their issues with Bob Barr. Like Ron, he is facing heat on the issues of abortion and immigration. While this was a problem with a sizable number, it still didn't seem to be something that was hugely prohibitive for most of these libertarians with Paul, as LP members and activists around the country worked energetically for the campaign and turned out to vote for him. Furthermore, his positions on these issues don't fundamentally disqualify his libertarianism, as there are libertarian arguments for the pro-life and restricted immigration positions. (The restricted immigration article by Kinsella doesn't even cover the national defense argument.) If, like Paul, libertarians' issues with Barr were limited to just these two issues, I wouldn't see much of a problem.

But their problems with Barr are not limited to just these two issues, and they are problems that have given even Ron Paul supporters pause. To begin with, libertarians have voiced serious mistrust of what appear to be Barr's conversions on the Patriot Act, the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, and (at least at the federal level) Gay Marriage. These are major issues for libertarians broadly because his past positions contradict some bedrock libertarian principles: civil liberties (the Patriot Act), non-intervention (Iraq War), freedom of choice (Drugs), and freedom of association (gay marriage). This mistrust on the War in Iraq, War on Drugs, and Gay Marriage is understandable, and Barr has been wrong to support these ventures in the past. But I don't think there's much reason to doubt his commitment to protecting civil liberties. Barr did not support the Patriot Act until working to attach sunset clauses to the legislation. Under the circumstances of the time (the panic of 9/11), he should be commended for having the initiative to review the legislation (which most members of Congress didn't) and the concern for the Bill's intrusion on civil liberties to ensure that the legislation was not permanent while at the same time weighing national security concerns that, I'm sure for everyone at that time, were genuine. He also exercised similar diligence to protect civil liberties in inserting amendments to the Clinton Administration's Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995, and he was noted by Michael Barone in a 2002 USNWR article after his 2002 Primary defeat as "a strong voice for civil liberties." Once can accuse Bob Barr of many things, but not being a principled defender of the Bill of Rights isn't one of them.

I do believe additionally that his conversion on foreign policy, drugs, and gay marriage, though, are genuine. For starters, he has gone to work for the Marijuana Policy Project; if one doesn't truly advocate something, they don't spend their time and energy to work for its promotion. As Barr himself explains,

I, over the years, have taken a very strong stand on drug issues, but in light of the tremendous growth of government power since 9/11, it has forced me and other conservatives to go back and take a renewed look at how big and powerful we want the government to be in people’s lives.

Furthermore, his progression toward libertarianism did not just happen in a day or month, or a year before an election, as was the case with Mitt Romney's sudden embrace of statist social conservatism. This is something that occurred over the course of about 6 years. He began working with the ACLU shortly after his 2002 primary defeat by John Linder, and he joined very soon after. He could have bolted immediately to the Libertarian Party and attempted to take it over and run for President on its ticket in 2004, but instead he worked to support Badnarik's campaign before making the full switch to the LP. Unlike Romney, he didn't just show up to the party with a boatload of money, nice hair, and some clever spinning away of his past; he got down in the dirt and worked for libertarian principles near and dear to his heart. Barr still opposes drug legalization and gay marriage at the state level, but his federalist position to remove the federal government from these issues is wholly consistent with achieve libertarian ideals through a Constitutional approach and qualifies him as a proponent of libertarian policy at the federal level. This progression also, in my view, qualifies his change in position on Iraq as legitimate.

However, in all of their fury, the new "anti-Barr" contingent of libertarians has dug up another "skeleton" to come after him, an article he recently authored calling for more concern in U.S. foreign policy about Latin America. Many are calling this advocacy of "interventionist" policy in the region; a left-libertarian friend of mine posted a note on Facebook about the article titled "Bob Barr wants to invade Latin America." If you actually, read the article, you will find absolutely no evidence that he advocates any sort of military intervention in Latin America. Barr writes that we should devote more "concern" and "resources" to the region, but there's nothing to indicate these should be of a military nature. By my reading, he's advocating for more assertive diplomatic efforts in Latin America, with perhaps a pumped up intelligence presence, which are wholly justifiable and not at all inconsistent with the doctrine of military non-interventionism. This is some serious reaching by Barr opponents.

I urge libertarians who have raised these issues with Barr to please reconsider both the substance of their concerns and the consequences of failing to get behind and push a campaign that could be the next step toward cementing permanence in the mainstream of American politics. Bob Barr may not be perfect on policy at every level of government, but at the federal level he is an ace. The fact is that we are going to have to build a broad coalition including people we don't currently typically think of as libertarians, both for huge electoral improvement in this campaign and to draw more to our ranks in future campaigns if we are to make effective policy change. Bob Barr offers us the opportunity to do this.

Barr on Hannity and Colmes

Bob Barr made a recent appearance on Hannity and Colmes that I just found on the net and got a chance to look over. It was an interesting and effective appearance, and Barr did a terrific job of stemming back the relentless and idiotic attacks of both Hannity and Colmes. He displayed why he will be a tough and effective messenger for libertarians. I and other libertarians disagree with him on some issues (I want drugs legalized at all levels; I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the right to form domestic partnership contracts enforced by state governments), but his federalist stance on these issues is more than acceptable. The idea is that he may oppose legalizing drugs or gay marriage himself, but he is not going to use the federal government to enforce these values on the entire country or to restrict the liberty of everyone to partake in either activity. This is a legitimately libertarian view (I call it "federal libertarianism"), and the federalist stance on social issues like these is one that all libertarians (pro or against on these issues) running for national office should take. The fact is that there is no way that libertarians would be able to legalize drugs or gay marriage for the entire country without either 1) violating the Constitution, as the power over addressing these issues is clearly enumerated to the states under the 10th Amendment; or 2) pursuing a Constitutional Amendment to legalize them, which certainly would never pass.

It's interesting that both Hannity and Colmes were attacking him with pretty equal energy. I think both like many in their respective parties (perhaps even most) sense that someone like Barr would be an effective candidate for the LP and would be able to attract lots of voters from both parties. Barr is currently at 7% in a poll that his Exploratory Committee commissioned, and that number should go much higher. I would venture to say that he would get a vast majority of Ron Paul's Republican Primary votes, probably around 85%. (Which would be about 700,000 votes to start.) He would furthermore be able to draw a significant portion of conservative Republican voters with his views on economic issues, abortion, federalism, and immigration, all areas where McCain is decided either too statist or, in their view, flat out wrong. Furthermore, he is well-positioned to attract Democrats with his stances on civil liberties (and the amount of energy he has put into this issue over the last few years) and the Iraq War. Something that really works in his favor on this front is the contentious Democratic Primary, as a recent poll suggests that a fifth or more of Democratic voters may vote for McCain if their candidate isn't the nominee. I think it likely that, should the Libertarian Party be on the ballot nearly every state and the Libertarian candidate be significant with a well-run national campaign (which Bob Barr would be), these Democratic voters would be much more inclined to go with this candidate than McCain. In any event, I see Barr being able to reach the 15% threshold showing in polls to get into the debates, which would be a watershed moment in the history of this country and launch the libertarian movement to the next level.

On another note, Hannity is a massive tool. For one, in trying to intimidate Barr and voters who may go LP this time in the Presidential election, he tries to play the fear card; i.e., if you don't vote for McCain, then you're going to get all of these nasty things. Barr handled this question perfectly: if the Republican candidate isn't good enough, doesn't have a good enough platform, and/or can't promote his platform and message effectively, then he doesn't deserve to win regardless of how many other candidates are in the race who may have kindred principles. But what speaks even worse for Hannity are the issues he decided to play: taxes, health care, immigration, and judges (which I won't address, since there may or may not be a retirement during the next Presidency). Where was Hannity when McCain:

* Voted AGAINST both Bush taxes (and justified his votes not on fiscally conservative grounds, which McCain now says was his justification and would have been a most correct one; but class warfare arguments);

* Pushed for a Bill of Rights with Ted Kennedy and John Edwards that would have placed onerous regulations on the health care industry, and is now peddling a health care plan in which the federal government's in manipulating the health care market will expand hugely through means such as fundamentally altering reimbursement, federalizing physician licensing and tort reform (the latter of which will surely come in the form of socialist limitations on damages and awards to attorneys, which for some reason is being peddled by Republicans as a "free market" policy), and effectively subsidizing care for high-risk patients (which will be HUGELY expensive);

* And collaborated with Ted Kennedy in pushing an immigration bill (supported by BOTH remaining Democratic Presidential Candidates) that clearly granted amnesty to immigrants here illegally, and (according to a conversation I had with Bay Buchanan when she came to speak at Duke University) is playing a leading role in trying to kill the hard-line Heath Shuler bill.

And then, of course, Hannity reverts to the tactic that the McCain campaign and its apologists are playing to a nauseating degree: the "honor" card. Hannity tells us libertarians and disaffected conservatives that we should just take it up the arse and deal with it because McCain told him personally that he would be a good conservative. And if we don't trust McCain and follow in line with him, then we are calling him a liar: how dare we have the gall to think such about a war hero!

Furthermore, you have to love how Hannity side-steps a substantive discussion of the merit of federalism in dealing with the issue of drugs. And why would he? After all, those identified as authentic conservatives have always advocated adhering strictly to the Constitution and enumerated powers under the 10th Amendment, and the power to deal with the issue of drugs clearly falls into the realm of the states as indicated by the entirety of the Constitution. As someone who is a fierce supporter of the 5th Amendment, I believe in principle that Hannity has every right to not incriminate himself as the false conservative, which would inevitably occur if he was to take this issue on with Barr.

Anyhow, let it roll:

We would never make an issue of this, even though we just did.

I just read a very amusing piece of double-talk courtesy of Howard Dean, via ABC News. Here's the just of the article:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Thursday that swing voters participating in focus groups commissioned by the D.N.C. bring up John McCain's age unprompted.

"We didn't bring it up, but they volunteered it," said Dean who explained that voters have two concerns about McCain's age.

But lo and behold! Democrats would NEVER bring up an issue like this before the media, because they are just way too ethical!

While knocking McCain's "old-fashioned" views, Dean maintained that the Democratic Party was unlikely to invoke McCain's age in the fall campaign.

"I doubt we will bring it up in the election," said Dean, referring to the age issue. "There is somewhat of a higher ethical bar on what we do."

"We don't have any Lee Atwaters or Karl Roves on our side," he added.

Oh, yeah. The Democrats have no one on their side who would dare stoop to the levels of personal destruction as part of campaign strategy. Oh, wait.

I used to have a lot of respect for Howard Dean, but this latest episode is just one of many that have led me to the conclusion that he is, quite simply, a massive douchebag.

Note: This post is, by no means, a defense of John McCain, but rather a calling out of, well, cockameme by the DNC. I do not want this post to be confused with support of any measure for McCain. I do not support him, and I will not vote for him. Period.

Ron Paul raising questions about Iraq.

Ron Paul today pointed out the absurdity in U.S. foreign policy, which is certainly rooting its ugly head in Iraq, in the testimony of Crocker and Petraeus before the House International Committee. It's really quite perturbing that many in the pro-Iraq War crowd are touting the surge as some sort of a justification for the war in the first place. Five years and $800 billion (after this year, if the appropriations are approved by Congress, which they will be) later, where, exactly, has it gotten us? Al-Qaeda's strength now is estimated to be as great or greater than before 9/11, according to the N.I.E.. Afghanistan is a mess, now that we have pulled resources out. (Not that going in and starting a nation-building project was the smart thing to do in the first place, as Scheuer points out in Imperial Hubris, but still.) We're up to $9.2 trillion in debt, mostly because of fighting two wars at once, while the dollar is sinking and CPI is up 4% for 2007, the highest it's been since the oil spike of 1991 during the Persian Gulf War. (To both of which war has contributed.) And now Hezbollah has declared its intention to begin targeting Americans. (Nevermind that attacks domestically are still a serious threat, with our non-secured borders.)

Besides, the point of the surge was not to improve security in Iraq, although prospects are far from certain on this end, given that leaders of key Sunni militias that we are depending on have been assassinated in recent months, that a "labor strike" may be emerging (due to members complaining of "not being paid enough"; at least they are learning capitalism and collective bargaining, right?), and whole host of other problems on the horizon. The point of the surge was to facilitate political reconciliation to avoid, at least in the short-mid term, the prospect of a civil, and perhaps even regional, war. Given that Sunni militias are being given free reign; that they are aiming to "stem Iran;" that Turkey is engaged in a simmering situation with the Kurds in the north; that al-Sadr continues to behave belligerently (and that Maliki is responding belligerently), and that Iran is undermining al-Sadr within his own militia in a move that could ignite one of the most destabilizing forces in the country; the prospects for avoiding civil/regional war are dim.

On related note, it's really quite disturbing that any military or diplomatic official will refuse to state flat out that the executive branch has no Constitutional authority to launch an offensive against Iran.

Anyhow, it's viewing time:

Refuting the "Libertarian Dem"

Libertarianism has been gaining a lot of steam in recent years, primarily among young people. We saw this culminate in Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign, which generated unexpected success financially and at the ballot box. A consequence of its growing popularity is an increase in the framing of positions in terms of individual liberty. This isn’t something new: Americans are instructed from elementary school that America is a “free country,” and politicians have routinely throughout history attempted to appeal to this sentiment. But the frequency of politicians referring to individual liberty has noticeably increased over the years, be it appeals to liberty when speaking in favor of tax cuts, free trade, civil liberties, or going to war to “defend liberty.”

In 2006, Kos authored a post titled “The Libertarian Dem” in which he attempts to frame the “progressive” policy agenda in libertarian terms and speaks, correctly, of the political returns to be had from doing so. Naturally, I found this post to be quite repulsive on a number levels, and as such feel the compulsion to refute it, focusing on specific points he makes. So, without further adieu, I’m off and running.

“A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want.”

Well, there’s always the walking, sailing, or flying options; but the presence and improvement of public infrastructure substantially improves the functioning of a free market economy and a free society. However, the implication here is that roads and public transportation can only be provided by the government. This is a flawed assertion. Any way they are provided, one has to pay for these services to be available, be it an excise tax, private toll, or transportation fare, so it doesn’t really matter who provides the roads.

“A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked.”

Fair point. But how does this diverge from mainstream libertarianism? Due to the general lack of understanding of economics that he routinely displays on his blog, I’m going to assume that Kos has never heard of the work of Coase (ha!) regarding to enforcement of property rights and its role in preserving the environment and reducing the negative externalities of activities. It is a central tenant of libertarian thought that the role of government is to enforce property rights and contracts, which is the foundation required for functioning of a free market economy and free society.

Furthermore, Kos ignores where pollution has been driven by government intervention through ways such as corporate welfare subsidies (which drive, for instance, discharge of water effluent by inefficient subsidized agricultural production, environmentally destructive and inefficiently high oil and mining production, etc.) and regulations restricting competition (and thus concentrating market power in the hands of large industrial firms, who can then pollute and have the resources to prevent retribution for such).

“A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers.”

This is why libertarians support the right of workers to form unions and collectively bargain with employers. This is why all mainstream libertarians support enforcement of labor contracts. However, people should also be free to choose to work without having people like Kos, when they get elected to government, tell them that they have to join a union to do so. They should also have freedom from the inevitable government-induced reductions in salary that occur from the Payroll Tax and mandated or tax-subsidized employer-provided health insurance. (But expecting Kos to acknowledge the exploitation of people by the government is obviously expecting a bit too much.)They should also be free, if they choose, to work for less than an arbitrarily set minimum wage that is mandated by the government.

Furthermore, the question that Kos both fails to ask or answer is: how do exploitative employers get into this position? More often than not, they get into this position as a result of government intervention via mechanisms such as corporate welfare subsidies, using force to break up strikes, laws restricting/hampering unions (for example, right to work laws), and protective tariffs and other policies restricting competition.

Of course, if employees voluntarily choose, given understanding of pretexts, to work in dangerous conditions and/or low wages, exploitation doesn’t occur. Yet one could easily get the sense that the policies Kos would advocate would, in fact, prevent people from voluntarily making this choice, because after all: who would make this choice? There is no possible way that anyone could conceive this situation to be in their self-interest, so we should let omniscient messiahs like Kos who know what’s REALLY best for everyone save us from ourselves.

“A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness.”

Is Kos seriously implying that mainstream libertarians do not support government-provisioned crime enforcement? Has he even bothered to read the Libertarian Party platform, or the work of scores of libertarian writers? Furthermore, this statement by omission reeks of a very strong antipathy toward the role that self defense has in “crime prevention.” I think we all know what I mean by this, and the role that a certain something plays in self defense. But of course, we all know that curbing this right that is “not clearly guaranteed” by the Bill of Rights will reduce crime. Oh, wait.

On the topic of poverty, notice how Kos ignores the very concept that government can be the source of poverty through mechanisms such as monetary inflation, taxation, fiscal deficits, zoning laws, seizure of land through eminent domain, and the lack of enforcement of property rights and contracts. (However, in the article, he does acknowledge the stupidity of some small business regulations. Good for him.) Furthermore, Kos makes two fatally flawed assumptions. The first is that social spending effectively reduces poverty, an assumption that is clearly flawed given that social spending on the federal level (including welfare payments, education, local economic development, etc.) has tripled as a percentage of GDP since the 1960s (the increase has been the same if you include Social Security and Medicare) while poverty hasn’t been dented.

Secondly, he assumes that those heartless mainstream libertarians don’t care about people in poverty. This is a disingenuous and intellectually dishonest assertion. Libertarians have no problem with helping people get out of poverty. What we have problems with are 1) stealing other people’s property to do it, 2) spending the stolen money of others while not reducing poverty, and 3) the ways in which government creates poverty. Furthermore, the idea inherent in this assumption is that poverty can only be reduced through government action, and those who oppose this action oppose poverty reduction. Private organizations, both domestically and internationally, have shown to be tremendously effective in reducing poverty.

It is often stated that the level of effort taken to help the needy is the mark of the degree to which a society is compassionate. But where is the compassion in government officials elected by either plurality or majority forcefully taking the property of the minority who did not elect them to office and using it to help others? Love can only emanate freely from the heart; it cannot be imposed on society or even extracted from others by forceful coercion. Relationships in which one or more of the partners do not hold for the other true love freely emanating from the heart are loveless relationships and, more often than not, fail. Thus, the level and intensity of compassion required to effectively help the needy can only occur in a free society where government does not force one person to help another. The idea that individuals should love their fellow man and help those in need and the onus for them to do so are undermined by a central authority taking their property and doing it for them.

One last observation on this point that I would like to make pertains to the opening statement of this excerpt: “A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives.” I cannot help but notice the eerie similarity in the context of this statement to those made by the Bush Administration in arguments for their various War on Terror policies, be it the Iraq War or various anti-4^th Amendment measures they have sought. (Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, etc.) The “fear for your life” card is a common rhetorical tactic played by those who advocate greater government intervention and control, the implication being that if you do not accept their worldview and policy proposals, then you or others around you will die. I find it quite interesting how Kos and others of his ilk have roundly condemned such rhetoric from the Bush Administration, yet as demonstrated by this statement, they are more than willing to use it to browbeat others into giving them their property so they can pursue their agenda. (Or Kos and the IRS will come and take it from you at gunpoint.) These are not the arguments of people interested in liberty; they're the arguments of people interested in authority.

“A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.”

I think this point almost entirely captures the essence of his overall thesis, so I will use it as a broad umbrella to address the entirety of his post. Kos’s argument resembles a common argument made by many on the left in rebutting mainstream libertarianism by attempting to frame their worldview in terms of individual liberty. Upon examination, the argument has five major flaws. Firstly, it confuses freedom for power. Freedom is the ability to make choices without coercion from others. Power is the ability to make particular choices given an array of choices. There’s a big difference between the two concepts. So when Kos talks about providing public transportation, social safety nets to “allow individuals to continue to live happily”, and reducing people’s “fear for their health,” he is talking about providing a more numerous and greater quality array of choices, and thus more power (to some). What he proposes does not actually increase individual freedom, and in fact reduces it if these services are to be provided by stealing the property of others through income or broad-based consumption taxes. (At least certainly in the case of safety nets, although possibly in the case of public transportation, as well, if it is to be funded through either of these taxes.)

Secondly, as I discussed earlier regarding poverty and public transportation, this argument presumes largely that only government actions can provide greater power for individuals in some of the areas Kos discusses. As I mentioned earlier, this ignores the ability of private associations to provide these services and the preconditions of human relations required for their effectiveness. But what it also ignores is the essential and irreplaceable role that individual responsibility plays in establishing this power. For instance, an individual’s health isn’t a function of the third-party health care financial coverage one has: it is a function of the individual’s lifestyle choices and, to some extent, the externalities of the actions of others. Government action cannot force better lifestyle choices out of people, both because these choices must result from self-initiative and because the enforcement of such measures is completely impractical and ineffective. To the extent that negative externalities of others’ activities negatively impact an individuals help, then a libertarian government mandated to protect property rights (and one’s body and value of one’s labor are properties of the individual) must enforce retribution.

Thirdly, this argument ignores where government is responsible for the ills Kos identifies. I’ve addressed this on the topics of pollution, labor relations, and poverty, but this is most certainly true of the health care industry, as well. Subsidization of employer-provided health coverage, patent laws, restrictions against alternative medicine providers, medicine distribution schemes (the prescription drug benefit, VA control of flu vaccinations, etc.), AMA monopoly power over medical accreditation, restrictions against purchasing insurance across state lines, and laws restricting nurse practitioners are all examples of ways in which the government has increased cost and decreased quality of our health care system.

Fourthly, this argument confuses libertarianism for anarchism. Libertarianism advocates for the existence of government and the limit of its power to preventing coercion of individual liberty, protecting property rights, and enforcing contracts. Anarchists advocate for no government. There is a huge difference, and realizing this difference invalidates many of the criticisms of the mainstream libertarian framework brought up by Kos and others.

Kos later on in his post states that these perspectives are consistent with “maximizing individual liberty.” Thus, we arrive at the final major flaw inherent in this argument. To Kos and others who promote these ideas, liberty is a variable to be somehow objectively manipulated. Liberty is not a variable. Liberty is a principle. It can either exist completely and entirely in a society or it can’t. This is representative of the general ideas behind the thought of Kos and his ilk: 1) their worldview and system of values is so perfect that it should be forcefully imposed on everyone else through government; 2) they are so smart that they know what every single individual wants; and 3) they have the ability to create optimal outcomes through the mechanism of government, if only they should get this chance. This worldview is not consistent with the idea that everyone should have the ability to make their own choices without coercion by others or the government because it presumes that the ability of some to make choices should be restricted in order to provide others with a greater array of choices. In other words, this worldview is not consistent with the principle of liberty.

On a personal note, I do not want this to be an anti-Kos blog. While I clearly disagree with him on a vast array of issues and find much of his rhetoric and tactics to be despicable on the level of Karl Rove, I do have respect for him. He is intelligent and quite politically savvy, however misguided many of his ideas are. This post is no exception.

I'm back.

After a two-month hiatus, and lots of things distracting me, I have finally found some time to post here again. I am, in a few minutes, going to post a project I had started working on before I left. Stay tuned.