Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Consequences at Ground Zero

Written by Christopher Roussel. Published on August 26, 2010 ago in Current Events, Politics and Religion. 1 Comment
This entry is part 3 of 3 in the series Defending Secularisation

While the spectacle that has received the buzzword title ‘Ground Zero mosque’ continues to rage, there seem to be a few points of fact that have been overlooked. It may be known that the address for the site (currently Park51 but previously Cordoba House) is 45-51 Park Ave. What is less known here is that 45 Park Ave is already a mosque — and has been since July 2009. It isn’t a new site ex nihilo but an addition or expansion of an already existing community. Further, the new site is two-fold: first is a community centre created by refurbishing the Burlington Coat Factory already at the site (which has been in disuse since 9/11); second is a separate prayer centre (i.e. ‘mosque’) within the community centre complex. The relationship between the prayer centre and community centre is analogous to the relationship between a department store and a shopping mall: independent while overlapping.

The second issue I wish to look at is the response to those who oppose the site. It has been said that it is being opposed because the site is taken as an offense. My primary concern is that this offense is based on an illusion. The common arguments on the offense is that it is because, ultimately, it is believed that the Muslim community behind Park51 is no different from al Qaida. However, there is little non-circumstantial evidence to this argument. In many cases, it would be a good idea to change location in order to show that the Park51 community is peaceful/non-threatening/sensitive. But the problem with that response isn’t that it’s wrong: changing locations will make the people opposing it feel justified/vindicated for having their perceptions based on illusions. At some point, someone needs to stand up for honesty (and dare I say truth, in a generalised sense). Feeding a bad, false impression is never a good solution, and it seems that no matter what the Park51 group does now, that bad impression will be fed: it’ll either be ‘see, they backed down because we were on to their schemes’ or ‘see, they are so bad that they do not even respect our opinions’.

It’s a lose-lose situation, and the biggest loser isn’t them nor the relatives and victims of 9/11, but the American people who will have let the media (left or right wing, doesn’t matter) think for them, decide for them, and act for them. It is the feeding of false perceptions that is the worst consequence, as it leads us further into our sollipstic relativism and disavowal of the public sphere. The false perceptions being touted as prima facie evidence is a radical form of individualism. It is a condition in which we’re sinking away into ourselves where the only things that matter are what we think and believe for ourselves, divorced from any kind of public sphere that mediates between the many individuals to create a kind of community. In other words, it doesn’t matter what is real and/or true but what “I” (here being used to mean anyone) think is real or true. “I” make my own reality and substitute it for the one in which we used to live. Such relativism, whether it comes from the left or the right, needs to be addressed. This case is all the more why a truly secularised society is necessary, as it creates a neutral public sphere in which false perceptions regarding religions can be righted.

One Christian Libertarian’s View On Gay Marriage

Written by Colin. Published on July 6, 2010 ago in Politics, Religion and Theology. 7 Comments

Norman over at LibertarianChristains.com fielded a question today about gay rights. His answer is worth the read. In sum:

…not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God. Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.

This indeed is the linchpin on this issue between more statist Christians and Christian libertarians. Both views see homosexuality as a sin, an abomination before God of which we do not approve, condone and indeed as Christians we hate that sin (as we hate all sin). But only the former believes that we must (in order to be consistent) go a step further and engineer society by force, using the police and threatening to MAKE people conform to our religious views.

Why is Obama Threatening Health Insurers?

Written by Colin. Published on June 22, 2010 ago in Politics. 7 Comments

This from Reuters:

President Barack Obama will warn health insurance industry executives at a White House meeting on Tuesday against imposing big rate increases ahead of tighter rules under the new U.S. healthcare law, The New York Times reported.“Our concern is that they not try and, under the cover of the act, get in under the wire here on rate increases,” Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod told the newspaper.

The White House is concerned insurers will blame the new law for premium increases that really are intended to maximize industry profits, the newspaper said.

“Our message to them is to work with this law, not against it; don’t try and take advantage of it or we will work with state authorities and gather the authority we have to stop rate gouging,” the newspaper quoted Axelrod as saying.

This is deeply troubling, and I fear, a sign that my dour predictions two years ago may finally be coming. Here is the pattern that has been historically observed:

  • government intervenes in a sector of the economy
  • said intervention causes/augments imbalances and booms/busts
  • government blames individuals, voluntary collectives or the marketplace itself for consequences of intervention
  • government further intervenes, eventually by attempting to control prices
  • price controls lead to shortages and even higher prices
  • shortages lead to either industry failure or (if industry is fundamental to human survival) civil unrest

Is the White House deluded enough to think that by forcing company to pay for pre-existing conditions, that this will have no cost whatsoever? Covering pre-existing conditions will destroy the insurance industry – it will no longer be insurance, which requires risk. What will still be called “insurance” will actually just be welfare. And the providing of welfare by for-profit companies, which need to at least break even to survive, will lead to their premiums reflecting this. If their premiums don’t, then they fail.

Obama’s heavy-handed police-commissar approach is only going to make things worse. It reveals the fact that Obama thinks he can make the market function by naked power alone.

Sorry America. Enjoy your premiums skyrocketing. And if they aren’t allowed to by the bullying of Obama, then enjoy the shortages and not getting timely access to quality healthcare. Man cannot fight against the laws of nature.

Is the Left FINALLY Seeing the Light On Obama?

Written by Colin. Published on June 17, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. 2 Comments

John Stewart has let loose on Obama for being just as much of an authoritarian statist as President Bush (US link; UK link). If the left finally willing to recognise that Obama is a statist and that statism has no party (or rather, has adherents in both parties)?

In the philosophical tradition (the French and UK), the left has been libertarian. In the recent pragmatic (US and German) tradition, it has been on the right. It’s time for both conservatives and liberals to unite on common ground to reduce the police-state, wars, corporatism and government spending.

The answer takes courage. It means that Republicans need to not support statist republicans – either don’t vote, or vote Constitution or Libertarian Party. It means that Democrats need to not support statist Democrats – either don’t vote, or vote Green or Libertarian Party. Either way: STOP VOTING FOR STATISTS.

Republicans and conservatives failed miserably last time. George Bush almost immediately proved that he was an authoritarian to the core – yet he received virtually unwavering support. His philosophy was adopted by many conservatives who blindly supported the measure for which they now criticise Obama. When Ron Paul spoke up on this, they ridiculed him (many now support him, even more support his son Rand).

But if this is a partisan change in the right, then it is doomed to fail. The end of a partisan shift, is merely to elect party members (re: Republicans) into office. But a philosophical shift will see beyond partisan allegiance and will seek philosophical progress in whichever party it may be found. The left now has its opportunity to awaken in the wake of Obama’s complete lies on so many critical issues. Hopefully anti-authoritarians on the right will embrace them and ally with them – not engage in partisan bickering.

America’s immigration law is abusive

Written by Atanamis. Published on June 14, 2010 ago in General and Politics. 2 Comments

Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem handing out work visas at the border to any healthy, non-criminal, adult with ER insurance willing to come here and work. Migrant labor massively lowers the cost of fruits and vegetables grown in the US, by reducing the cost of picking. They reduce the cost of fast food. They improve the quality of life of every American. If someone who was given a free education here in the US and all the other benefits of growing up here really wants that fruit picking job or that fast food job, they can compete with foreign labor for all I care.

That said, our current policy is both abusive to migrants and dangerous to us. We are almost deliberately creating a black market of workers who won’t cooperate with the police, who are re-infecting the US with diseases which were previously eradicated, and who create a pipeline for other illegal trafficking. Employers can abuse their migrant workers who have little recourse, as can other criminal traffickers.

The answer is to grease the legal channels for migrant workers, since we obviously have a demand for them and they increase our own standard of living. Require them to provide a thumb print and basic health inspection at the border, then report to the government when they find a job. Anyone breaking the migrant worker laws gets kicked out and is not allowed back in. Anyone committing a crime on a work visa gets kicked out. If emergency health care is needed, it is covered by a highly focused plan so hospitals aren’t shafted.

This plan would be better for the migrant workers, better for the American people, and better for law enforcement. The one group it would NOT be better for are the corporations that treat migrants little better than slaves because they know the migrant has few legal resources to call upon. We shouldn’t reward illegal behavior (like sneaking into our country), but the laws have been designed to be broken. Unfortunately, the elite have managed to turn this into an irrational brawl where people accuse migrants of stealing jobs. Personally, I like my $1 fast food cheeseburger. If that means allowing migrants to “steal” fast food jobs, so be it!

Ron Paul In 2012? New Poll Shows Paul Most Popular Candidate Among Independents

Written by Colin. Published on June 11, 2010 ago in Politics. Closed

From the latest poll:

One thing that’s very interesting about these numbers is that Ron Paul is the most popular out of the whole group with independents. They see him favorably by a 35/25 margin. The only other White House hopeful on positive ground with them is Romney at a +2 spread and they’re very negative on the rest: -5 for Huckabee, -16 for Gingrich and Palin, and -17 for Obama. All five of the possible GOP contenders lead Obama with independents, but Paul does so by the widest margin at 46-28.

It has been easy in the past to write Paul off as irrelevant but this anti-politician climate is giving his movement some steam. Paul’s going to have an interesting choice in the next year or so. If his goal is really to be President rather than to influence the national dialogue then he should probably keep on trying to win the GOP nomination, as improbable as that might be. But if he wants to guarantee himself a major role in the 2012 contest he should run as a third party candidate instead. Polling at 5-10% nationally in the general election would get his views a much wider airing than just trudging along through the Republican nomination process and hoping to get 10-15% in each primary.

Now among all voters, Paul still loses to Obama quite clearly. However the popularity among independents marks an incredible strategic advantage both in early caucuses and primaries, as well as in a general election.

Rand Paul Gets It From The Right

Written by Colin. Published on June 8, 2010 ago in Politics. Closed

Rand Paul went on Neil Cavuto yesterday and got a grilling. Quelle surprise.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cdaeNzaLM[/youtube]

If there is anything that has restored my faith in Rand Paul, it’s getting an awful reception from Fox News. It’s obvious that Paul was shocked by the questions asked, having lately secured an uneasy truce with the GOP establishment. Paul can be seen nervously laughing as he is asked leading question after leading question. At one point, Cavuto asks him about a staff “shake-up” which never happened and was only based on rumours and speculation.

It’s patently obvious that Paul, despite being more conservative than libertarian, has not yet allied himself with the GOP establishment and still represents a true outside candidate.

Opposite Ends of Arizona

Written by Christopher Roussel. Published on June 1, 2010 ago in Essays and Politics. 1 Comment

I’m sure most people who read this blog regularly are aware of Arizona’s new law requiring people to produce identification that they are legally in the US (either as citizens, residents, visitors, etc). The interesting thing to me is the ideology behind this. No, I’m not going to discuss whether or not this leads to racial profiling.

What’s fascinating to me is that this law was passed and is promoted as a ‘right-wing’, conservative law. This is because those same ‘right-wing’ conservatives tend to push for privacy rights, supporting laws designed to protect an individual’s identity (e.g. ‘stop and ID’ laws like this). There is no federal law requiring individuals to identify themselves, which is why these state laws have been enacted. However, these state laws are specific in that the only require people who are legally detained to provide identification. In other words, it is a relatively cut-and-dry situation: either one detained or not and it is either legally or not (yes, the legality of the detainment can be up for interpretation, but it is generally clear-cut). Outside of these situations, nobody is required to provide identification. This kind of ideology is based on a fairly conservative reading of the law (particular those regarding illegal search and seizure, presumption of innocence, etc).

The fascination I have is that Arizona’s new identification law resembles what is seen more often in what would be considered by Americans ‘socialist’ or ‘left-wing’ countries. I’m always fascinated in how the political spectrum is imagined in the public consciousness; this is a perfect example of how that image is faulty. The standard left/right distinction in America usually implies that the ‘left’ is about big government and authoritarianism that borders on fascism (the common example here is the American conception of ‘communism’ by which is meant Stalinism). The American ‘right’, on the other hand, is seen as promoting small and limited government.

Colin has posted previously about the Nolan chart. This is one example of seeing the political spectrum as having more than one dimensions. In allowing multiple axes, we can see that there are ‘right-wing’ groups that do support big government as well as ‘left-wing’ groups that support small, limited government. If anything, Arizona’s new law shows just this: that conservative, ‘right-wing’ groups can and do support laws that go against the small, limited government ideology. So perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too, provided we market it properly.

Remembering Soldiers as Victims of War

Written by Colin. Published on May 31, 2010 ago in Politics. 15 Comments

When Veterans Day rolled around in my current country (the UK), I posed this piece: The Soldier Gives Us Neither Freedom Nor Peace. I want to be clear that in this piece and my short remarks to follow, that I desire to accent my displeasure with war itself and an aggressive philosophy of militarism, rather than soldiers.

Today is memorial day in my country of birth – the United States. In this country, so often the soldier is seen to be the archetype of American heroism. Much like in ancient Rome, an individual hero, made of moral selflessness, who submits himself to the collective, ordered machinery of the military to provide for the defence of his family, community and nation.

I see things quite differently.

Throughout history, the soldier has often come from the poorest of backgrounds, having been told by the propaganda of the state that the military is his best option in life. His individuality is broken down, and his is used on behalf of those elites which control and direct the military to kill other people who have been similarly conditioned.

We should remember soldiers as victims of the state. The state lied to them with false promises, and exploited their very lives as the means to control some resource, obtain some territory, advance some ideology or, at worst, eliminate or subjugate some peoples. We should mourn the American soldier as we mourn the German Soldiers from 1939-1945: men and women who could have produced so much for the benefit of humanity, but who were instead sucked dry, and summarily discarded like so much trash.

There is nothing glorious about the military. There is nothing glorious about war.

We should mourn and weep for the soldiers who have died. We should see them as the victims of sinful, fallen man and cease to demand their service, except only in the most dire need of defence.

What Rand Paul Might Have Said: Four Other Media Appearances To Consider

Written by Colin. Published on May 21, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. Closed

I’ve already made my position clear that I agree fully with Rand Paul’s intentions about the Civil Rights Act. I will echo some of the sentiments of others that he could have been clearer, but at the same time, the Rachel Maddow show was a kangaroo court. Despite Rand Paul’s attempts to explain his position, he obviously knew that he was being set up and wriggled, finagled and squirmed in his explanation.

Here are a few other ways this issue has been dealt with.

1. Barry Goldwater

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacJtYPHKiE[/youtube]

Goldwater didn’t win any friends by this. He was unabashedly critical of the Civil Rights Act and made it clear as to why. He also called out LBJ’s flip-flopping on this, but to no avail. It remains a black mark on his legacy in the eyes of many to this day.

2. Ron Paul on Meet the Press circa 2008 (forward to 4:44)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4&feature=related[/youtube]

Ron Paul is also unapologetic and unabashedly purposeful in his remarks. But he is wise. He first finds a place of agreement with where discrimination is wrong, and then shows the principle behind the law. “It has nothing to do with race relations.” And then he lays the smack down and Russert quickly moves on.

3. John Stossel

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsNGSCC6aI[/youtube]

Stossel isn’t running for office, and therefore is the most upfront. He says that he would go even farther than Rand Paul and seek repeal of the law. But Stossel, again, brings the issue away from race right away to show the principle. The anchor then tries to make the emotional point against Stossel, which he authoritatively dismisses with the axiomatic case of how people who refuse customers which others serve will eventually go out of business. This goes over the anchor’s head, and probably would be over the head of most Americans.

4.  Ron Paul circa yesterday

Here Paul again finds a point of agreement, showing MLK as a person who favoured the repeal of laws and for civil disobedience. He then proves his knowledge of integration history and shows how the government is no friend of civil rights. In this context, Paul reveals in plain language the greater principles at stake here. Lastly, he makes the axiomatic point, just like Stossel and then criticises the witch hunt going on about the issue.

What all of this shows is that Rand’s big mistake was trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth. He should have taken the libertarian position, dealt with the flack and then moved on. Instead, his shiftiness on the show and subsequent backtracking has made him look disingenuous (which is not new).

Rand Paul may have principles somewhere in there, but he behaves like a politicians and that makes him incredibly different than his father.