Politics archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Why I am not an Objectivist

Published by Kenneth Martens July 3, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 8 Comments

In my previous articles I explained how my libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview, and why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government.) Today I will explore Objectivism, the ethical philosophy developed by Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand is best known for her novel Atlas Shrugged. In it, Rand lays out a consistent ethical framework based on the inviolable rights of life and property. She calls her ethical system Objectivism because the rights are objectively determined by reality, not by the subjective whim of the masses or by the varying interpretation of religious scriptures. Objectivist ethics are inherent in the universe. They are objectively true.

I started reading Ayn Rand because she gives a vigorous defense of small-government libertarianism. Her essays have played a part in shaping my own views of political philosophy. I agree with much of what she says about government. However, I am not an Objectivist.

Objectivism is incompatible with biblical principles. To explain why, let’s study the underpinning concepts of Objectivism. Let’s begin with the Essentials of Objectivism as presented by the Ayn Rand Institute.

Metaphysics

Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural

A belief system that rejects the supernatural is contrary to the Bible. The Bible is filled with accounts of supernatural miracles. Jesus walked on water. God appeared to Moses in a burning bush. Ten plagues afflicted the Egyptians. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. God spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Epistemology

Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge)

The Bible says a great deal about faith. In John 20:29 Jesus says “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Hebrews 11 says it is “by faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command.” Hebrews 11 lists off all the biblical heros and declares that “these were all commended for their faith.” Faith is not an optional part of a biblical worldview. Because Objectivism rejects faith, it rejects Scripture.

Human Nature

Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions)

According to the Bible, God is sovereign over all things. God can harden the heart (Exodus 7:13, 9:12). He controls our eternal destiny: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5). God is in control of nations: “The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.” (Psalm 33:10). A man does not control even his own destiny: “Many plans are in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand.” (Proverbs 19:21).

Ethics

“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action.”
“Rationality is man’s basic virtue.”
Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Man’s reason is a poor guide: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12).

Politics

Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

The sociopolitical system that is compatible with Objectivism is laissez faire capitalism. The way to achieve this is through a minarchist libertarian government. This is not incompatible with biblical values. The underlying values of Objectivism are unbiblical, but Objectivist politics are not.

Esthetics

“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.”

I don’t even know what this means.

Of the Essentials of Objectivism, only one out of six (Politics) is compatible with biblical values. As a Christian, I cannot be an Objectivist. Objectivism is based on a godless secular view of the world. It worships man instead of man’s Creator.

The Death of Left and Right

Published by Colin July 2, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 5 Comments

It has been a tough thing this election cycle, especially with the beacon of light which was the Ron Paul movement, to admit defeat. Argument after argument I have engaged, especially with “conservatives” has been predicated on the hope that the new statist conservative movement is a fad, and that there is still a remnant of “old school” conservatives in the mainstream GOP. I think it is time to admit defeat. The Left died some time ago in this country, and now the Right has joined them in the grave.

It was once said that Left and Right in America looked something like this:

Right - Social and fiscal conservatives. Philosophically opposed to collectivism, big government and taxes. Fiscally responsible, favouring balanced budgets and looking to cut taxes and spending. Supporting civil rights. Promoting a moral society. Supporting private and family education. Seeing the family as the foundation of a moral society. Strong on defence but sceptical of empire and conflicts that could damage trade. Supporting immigration and freer borders.

Left - Social and Fiscal liberals. Generally favour collectivism to individualism. Bigger government but restrained by laws and free and fair elections. Fiscal investments in welfare, infrastructure and military. Supporting civil rights, especially privacy. Sceptical of police and military for uses other than peacekeeping and defence. Generally more states-rights.

In name, the major parties still would claim to hold to these principles. But when Mitt Romney argues that government-mandated healthcare is a “market solution” and Mike Huckabee claims that we need to “stop spending,” but should support increased NASA funding, farm subsidies and federal education spending - we clearly have double-speak of Orwellian proportions.

Bob Barr, former conservative congressman, currently running for president as a Libertarian, explains exactly when it was that conservatism died:

I remember the precise moment. I was elected to Congress in 1994 with the Republican Revolution, and four years later we were in one of the House Republican caucuses, just before the ‘98 election, and the leadership came in and said very clearly, “We’ve got an election coming up. Anybody here who has a problem in their district, sit down with Representative Kasich or Armey and tell them what you need to have in this year’s budget to win your election.” And they might as well have had a sign flashing in the background that said “business as usual.” We were no longer serious about reining in government. And now McCain goes out and talks about doing away with earmarks, and the public applauds. But in one year, you could simply freeze spending and save ten times as much. They want to give the appearance of tackling the issue, but not really. It’s part of the same shell game they use cycle after cycle.

The left and right as a valid barometer of political spectrum has now vanished. There is now little that distinguishes someone like John McCain from Barack Obama. Both are for continuing the war in Iraq. Both are gung-ho about possible expansion. Neither would fix the PATRIOT act. Neither would fix NCLB. Both seem to want increased border restrictions. Neither will cut spending. Both want statist solutions to global warming. Both are opposed to free markets. Neither of them support individual liberty. And it seems neither have read the constitution in a while.

Again, Barr speaks eloquently to the topic:

[The presidency is] the same establishment, the same power-hungry entity, whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat… Every administration that comes in takes the powers that it inherits from its predecessor as a floor, not a ceiling. So whether it’s McCain or Obama, they’ll inherit the powers of the Bush administration.

I propose that there is now only one spectrum that matters - it’s vertical rather than horizontal. Power and authority are on the top; freedom and liberty are on the bottom. The question is no longer whether an official considers himself left or right, but authoritarian or libertarian. Moderates should start ignoring the typical labels and buzzwords of each side and look at the substance of proposals to see whether they contribute to an authoritarian society, or a free and open one.

With today’s conservatives supporting all manners of interventions, from universal healthcare to military empire building, it’s time to face the facts. Stop appealing to Republicans with the old conservative arguments - you are arguing with a party of corpses.

Why I Am Not An Anarchist

Published by Kenneth Martens June 25, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 37 Comments

This essay responds to the idea that if small government is good, then no government is better.

Two Kinds of Libertarians
If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? Some libertarians agree, some don’t. That point of disagreement defines the two basic forms of libertarianism.

Anarchist libertarians believe true liberty can only be achieved if there is no government at all. Any form of government is oppressive.
Minarchist libertarians believe that a government is necessary for liberty. The ideal government is not oppressive.

Or to put it more succinctly:

Anarchy = no government
Minarchy = minimal government

Governments Abuse Power
The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people. At first glance that makes anarchism appealing. As one anarchist put it, how can minarchists trust “the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers” to coerce and oppress the public? (The Minarchist’s Dilemma) There’s nothing to stop the government from using its power for evil. The only way to prevent that is to eliminate the government completely.

Ayn Rand offers a succinct explanation of why anarchy cannot and does not work.

[A] society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

“The Nature of Government” (PDF document)

I’m a Minarchist
I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. There are practical reasons for my belief. E.g., I don’t think anarchism is workable in a fallen world filled with sinful people. It devolves into might-makes-right. Even Ayn Rand, a hostile critic of religion, recognizes that fact. But for now I want to focus on biblical reasons to support a minarchy. According to Romans 13, God establishes earthly governments and expects Christians to submit to them in obedience to God. Submitting is not optional for Christians.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

God’s Purpose for Government
OK then, submitting to the government is biblical. Does the Bible say that men must be governed, though? Is it acceptable to submit to the authorities that exist while also advocating their abolition? I believe not. The reason is related to the purpose of government. Let’s look at Romans again, to see the purpose of government.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 13:3-5) [Emphasis added].

The Bible is Not About Political Philosophy
The God-ordained purpose of government is to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God doesn’t tell us to obey the government on a whim; we must obey the government because it is God’s instrument of justice on Earth. The precise form of government isn’t detailed in the Scriptures, but the qualities of that government are listed: a government acceptable to God is one that punishes evildoers and holds no terror for those who do right. There is no biblical support for the idea that God’s purposes (i.e., punishing evildoers) can be achieved without a government.

The Bible isn’t a treatise on political philosophy. It doesn’t discuss the merits of republics or kingdoms or dictatorships; it doesn’t list the virtues of democracies. All the Bible tells us is that governments are established by God for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers. As a Christian, I can only support governments that achieve those biblical objectives. As a citizen and a rational, thinking human being, I believe a minarchy is the best kind of government to fully achieve God’s stated purposes for government.

To summarize:

I am not an anarchist. I believe God has established earthly governments for a purpose.
I am a minarchist because I believe a minarchy best fits the purposes of government laid out in Romans 13.

Are Anarchists Heretics?
This doesn’t mean that anarchy is heresy. I believe you can read the Bible and come away with an understanding that anarchy is compatible with God’s character and with biblical values. For example, you might look to the period of judges and see that God preferred Israel as a nation without a national government. God permitted Israel to have a king, but he warned them of the dire consequences. I don’t believe this implies that anarchy is God’s preferred system of government, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion.

So no, anarchy is not heresy. I believe minarchy is a more reasonable understanding of the Bible, but good Bible-believing Christians can be anarchists too.

GOP Flip-Flop on Financing

Published by Colin June 23, 2008 in Politics. 24 Comments

One of the major party candidates wants to see the Federal Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on presidential campaigns. This candidate also wants restrictions on donations, especially from businesses and wealthy people. This includes restrictions on the speech of religious groups as well.

The second major party candidate has decided to save taxpayers millions of dollars, by not taking this money in what is basically welfare for politicians. By this same token, free speech is no longer put into boxes based on timing, nor is money now channelled into rule-laden 527 Groups.

As I am sure the reader knows, the big-government position is being advocated by Republican John McCain, while, ironically, Democrat Barack Obama has forgone spending taxpayer money.

While this is already an almost comical commentary on the lack of distinction between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican National Committee has made themselves look even more foolish by criticizing Obama for his conservative position.

RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said the following:

In his decision to break his promise and forgo our nation’s public financing system, Barack Obama failed to demonstrate the kind of principled leadership that Americans are looking for in our next President. Obama’s decision is what we’ve come to expect from a candidate whose rhetoric is nothing like his record, and it undermines his own claims to represent a ‘new’ kind of politics. Clearly, Barack Obama is just another politician who is willing to do whatever benefits his own personal agenda.

While Obama is “flip-flopping” - it is the good kind - moving from a bad policy to a good one. Whereas McCain and the GOP’s steadfast adherence to their own hypocrisy is deplorable. The correct thing to do, is for the GOP to issue an apology for supporting a candidate like John McCain who claims to want to “reduce wasteful government spending” and subsequently supports federally-funded elections and free-speech restrictions.

What I suspect is the biggest problem with Obama’s move is that it is a break from the typical bipartisan agreements that the Dems and GOP have made to keep unfriendly elements (third parties and independents) from using wealth or grassroots support to crash their two party fiesta. That is the reason McCain-Feingold is in place - to enforce the duopoly currently in control of Washington.

Perhaps Obama really does represent change, and maybe his decision will have a positive impact on the future viability of non-traditional candidates. Either way, in this instance, it’s clear that public financing is not a viable program.

Why I am a Christian libertarian

Published by Kenneth Martens June 18, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 59 Comments

This essay responds to the common objection that libertarian ideology is inconsistent with a biblical worldview.

Isn’t that unchristian?
When I tell people I’m a libertarian, they look at me like I’m crazy. “Isn’t that unchristian?” they ask. “How can you support legalized drugs and gay marriage and immoral stuff? What about morality and God’s law?”

What about morality?
Good question. What about morality? I’m a proponent of biblical morality. It’s God’s law, after all. I believe that mind-altering drugs are bad, that homosexual acts are detestable to God, and that God hates sin. I don’t support sin. I just don’t think the government should get involved in punishing it. Let’s let God sort it out on judgement day. The government doesn’t need to enforce morality.

Shouldn’t governments enforce morality?
When I explain that, I get a response something like this: “But governments have to enforce morality. That’s why God gave us governments–to keep justice. Governments can’t condone sin.” That’s true. God did give us governments and he expects us to obey them. But do you really want the government to enforce God’s moral law? Many Christians will say yes, but they’re inconsistent about it. Let’s try this thought experiment.

Do you think freedom of religion is a good idea? Most American Christians do. But idolatry is a sin. If the government enforces God’s morality, all religions except Christianity should be illegal. Many Protestants would like to outlaw the Catholic church. While we’re at it, we should outlaw some of the wishy-washy Protestant denominations too.
Do you think freedom of speech is a good thing? Of course! It’s one of the basic civil liberties listed in the US Constitution. But God considers lying lips an abomination. If the government enforces God’s morality, lying–not just perjury under oath, but all forms of lying–should be illegal.
Do you think gay marriage should be permitted? The standard Christian response is “Of course not, homosexuality is a sin.”

Does a “morality-enforcing” government really enforce God’s moral standard?
So to recap:

Idolatry is a sin, but we should have freedom of religion.
Lying is a sin, but we shouldn’t throw people in prison for lying.
Homosexuality is a sin, so gay marriage should be illegal.

One of these things is not like the other one. Clearly, most Christians accept the fact that the government is not an instrument to enforce God’s laws–except for the particular moral laws that they find really, really important. That’s not consistent. There’s no biblical basis for permitting idolatry but erecting legal barriers to homosexuality.

Libertarianism is just more consistent, that’s all
So I don’t see any contradiction between being a Bible-believing Christian and an advocate for a minimalist libertarian government. I don’t support sin, but–like most other Christians–I don’t think the government needs to be the morality policeman. I’m just like most non-libertarian Christians, except my political philosophy is more consistent than theirs.

Should you be a libertarian?
Maybe. You don’t have to be. You can be a good Christian without being libertarian. The Bible doesn’t talk about political philosophy, so as Christians we have a great deal of freedom in this area. I won’t question your salvation or your theology if you’re a staunch Republican or a Democrat or a socialist. I hope you won’t question mine just because I’m a libertarian.

Game Review - Bioshock: Welcome to Rapture

Published by Ornot the Majestic June 17, 2008 in General, Essays, Politics and Philosophy. 6 Comments

Bioshock Logo I am Andrew Ryan and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose…
Rapture.
-Andrew Ryan

The year is 1946. Disillusioned with war and perceived religious and political authority, business mogul Andrew Ryan secretly begins building an escape, a utopia free from the parasites of Marxist altruism and religious scrutiny. He built Rapture, a city where man could build, where a man could make himself by his own merit, where a man could be free from moral entanglements and social obligations. He built “Rapture,” at the bottom of the sea. He invites all the great minds and free-thinkers to relish in his wonderland of libertopia, free to do as they please, how they please.

And then, in 1958, it all fell apart.

So begins the story of Bioshock, the newest game for XBOX 360 and PC from 2K, makers of System Shock and System Shock 2. Set in 1960, the story tells of an Objectivist dystopia at the height of ruin. You, the narrator, crash land into the mid-Atlantic near a mysterious island containing a lone lighthouse. You enter the lighthouse, board a bathysphere, and descend to the depths of Rapture. Leaking and crumbling, and apparently victim of its own design, you must fight the denizens of the genetically malformed and psychologically disturbed to discover its secrets, and its powers.

Unbridled by regulations and rules, scientists in Rapture discover the way to unlock the power of the human genome. Andrew Ryan creates (discovers?) Plasmids, a genetic code that gives humans additional strengths and powers including telekinesis, fire, ice and electricity and powered by EVE, a substance that acts as a fuel. Another substance, ADAM, enhances the ability of plasmids, but also weakens the physical/brain barrier, requiring more and more ADAM to maintain sanity. Soon, the residents of Rapture, horribly transfigured and addicted to ADAM, go crazy. And revolt.

The Philosophy of Rapture
Bioshock raises two important issues behind its symbolism:
1) Is this a game showing the futility of Objectivism, and its consequences? or…2) is this a game showing that regardless of intentions, man eventually falls to its basest of levels?

The makers of this game never tell us, which allows much room for interpretation.

If we assume #1, then creators have made some inherent flaws and assumptions, through which most can be attributed to #2. But before we start, let’s begin with some basic definitions.

Objectivism (from Wikipedia, a decent summarization) states:

Objectivism holds that there is mind-independent reality; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or “rational self-interest”; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one’s consciousness.

It is your moral duty to pursue your own self-interests, as long as those interests do not interfere or destroy the individual rights of others. This basic concept is key behind the objectivist movement, and a founding principle of (L)ibertarianism. It is also this concept that the game appears to make as its base in theory, but it could be argued that it was not Objectivism that brought Rapture down, but the fact that it was not quite Objectivist enough.

Food for Thought, and for Skeptics
Now I know by now many of you are thinking “BUT! IT’S JUST A GAME! YOU’RE CHASING SMOKE ON A WINDY DAY!” Well, possibly. But with it being the #1 selling game on XBOX, and with 9.8/10 or higher in most game review magazines, there is no doubt that this game will be played. Also, given its thought provoking plot, there is little doubt it will many raise questions. Consider also the Randian basis that this game builds upon, including the symbolism which alludes to famous works and characters of her novels. With names like Andrew Ryan….Frank Fontaine…Atlas…it’s not hard to see Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and notice it’s more than just coincidence. Like a good book, or a good movie, this game was meant to raise questions and be explored.
Continue reading ‘Game Review - Bioshock: Welcome to Rapture’

A Few Bold Predictions for Our Economy

Published by Colin June 9, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 11 Comments

The first thing anyone who studies human history will notice first is that, despite varying times, places and cultures, societies and individuals fall into predictable repeated patterns. So when I say that I am going to make predictions, I want it to be understood that I am merely looking at two things: 1) what has empirically happened in the past, and 2) what logically follows from economic theory.

The Housing Market
I have already mentioned that I think buying a house right now, on the whole, is an especially dumb financial move. There are always exceptions based on local markets and circumstances, but the market has not bottomed out yet by any means. The biggest indicator of this is the fact that the Federal Funds Rate has not yet been raised to deal with inflation.

The current housing problems are due to a shifting of various financial bubbles and the fallout of malinvestment from the last fed-created bubbles. The biggest factor in housing prices is the supply and demand of debt. All of this uncertainty in housing has been caused without the price of debt rising significantly. If the Fed feels that it needs to stave off inflation (as Ben Bernanke has been inflating the dollar like mad) then the first thing they are trained to do is raise interest rates. Remember, it was only a drop in interest rates of about 5% that created the housing bubble. Imagine what a raise of 5-10% will do!

In fact, this housing slowdown is in spite of declining interest rates. This signals that the market is literally perched on the edge of a cliff, and as soon as inflation becomes a bigger priority, housing will be one of the first casualties.

There is no question that if the Fed decided to fight inflation the way that their models tell them to: by raising rates, we will see a significant drop in the real value of homes. If the economy is still sour when this happens, then this fall will be augmented by struggling families looking to sell the house that has become a noose around their necks.

Inflation and Increased Economic Controls
Food and energy prices (ironically not considered at all as part of the inflation equations by state economists) have been shooting up. The value of the dollar has been plumetting. Gold is hovering around $900 and ounce. These are all demonstrating that inflation is here. This is Bernake’s philosophy of inflation:

Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

In other words, we may see an amazing amount of inflation in the coming decade because this is the philosophy that is now behind the printing presses. This means your gas, food and energy costs are only going to go up and up and up and up.

In every period of high inflation, even the most recent one in the US, governments always try to then control the economy through wage and price controls. From Richard Nixon to Diocletian 1700 years ago, governments, after destroying their currency, will blame “greedy capitalists” for raising prices and prescribe that it is essential for them to take control over the price system and legislate prices from on high.

Rather than bring stability, this move shifts the chaos from the economy to real life. Massive shortages ensue as goods will not be produced and sold at a loss to businessmen. Large companies will begin to fold (the small companies already went bust from the inflation) and basics like gas and food, which were originally just expensive, now are unavailable. Crime increases as men get more desperate to feed their families. Depending on how long the government controls prices, and how effective they prosecute, society begins to degenerate.

Unfortunately, the framework is in place for these kind of controls with state and federal “anti-gouging” laws and public sentiment currently whipped up against corporations and businessmen.

Wars and Rumours of Wars
Growing discontent in the population either requires war on the population itself or war on an external entity. In my church last week, I was appalled to be treated to, instead of a sermon or bible study (normally what we go to church for), a 40 minute political video on the “Islamic Threat” and how these evil towel-heads are going to run all over truth, justice and the American way. The other racial group this “threat” was tied to was Mexicans, who are “invading” our country and “sympathize” with the violent extremism of “all” Muslims.

If the government decided not to war on us when the effects of price controls are felt, then these groups are definitely easy targets. They also have the benefit of being a different culture and race - which is a historic enemy of governments going down this path.

Even with gas prices rising almost solely because of inflation from our government, the anti-Arab emails are flying around with pictures of the wealth in Dubai. We are setting ourselves up as a nation of looters, who may justify wars of booty-sacking the Arabs who practice that evil capitalism and are threatening our freedom with their greed. Again, governments tend to augment this racism by encouraging these wars - as wars provide the best justification for economic control, and temporarily provide the public unity to go along with a centrally planned economy.

I am not saying the US is going to turn into 1930’s Germany. What I am saying is that as government looks to gain more and more control of the economy (even for benevolent reasons) the unintended (but easily predictable) consequences tend to compound. Most people realize that we are moving in the wrong direction, but most people are also afraid to conclude that “the wrong direction” doesn’t lead to infinity - that eventually we arrive at the wrong place.

Right now we just have the beginnings of inflation and a housing market teetering on the brink. But depending on how the government decides to “solve” these problems, we may find ourselves in deeper and deeper trouble as history repeats itself once again.

Why Ron Paul Won in 2008

Published by Colin June 5, 2008 in Essays, Politics and Current Events. 40 Comments

With a headline like this, it must be first mentioned that this is not a paranoid conspiratorial piece on how delegates were STOLEN (all caps), votes weren’t counted or the major media somehow sabotaged the Ron Paul campaign. Rather, it is important to take a realistic look at the goals that Ron Paul’s campaign set out to accomplish, and examine how he fared.

First of all, did Ron Paul actually enter this election to win? Before we start getting our competitive juices flowing, just think about what Ron Paul stands for and what a realistic assessment of this kind of “victory” would have meant. He would have gone to the Oval Office with a congress that absolutely hated and loathed him, departments that feared him and would fight him as though their jobs were at stake (which they would be) and a public (after fickle popular support had waned) which was bewildered with the kind of radical policies and actions that were coming from the president. A Ron Paul presidency may have destroyed the best fruits of his candidacy.

Ron Paul’s campaign has always been a bottom-up phenomenon. Secondly, it is a more purely philosophical and ideological agenda - rather than a pragmatic political one. While many have criticized that this is a bad thing - is it not more beneficial in the long-term to sacrifice an election in order to generate hundreds of thousands of individual awakenings to liberty?

Rather than being humble, Paul was being very honest when he said countless times that the campaign wasn’t about him, but about the people who supported him. Paul’s campaign jarred the intellectually lazy and cynical over a few months (which may have been all they needed), and made them take a moment to consider what freedom, consitutionalism and liberty really mean. He showed us what a free society should look like.

This is key, because rather than end up in a politically neutered position of central power, Ron Paul has lit the spark of changed hearts and minds. And for those that have not changed, especially many conservatives, they have had to reconsider what kind of GOP they now support. Paul’s campaign was in the spotlight for enough time to act as a mirror against the new GOP - and show conservatives just how long it’s been since they took a good look at themselves - many of them no longer recognizing their own faces.

Ron Paul’s expectations have been wildly exceeded by his campaign. For the first time in decades, there is an active block of people who are learning about the evils of central banking, empire-building and welfarism. These aren’t the crazies and kooks who were in the cracks of society, burying guns in Idaho - these are regular folks, who work regular jobs and have become evangelical about the message of freedom.

This movement, which has been scattered and divided across the spectrum: libertarians, constitutionalists, republicans, democrats, independents, anarchists and even some former socialists have been united under Paul’s big tent platform. And while it may be easy to ridicule the conspiracy theorists, it is a testimony to the movement that they now join with college professors, intellectuals and businessmen. Or the atheists, homosexual activists and objectivists now aligning with radical Christians and New Agers. These people now realize that they have more in common than they once thought - and while disagreements remain, there is now more than a undefined dissatisfaction with what has happened in America, but a visible way out.

John McCain or Barack Obama will go to the White House in 2008. But their policies, which favour a continuation of America’s slow decline into the also-rans of history, will prove Ron Paul right again. People like BJ Lawson, Murray Sabrin and Carl Bunce are setting themselves up as future advocates. Many of these would have never thought to seek political office, but have been inspired by the optimism and hope that Ron Paul exampled.

Ron Paul won in 2008, by taking the exact opposite approach of most politicians. Instead of coalition building, compromising, pandering and standing for nothing and everything at the same time, Paul explicitly denounced the problems we have created and boldly proclaimed the solutions found in freedom and liberty. Ron Paul has mobilized many in the coming generation to build a better future. This long-term investment may not have resulted in an immediate gratification, but over time, compounded with interest, this movement may very well pay off.

Mike Huckabee: Right-Wing Socialist

Published by Colin June 2, 2008 in Politics. 113 Comments

Mike Huckabee took the high road in an interview last week, calling libertarian-leaning republicans who don’t support government healthcare and public schools “heartless, callous, soulless” and of course unamerican. Yes kids, advocating an idea of the federal government consistent with the US Constitution is unamerican. This is just further nonesense from a man who has been appropriately dubbed by Reason “America’s Life Coach.”

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

Huckabee tries to rewrite history and declare that libertarianism is “new” (and has not been historically a part of the Republican Party). In 1975 Ronald Reagan embraced the libertarian movement, and while he acknowledged that he was opposed to the “no government” shade of the philosophy, he said:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

Huckabee, on the other hand argues that historic republicanism is, well, his right-wing socialism. Really? Historic republicans supported public education and government healthcare? Cutting taxes and eliminating government is “not historic Republicanism?”

Again, Reagan made it quite clear, saying “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” Yet Huckabee’s view of Government as the prime shaper of social values, habits and benevolence completely contradicts this idea.

Even though I no longer consider myself a republican in any way - I have some nostalgic love for the party that birthed my understanding of economic conservatism. Despite the complete takeover of the party by the Neo-Conservative exiles from the FDR left, there was once some good in them. Sometimes I feel like Luke Skywalker pleading with Darth Vader to acknowledge the sliver of good still lingering after years of evil.
Continue reading ‘Mike Huckabee: Right-Wing Socialist’

The Next American Civil War

Published by Kenneth Martens May 21, 2008 in Politics and Book Reviews. 18 Comments

Empire cover art Empire, by Orson Scott Card
Tor Books, 2006
352 pages
Amazon.com link

Spoiler warning: This article discusses plot details about Orson Scott Card’s novel Empire. If you intend to read the book and don’t wish to know too much about what happens, you may wish to skip this article.

What will spark the next American civil war? That was the question posed to science fiction writer Orson Scott Card by Donald Mustard of Chair Entertainment. Chair wanted to develop a game based around an American civil war, and asked Card to figure out how that war might happen. Card gave it a shot. The result was Empire, a thriller novel published in 2006.

The Blue and the Red
Card looked at America. He found no divisions that have “the geographic clarity of the Mason-Dixon line.” But civil wars need no boundaries. The greatest division in America today is liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, blue states vs. red states. That’s the conflict that flares into a shooting war in Empire.

But, as Card knows, blue states aren’t really blue and red states aren’t really red. The divide only grows distinct when we compare urban centers to the rural areas. Urban blue, rural red. With this kind of geographical dispersal throughout the United States, a shooting war isn’t likely to happen spontaneously. No, it requires a conspiracy.

The Conspiracy
Here’s how it happens in Empire. A liberal billionaire (think George Soros) secretly finances a private military. He bides his time, waiting to overthrow the US government. Meanwhile, a disaffected Army general plans his own right-wing coup. When unknown terrorists assassinate the President and Vice-President, the general seizes the opportunity; but his move is premature and the coup fails. In response, the liberal militia invades and occupies New York City, declares the US government to be illegitimate, and claims to be the only true government of the people. To avoid civilian casualties, the new US President (formerly Speaker of the House, as per the rules of succession) opts not to send the US military into New York City. The nation endures a tense standoff between the revolutionary forces and the US government; every day that the standoff continues, more liberal states and cities pass resolutions recognizing the rebellion as the legitimate government of the US.

Could it really happen?
Card’s basic premise is that the left-right divide in America is sufficient to lead to civil war. But is this realistic? I think not. Even Card recognizes that the average American isn’t radical enough to wish his political enemies dead. Most Republican don’t think that Democrats are evil, and vice versa. That plays out in Empire. The only significant violence is caused by the private militia that invades New York City. There is no massive violence and bloodshed between Americans. The rest of the nation sits around waiting to see what happens; a few city councils and state governments pass resolutions, but nobody takes up arms. Republicans don’t murder their Democratic neighbors. Liberals don’t lynch conservatives. In the end, after the rebellion collapses, the Republicans and Democrats even get together and–in a show of bipartisanship–nominate the same man for President.

Neither left nor right
If the left-right divide is the biggest problem in America today, the nation is strong. Is there anything that could flare into civil war in America? I can’t think of anything. Do you have any ideas?

Zeal For Truth