Category: Libertarian

Replacing race conflict with class conflict is not an improvement.

Update: After thinking over Sen. Obama’s speech again, I’ve changed my mind. I focused too much on what Sen. Obama wanted us to think he was doing and not enough on what he was doing. One particular line stuck out and I can’t get beyond it.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

That line is a specific repudiation of the message of unity – based on individual liberty – that Sen. Obama tried to sell. He’s not transcending Us versus Them. He’s merely changing the players. He’s only interested in closing divides if doing so can be used for short-term political advantage, even if it means opening a new divide. Without that potential personal benefit, he doesn’t seem to find the principle worth respecting.

I modified my original entry to reflect my revised opinion.

Original entry:

I’ve been paying attention to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story as nothing more than background noise to my interests. But I know Sen. Obama spoke today on the subject. Having read it, it’s decent enough insufficient in its attention to race and politics and the question of his implicit endorsement of Wright’s ridiculous opinions. There were some off-notes for me, but it’s a step (or four) forward and I think those overwhelm whatever good he could’ve had in the speech.

However, I can’t get past the unnecessary stuck inside his attempt at the necessary. Such as:

… Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. …

… distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. …

And politicians exploit fears of economic outcomes for their own electoral ends. Sen. Obama’s (and Sen. Clinton’s) strategy leading to March 4th, full of anti-NAFTA rhetoric and boiler-plate economic stupidity that he certainly understood as stupidity, exploited the fears of voters in Ohio. It was expedient political crap then. It’s expedient political crap here.

If Sen. Obama means inside corporate dealing between private parties, so what? If he means to include public parties, then say so explicitly. Leave out the anti-corporation idiocy, which he could’ve done by hitting solely on the problem of (readily-embraced) rent-seeking in Washington. But that would mean accepting that all parties have a legitimate claim to their own interests, demanding that Washington stay out of picking any winners and losers. Sen. Obama isn’t saying that. He like economic policies that favor the few over the many, as long as the groups are selected to his preference.

I see nothing new or noble here.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

Why quote the Preamble to the Constitution if you’re going to call on religious impulses for the way forward? Not everyone shares the same faith, or any faith. I’d rather focus on an idea like the Fourteenth Amendment and its requirement that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The context of this speech required the classical liberal (i.e. libertarian) approach to public interactions in America, not the liberal (i.e. Progressive) approach. Less “do unto others (with government)” and more “We hold these Truths to be self-evident”.

Can we frame the debate objectively?

In response to this Will Wilkinson entry and this Kerry Howley entry on the liberty arguments for (economics) and against (morality) legalized prostitution, Ross Douthat goes off the rails with a strange question of how prostitution as sex work differs from molestation and incest. It’s as ridiculous as it sounds. Read Mr. Wilkinson’s response, with all the obvious goodness such a question demands.

Instead, I want to focus on this one sentence from Mr. Douthat’s entry:

If you think that sex, by virtue of being bound up not only culturally but biologically with emotional attachment on the one hand and reproduction on the other, is a unique kind of physical act, one that’s intimate by its very nature in a way that, say, preparing dinner isn’t, then it makes sense to assign a hierarchy of moral value (and moral stigma) to different kinds of sexual activity – most likely with monogamy at the top, serial monogamy somewhat lower, promiscuity lower still, and activities that treat sex as a commodity to be bought and sold somewhere near the bottom.

Of course it makes sense to assign that hierarchy if that’s what you think. But not everyone thinks that. Perpetuating individual liberty demands more than caving to a squishy notion of universal disdain for an activity. Even, and perhaps especially, when one finds activities at the bottom of that hierarchy morally repugnant.

The validity of arguing for the legalization of prostitution does not hinge on the moral argument with regard to selling sex. It is acceptable to believe that an activity is morally unacceptable, yet to acknowledge that two consenting adults may engage in that activity because they are not harming others. Or more precisely, if they are harming anyone, it is only themselves, voluntarily. That question of liberty is at the core of this debate, not the moral defensibility of prostitution.

Free to engage and should engage are different concepts. Ms. Howley and Mr. Wilkinson argue only the former. This (implicitly) injects into the debate the truth that all tastes and preferences are subjective. It sets such subjectivity aside and leaves the legal question only to evidence of objective harm.

For fairness, Mr. Douthat posits in an earlier entry that sex work is by definition self-abuse, justifying a legal prohibition. The posts he responds to in the above links address that argument.

**********

Of course, since it’s apparently okay to ask questions unrelated to the topic, let me ask a question: Why is it automatically self-harm worthy of prohibition for an individual to sell sex, even when it’s voluntarily sold, yet it’s reasonable to permit parents to surgically alter the genitals of their healthy sons – who may or may not approve of such permanent, physical alteration – as Mr. Douthat suggested last year in defense of infant circumcision?

The answer to how one person can hold two incongruent opinions rather obviously rests in a willingness to use personal, subjective tastes and preferences to inform the legal code of a diverse, secular, civil society. It’s the same central planner impulse that resides in every individual who seeks to dictate which freedoms are abhorrent.

Since I’m off on the tangent, in that entry, Mr. Douthat states:

Proponents, like myself, point out that even saying the word smegma is really disgusting. Again, I think we pretty much win the debate right there, without even getting into the whole HIV question.

I get the tongue-in-cheek nature of the comment, whether he meant it or not. I think he did because I think he views circumcision as inconsequential. (Remember subjective tastes and preferences?) But any understanding of human biology demonstrates the stupidity of such an argument. Female genitals produce smegma, as well. We do not cut female minors for that reason. Or, more to the point, we do not permit parents to cut their daughters just because they, the parents, are disgusted by the mere mention of the word. We manage to find the correct reasoning to prohibit that. But for males, parents can use only the mere mention of smegma as an excuse to cut. Or they can reject even that reason and order it because it’s fun to check “yes” on the consent form. The law is based on our conditioned beliefs rather than facts.

Just as it is with prostitution.

XY is not a good starting point for judgment.

Remember what I wrote yesterday:

The only thing I know for sure is that when I see the patriarchy in a debate, I stop to question the receptivity of all participants to the complete, objective set of facts informing the debate.

I left the idea of accepting principles implicit in that. At Hit & Run, Kerry Howley nails the problem with respect to prostitution and claims of patriarchy. There is too much goodness to quote any one specific point. Read the whole piece. But I like this:

None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form.

Some of the comments at the Feministing entry that Ms. Howell discusses are instructive. First, the comment she references in her entry:

Exactly what is “enough” for a woman’s body? I’m politically liberal, openly feminist, and opposed to sex work precisely because of the “patriarchy, heterosexuality, legalization of sex work and the ethical treatment of sex worker” issues. Oh, yeah, and also the issue of pricing the body as a commodity to be sold in the capitalist market (“if we pay them more, then we must really value them” doesn’t make exploitation any more attractive).

To be fair, the commenter’s second paragraph states that sex work should be legal. But the point is clear, even if a woman sells the temporary sexual use of her body to another, it is exploitation. Can a person be exploited in agreement with her expressed will? This is a fancy way of arriving at the same conclusion as slut-shaming. She may do what she wants, but capitalism will ruin her because she’s not strong enough to overcome it. It’s the same circular, illogical journey to “patriarchy”.

Next, this comment:

Selling sex objectifies women and supports the patriarchal view that women are meant to service men. How do we as human beings expect to better ourselves if we can’t move beyond our violent, self serving instincts?

Women can’t sell sex to women. Men can’t sell sex to women. Men can’t sell sex to men. Got it? Only patriarchal men – never feminists – can adhere to a heteronormative, degrading worldview. Got it?

Taking it further, this comment:

But on another level, this story really sickens me, as someone who voted for Spitzer, and begs a bit of a personal question: When can we ever trust the men in our lives? Whether they are elected, or our friends, our lovers, our brothers or brother’s friends…When do we trust them to not rape us, use us, objectify our bodies, patronize our minds or otherwise disrespect us? I struggle with this story, as an example of not just an act of “indiscretion” but as Samhita points out, the larger issue of patriarchy, heterosexism in politics, abuse of power and ultimately a complete disregard for women has human beings.

That’s grotesque.

Like I said, the appearance of patriarchy suggests a narrow approach to whatever topic is being discussed. This is why I’m not a feminist. I’m a libertarian, instead¹, because I believe in equality. I believe that all people are capable of making their own decisions free from, and with understanding of, competing interests for and against their actions. Where there is oppression against free will, root it out. Where there is a poor outcome from free will, let it be². It’s not complicated.

¹ I know feminists who believe in equality of opportunity (i.e. liberty) rather than “equality” of outcome, so I do not seek to disparage feminism or imply that all feminists believe in the latter. But the feminists who do not believe in any equality that produces results different from their preferred outcomes are too off-putting. I’ll stick with my broader philosophy of libertarianism, which is based on principles rather than my subjective tastes and preferences.

² Contrary to what some people believe about libertarians, this does not mean I advocating leaving people who make bad choices to rot in the gutter. It does not meant hat I believe women who choose between selling sex and starving should be left to sell sex. Charity/assistance is not anathema to libertarianism.

“I decided I don’t need it.”

There is a lesson here on individual responsibility.

[Outfielder So] Taguchi, signed by the Phillies this winter, is the only Japanese player on a major-league contract this spring who does not use an interpreter around the ballpark, according to Gaku Tashiro, the big-dog ball writer from Japan’s Sankei News.

Taguchi used an interpreter when he first signed with St. Louis in 2002. However, he was sent to the minors that season and with the demotion came this message: You want an interpreter, you pay for it.

“I decided I don’t need it,” Taguchi said with a laugh the other day.

Though his wife, Emiko, spoke English, Taguchi spoke virtually none when he headed off to minor-league outposts in New Haven, Conn., and Memphis. Over time, he picked up enough to get by. When he made it to St. Louis in 2004, the Cardinals offered to get him an interpreter.

Taguchi said no thanks.

In perfect English.

“It was tough,” he said, recalling life around the ballpark without an interpreter. “But it was a good thing. I had to do everything by myself. It helped me learn.”

The Cardinals are a private organization¹, but this story informs the debate on public policy. People can and do help themselves when required to be responsible for the burden involved in helping themselves.

¹ Congress doesn’t seem to agree.

Root for individual liberty and America will succeed.

I fully expect to vote for myself in November, if I bother to vote at all. But just for fun, I’m researching some of the Libertarian Party candidates. On my first look – in this case, Wayne Allen Root – I’m not so thrilled. Consider some of his positions:

I support the Line Item Veto. I will push relentlessly and tirelessly to make this a crucial part of the President’s arsenal to fight the deficit, cut waste, and balance the budget.

Saying how he intends to achieve this is important, since it explains his understanding of the government process. However, he does not say how he intends to do this, so I will not assume his preferred path for achieving this. But I will suggest Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution as a starting point:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

This requires the President to address each bill in its entirety. He may not isolate the pieces he likes from the pieces he detests. The only valid approach to the line item veto is a Constitutional amendment.

My preference on this is simple. The Congress should narrow the focus of bills it presents to the President for approval. A defense bill shouldn’t have education issues attached, for example. The President should reject every bill that doesn’t meet this test until Congress begins legislating in this manner. This isn’t perfect because Congress gets leeway in how narrow it defines a topic, but it is an immediate solution.

Next, Mr. Root offers this:

I support gay rights and civil unions. Gay marriage however is not a federal issue. It is a States’ Rights issue only.

This raises two problems. First, the 16th Amendment forbids the states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Marriage, as a civil contract, is an individual right to enter into a voluntary agreement. It is not a group right belonging to two people. Such an idea is absurd, given our understanding of individual liberty, but it also assumes that two people share a right before they meet. Whoever you will marry shares this right with you. That’s ridiculous. Defining the individual right to contract down from the right to enter into a contract with another competent, willing individual to a right to enter into a contract with another competent, willing, opposite-sex individual is anti-individual liberty. That incorrectly achieves equal at the expense of liberty.

Second, states rights appears multiple times in Mr. Root’s positions. No government has rights. Governments have powers. These powers are granted from the people, not because the government has a legitimate claim to them, but because the people trade some amount of liberty in exchange for specific outcomes. I trade my “right” to harm to protect my right to remain free from harm. Government does not grant rights. It protects inherent rights.

In other words, it is little consolation to be oppressed by my neighbors through my state/local government instead of my countrymen in another state through our federal government. This sort of nonsense appears multiple times in Mr. Root’s positions. It’s the same fallacy made by Ron Paul in too many of his positions. (Remember, Ron Paul is not a libertarian.)

Here’s one last position from Mr. Root:

I support the separation of church and state. However I also believe in tolerance for rights of religious Americans too. I believe in school prayer, God in our pledge of allegiance and on our currency. To remove these religious symbols would be to deny the rights and freedoms of religious Americans. I would also protect the rights of those who do not believe in God or religion to not participate in any public prayer or religious activities.

This is troubling. Removing these religious symbols from the private sphere would be to deny the rights and freedoms of religious Americans. To remove them from the public sphere denies nothing.

School prayer is fine, in a private school. That is not what is up for debate. Arguing otherwise suggests dubious integrity. Mention of God in our pledge of allegiance, as legislated by Congress, is problematic. We do not have a private currency, and the government actively seeks to stamp out such efforts, so “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency is a violation of the First Amendment. While the latter two are minor in scope, if not principle, none of the three are valid in government as public requirements. They have nothing to do with tolerance for individual rights.

I do not wish to suggest that there is a libertarian purity test based on policy recommendations. I don’t; I think that fallacy is counter-productive. However, I think there is a valid libertarian purity test on thought process. If Mr. Root argues for legislation to grant the line item veto, he ignores the Constitution’s text. Where Mr. Root argues for states’ rights, he misses the point of individual liberty and government of, for, and by the people. Where Mr. Root argues to overlook Congressional indifference to the First Amendment in favor of “tolerance”, he abandons the reasoning for a Constitution. None of these positions rely on libertarian principles, which is a valid criteria for judging a candidates credentials.

To clarify, the big libertarian test right now seems to be Iraq. Most libertarians agree that our experiment in Iraq is a mistake. It is a preemptive war without justification based in national security. Unlike Afghanistan, a legitimate war of self-defense, Iraq carried no such immediate threats to U.S. security.

I agree with that analysis. I also think there are libertarians who disagree. I don’t mean “people who (mistakenly) call themselves libertarians” disagree. For example, Timothy Sandefur supports the war in Iraq on national security grounds. I disagree with his conclusion from the facts, but he is basing his support on his intellectually-considered conclusion within the framework of libertarian principles of self-defense. It’s okay to disagree with him. Such debate pushes us to a better conclusion, in general. But it would be idiotic to suggest that he is not a libertarian because of this policy recommendation.

As another example, I’m clearly against any circumcision of a child that isn’t based in an immediate medical need. That is a libertarian position focused on the individual’s right to keep his foreskin (i.e. his property) and his right to remain free from harm. Freedom of/from religion is also an individual right, with the child having a claim equal to his parents. It is an invalid excuse. There can be no libertarian disagreement on this.

When there is a medical issue, there can be a disagreement on whether that medical issue requires circumcision rather than some less invasive treatment. The answer requires judgment. I would seek out those less invasive treatments for a child before resorting to circumcision. I think ethics demand all parents and medical personnel do the same. But proxy consent in the face of legitimate medical issues for a legally incompetent individual is valid in libertarian principle, even when it leads to child circumcision.

The likelihood of having the perfect candidate without running for office myself is almost non-existent. Ultimately, the best we can hope for is a candidate who process information
through the correct filters. It’s too much to expect the same conclusion on every issue. It’s reasonable to expect the same respect for individual rights.

That’s true, that’s true.

While I’m being a little tender, reading blogs over the last five years or so has revealed an interesting demographic slant. Science-fiction loving atheists write almost 100% of the blogs I enjoy.

As I’ve learned, that’s a large population of libertarians, but it still seems strange to me. I’m not religious, in that organized religion is too interested in doctrine without concern for actual faith. I’m not much of a joiner, either. Still, I’m not an atheist. I move closer to that position all the time, but I doubt I’ll ever move further than my present agnostic-bent.

The love for science-fiction¹ is entirely new to me. I enjoy sci-fi movies like many Americans. I’ve just never given much thought to those stories in written form. I don’t know why. Probably the socially-awkward, introverted nerd stereotype blocked me, which is strange because, with a little more showering than the stereotype, I am the stereotype. But I’ve figured out that I should question my perception and be open-minded about it. I might like it. I’ve bought one audiobook novel, and I’ll probably borrow a few paperbacks from the library to give it a shot. (I’m open to suggestions for novels.)

I don’t find either of these mysterious. The connection to libertarianism is not only prevalent, it’s obvious. Reason provides the objective link to how individuals should be treated. I will abandon faith whenever reason demands it. And I love technology. I’m just amazed at how effortlessly, and without thought of wanting to know more about those two areas, that I came to having them both central in what I want to learn.

¹ I don’t foresee any future interest in Fantasy. Harry Potter is about as far into the fantasy genre as I can get.

UNAIDS needs to rebuild its ethical framework.

Following on the last entry, UNAIDS issued another press release (pdf):

Two United Nations agencies have issued a joint call to boost protection of the human rights of people regardless of their sexual orientation or their actual or presumed HIV status.

In a statement, the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) urged “all governments to be vigilant in respecting and protecting the rights of individuals in this regard, in particular the rights of all to be free from murder, torture, violence, arbitrary arrest and vilification, regardless of their HIV status or sexual orientation.”

The bodies voiced their concern over reports of forced HIV testing, arbitrary detention on the basis of HIV status and the disclosure of one’s HIV status without consent.

Again, this is a noble goal. I agree with it. But UNAIDS fascinates me with where it draws its lines on human rights. Forced HIV testing is bad. Forced genital mutilation¹ is good. Taking a person’s blood, which the body will replace, is bad. Taking a male’s foreskin, which his body will not replace, is good.

What?

Does this have something to do with intent? Presumably governments are forcing HIV tests on people to facilitate persecution and/or exclusion. That’s inarguably bad, since individual liberty based on human rights is a valid principle. Presumably parents are forcing genital mutilation on their male children for its potential to prevent reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission. Even if I assume this intention is Good&#153, condoms and behavior modification achieve better results. They are the specific, identifiable reasons why we must not abandon the fair and equal protection of human rights, regardless of gender. Yet, UNAIDS rebukes this understanding of rights in favor of fear and panic, with an additional nod to tradition².

Any idea that a right to remain free from unnecessary, unjustified force vests after some extraneous condition is met is invalid. I suspect UNAIDS would argue against that interpretation of its actions. Its actions argue against any other interpretation.

¹ But ONLY on boys; UNAIDS has ethics and how dare anyone who suggests otherwise.

² This argument strikes me as succumbing to fear. It’s easier to accept a human rights violation than it is to call it out and risk being criticized by those who practice the tradition. This is the coward’s path.

Competition is better than government fiat.

Lance Ulanoff, writing in PC Magazine, explains why he was wrong on who would win the Blu-ray/HD-DVD battle.

I finally figured out why I was so dead wrong about the HD DVD versus Blu-ray format war. I should have analyzed the sides—Sony and Toshiba—not as two countries going to war, but as opponents in a close-quarters boxing match. Had I done so, I would have properly assessed each of the technology’s assets and deficits.

Mr. Ulanoff was wrong in prognosticating consumer technology for a magazine. No harm, no foul. We all make judgments, whether we commit them to print or not, that turn out wrong. We’re all human.

Remember that every time a central planner comes along and tells us confidently why we should choose X (with money taken from taxpayers) and outlaw Y.

I’m free!

It’s time for one last update (for now) on jury duty.

I have no idea how I would’ve done under examination for either side’s attorneys during voir dire. I didn’t get that far. Within an hour I managed to get myself excused from involuntary servitude service. I even managed it with the truth. (Some of you know the easy claim I had.) I didn’t have to get into any bizarre scenarios of shouting down The Man, bolting for the door and outrunning the bailiff to live strong in my principles. I talk a good game, and I’m willing to walk it, but I’m not stupid. Lose the battle but win the war is a common refrain. I’m inclined to win both, when possible. Yesterday, the winning the former was easy.

That said, the case would’ve been interesting, I think. I don’t know of any restrictions on saying what I know of the case for which I was considered, but I’ll just say that it was a criminal case involving wire and mail fraud. I would be intellectually inclined to explore that as a juror, but under mutually-agreed terms. My complaint is not about being a juror or the burden imposed by that possible occupation. It’s only the terms.

**********

In thinking about the case as the judge explained it, I tried to imagine a libertarian argument against my ability to be impartial in this particular case. I could think of none. And pondering the general topic of mail and wire fraud, I had a minor insight.

I tend to the libertarian view against hate crime legislation. It’s easy to think of it as thought crime. Although the general concept is still important to remember, I’ve learned that such a view is far too simplistic. Intent can (and probably must) matter.

With what little I know about wire and mail fraud, I can think of two basic scenarios. The defendant is either a crook or a bad business person. Beyond being immoral to prosecute the latter, it would also be complete folly given the prevalence of that in the marketplace. If a transaction was built on trust in everyone involved, from customer to business to suppliers to […], it’s possible for the chain to be broken for unexpected reasons.

But it’s also possible to realize that the same result can occur from different intentions. If a business person fails to deliver because his supplies never arrived, we expect the customer to seek restitution in civil court. If the business person never intended to deliver because he never purchased supplies, we consider that fraud, which we prosecute as a crime. Same result, different response.

As Kip argued in this chain, I’m inclined to accept the idea that an assault may be punished differently based on the offender’s intent.

Who wants to post bail for me? The $40 won’t be enough.

To review:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That’s the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tomorrow, my government intends to violate that amendment by requiring me to report for jury duty under threat of fine and/or imprisonment. It has charged me with no crime. It has convicted me of no crime. Yet I am being forced into involuntary servitude. I must accept the revocation of one liberty to avoid the revocation of another liberty. This is supposedly my duty in exchange for exercising my Constitutional right to vote. That is immoral.

I love the United States Constitution. Tomorrow appears to be the day I finally grasp that my country does not.