Category: Politics

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”.

Triumph of the Big Government Advocates

Writing about OPEC’s rise to actual cartel power, Robert Samuelson writes this sentence about one of America’s short-comings.

We have steadfastly rejected higher gasoline taxes to curb unnecessary driving and strengthen demand for fuel-efficient vehicles (better to tax ourselves than let foreigners tax us through higher prices).

First, higher prices are not a “tax”, they are the result of supply and demand. As Mr. Samuelson points out throughout his essay, world demand is growing. OPEC has control of a large segment of supply. But OPEC does not have the ability to make us pay its prices. Why didn’t he just alter the sentence and write “better to tax ourselves than let foreigners gouge us through higher prices”? It would’ve been as economically (in)correct.

More importantly, the purpose of a tax on gasoline should never be to limit “unnecessary” driving. Unnecessary to whom? If I go to the store to browse for merchandise I have no intention of buying today, is that unnecessary? If a parent drives his child around to help the child fall asleep, is that unnecessary? If a teenager drives his date around aimlessly for an extra half hour so they can talk longer, is that unnecessary?

Taxes to achieve subjective ideals is ideology, not valid public policy. The only purpose for a tax – a user fee – is to rectify the negative externalities from the taxed activity. Carbon emission is an externality. Fifteen cents more for a gallon of gasoline from higher demand is not an externality.

The price of a gallon of gasoline should be the result of market forces. Either people value driving or they value money. But each consumer is the only legitimate decision-maker on that choice.

Legislators are politicians, not statesmen.

On Saturday I attended a town hall meeting given by my Congressman, Rep. Tom Davis. I’ve written in the past about how much I despise his service in Congress. On every political issue, he’s been wrong, choosing party over country. Throw in a dose of moral posturing on steroids in baseball and there’s little to redeem years of wasted opportunities to stand for what is right rather than what is right-wing. It’s been a frustrating mess living in Virginia’s 11th district.

That said, I would consider voting for not despising the man I encountered Saturday. He was honest, explaining the politics of different situations facing the nation. Some of them I already knew, like the stimulus package. Some of them I hadn’t thought about in as much depth, such as whether or not anyone running for president will pull troops out of Iraq. (I’d assumed no, given the current inaction from Democrats. Rep. Davis said as much.) He had smart comments on the false hope of the economic stimulus package, as well as an honest assessment of the (non-)viability of our entitlements regime. He was thoughtful on immigration, if ultimately misguided, in my opinion. But he had an intellectual depth that I respect.

I just wish he’d shown this when it mattered, not after he had nothing to lose because he’s retiring. The time to act occurs before deepening the problem you wish to address, not after.

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.

Liberty is the center.

In what will probably be my only post on Eliot Spitzer’s sex scandal, I’m not going to talk much about his sex scandal. I just don’t care about the sleaze. His hypocritical moral thuggery speaks for itself, although I’m perfectly happy to witness every libertarian rip him. I’m just not willing to pretend that this will in any way assist the return of individual liberty to the legislative process surrounding consensual, victim-less transactions of subjectively-questionable morality¹. At best, I’m willing to consider that it might discourage politicians from private misbehavior. Upon reflection, and before completing the previous sentence, I accepted that Spitzer’s fall will discourage nothing. The hubris of politicians to preen in public crusades while mucking around in the filth in private is going nowhere. In other words, this is just another sex scandal that will, at most, ruin Spitzer’s political career.

Instead, I want to examine Kip’s response to Glenn Greenwald’s question on the matter. First, Greenwald’s question:

[A]re there actually many people left who care if an adult who isn’t their spouse hires prostitutes? Are there really people left who think that doing so should be a crime, that adults who hire other consenting adults for sex should be convicted and go to prison?

To which Kip replied:

Actually, the “need” to criminalize prostitution is one of those rare worldviews that unites radical conservatives (“morals,” “social fabric,” etc.) with radical liberals (“oppression of women,” “the powerful exploiting the powerless,” etc.).

While the Vast Center-Wing Conspiracy just shrugs it off.

I think that’s spot-on. Our society’s puritan response to sex is not exclusively a trait of social conservatives. That belief may be more prevalent on the right, and I think it’s more explicit there, but it appears in various forms on the left. As Kip highlights, only the reasoning is different. The revulsion is identical.

There’s no reason for me to comment on that with an entry of my own rather than a comment on Kip’s original entry, so allow me to expand where I think his logic applies. Since I’m writing it, my thought process applies to genital mutilation. There is a comparison to be made in the mistaken logic applied based on gender. As it applies to female genital mutilation, I’d write the comment like this:

Actually, the need to criminalize female genital mutilation is one of those rare worldviews that unites radical conservatives (“anti-Islam,” “nationalism,” etc.) with radical liberals (“oppression of women,” “the patriarchy²,” etc.).

While the Vast Center-Wing Conspiracy just understands that the individual’s right to be free from unnecessary harm is all that’s necessary to denounce and prohibit female genital mutilation.

Although the conclusion is the same, the approach matters. The Vast Center-Wing Conspiracy relies on the principle rather than its own subjective interpretation of what is right and wrong. It leaves open the idea that the individual could choose something different, but leaves open only the idea that the individual should choose.

With male genital mutilation, I’d write the comment like this, with the obvious reversal of the original prostitution argument on criminalization versus legalization:

Actually, the “need” to legalize male genital mutilation is one of those rare worldviews that unites radical conservatives (“parental rights,” “conformity,” “religion,” etc.) with radical liberals (“parental rights,” “women’s sexual preferences,” “women’s sexual health,” etc.).

While the Vast Center-Wing Conspiracy just understands that the individual’s right to be free from unnecessary harm is all that’s necessary to denounce and prohibit male genital mutilation.

I am not making the claim to the prevalence of these world views or that they approach a tipping point close to a majority. But I have encountered every one of them in person and on the Internet. And politicians (and courts) accept every one of them.

Still, the central point remains. Those who rely on principles of individual liberty arrive at the same conclusion, which is equal treatment (i.e. protection) for all people, regardless of gender. There is a foundation that isn’t open to political whims and/or faulty personal character. This Center-Wing Conspiracy grasps the point of a civil society and acts to make it reality.

Everyone else just pretends that his or her personal, subjective tastes and preferences for a traditional practice should apply to everyone. There is no concern that the other individual might not choose the same³. There is no recognition that, if he or she chooses differently, he or she is not automatically wrong. There need not be any delusion or coercion.

The difference between principle and ideology is important.

¹ Paying for sex? Not immoral. Paying for sex with someone other than one’s spouse? Not necessarily immoral. Paying for sex with someone other than one’s spouse when that spouse has not/would not agree to such marital terms? Immoral. Each person is entitled to his or her own private shades of gray.

² As if males can’t be the victim of the patriarchy. As if women can’t be the instigator in “the patriarchy”. (Any look at the scope of FGM advocates demonstrates the fallacy in that belief.) 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. With the FGM debate, this receptivity is generally very low.

³ A common argument in favor of permitting genital mutilation of male infants is “if you don’t like it, don’t do it to your kids.” These people miss the point because they don’t rely on any principle.

An apology speaks a thousand words.

I haven’t paid too much attention to the minutiae of the campaign, so minor flare-ups like Samantha Power calling Senator Clinton a “monster” don’t appear on my radar until others discuss it in more depth. Personally, I don’t think it’s a big deal, but I understand the political aspects. Truth is irrelevant in politics. As ridiculous as that is, it’s undeniable. Spin matters exclusively.

Remembering that helps, especially in the context of Ms. Power’s apology. Consider:

The key moment is at 1:30 in, I think. It speaks to what I’ve mentioned before in relating the opinion of others. Forget policy and think only of a libertarian’s preference in our present reality. Gridlock is key because neither party is much-interested in reducing the size or scope of government. There’s too much power to be bought from Americans with our own money.

Where Senators Clinton and McCain have experience in gaming the system to their advantage, Senator Obama appears to be the least experienced. It’s to some not-easily-identifiable percentage an act, because he couldn’t get as far as he’s gotten if he doesn’t know the rules, but knowledge of the rules alone does not make him effective at the game. To the extent that he relies on political rookies, he will have these setbacks. He will not get his agenda through the Congress. And with each successive loss for him, Congress will take its victory and play harder. This is ideal. If we’re lucky, it will create divided government in 2010.

Video link via Andrew Sullivan.

“Do as I command, not as I say or do.”

As usual, Kip has the correct take on a news item. In this case, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is interrogating three CEOs without any clear reason why a committee created to investigate the government is investigating private market individuals. But politicians are involved, so there you go. I recommend Kip’s entry in its entirety.

I’m frustrated by something within the hearings:

Lawmakers confronted corporate executives Friday about how they managed to take home hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation while their companies were taking a financial nosedive from the subprime mortgage crisis.

“It seems that CEOs hit the lottery when their companies collapse,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said at the opening of the hearing. “Any reasonable relation between their compensation and the interests of their shareholders appears to have broken down.”
…

Waxman noted that [Countrywide Financial Corp. CEO Angelo] Mozilo received more than $120 million in compensation and sales of Countrywide stock last year while that company recorded losses of $1.6 billion. Merrill Lynch lost $10 billion in 2007, but [CEO Stanley] O’Neal got a $161 million retirement package.

I’m sure there’s an explanation for this. Not being a shareholder of any of the companies involved, I do not care what they are. And neither should Congress. Perhaps this matters?

CBO estimates that the government recorded a deficit of $262 billion during the first five months of fiscal year 2008, compared with a shortfall of $162 billion recorded in the same period last year.

Why isn’t our CEO, President Bush, hauled before Congress to explain his failure to veto excess (and illegitimate) spending? It couldn’t have anything to do with Congress being the body that sends those spending bills to his desk, could it? I’m sure it’s also defensible to send free money to Americans, as long as Congress prints borrows sends a large chunk but divides it among many Americans rather than concentrating it in a few hands. It’s also defensible to pay it to people who didn’t “earn” a refund by actually paying any taxes. At least the CEOs performed a task, however (incorrectly) one wishes to judge the results.

This is another reason why I am not a political partisan. None of them are competent at anything other than struggling for power. I don’t admire that, and I’ll never follow it blindly.

Poorly¹ chosen words assist big government.

Congress is always looking out for us:

The Senate yesterday approved the most far-reaching changes to the nation’s product safety system in a generation, responding to recalls of millions of lead-laced toys that rattled consumers last year.

Lawmakers still have to resolve key differences between the Senate bill and a similar measure that passed the House in December. While the Senate version is considered by consumer advocates to be tougher, both contain provisions that would require retailers and manufacturers to be more vigilant about product safety.

The biggest change is likely to be a better-staffed Consumer Product Safety Commission, with more enforcement power. Both bills would boost funding for the agency, which had a budget of $63 million in fiscal 2007 and just less than 400 employees, fewer than half the number it had in 1980. The Senate bill, which passed by a vote of 79 to 13, would increase the budget to $106 million by 2011. The House’s version would increase it to $100 million.

This strikes me as more of the same in Washington. Government sets the rules. The rules fail. The government blames the failure on the market and insufficient government size. It’s self-fulfilling and people fall for it. Beyond that, I don’t have much to say on the specifics.

Rather, I want to focus on how we get to these situations. Consider the Washington Post’s headline of the article discussing this legislation:

Senate Votes For Safer Products

I know headlines need a hook in a small space. That doesn’t matter. This is pathetic. This is how government programs begin and perpetuate and grow. Who could possibly argue against this bill to those who will make up their mind on this superficial information? I might as well argue for the routine kicking of puppies.

When discussing policy solutions, we need to identify the narrow problem(s) we wish to address because the law of unintended consequences loves broad solutions. Instead of the title offered, the Post should’ve used something like this:

Senate Votes for Further Product Safety Regulation

That’s still unacceptably imperfect. I’m not a professional. But at least it’s closer to the truth than the simpleton’s solution the Post offered.

¹ I’m assuming the words are chosen poorly. That’s an assumption. I leave wide-open the possibility that such words are chosen deliberately for their propensity to encourage bigger government. Hence the propaganda tag on this entry.

The Great Diversion. Wait, look over there!

I suspected going in to today’s essay by Charles Krauthammer that it was little more than propaganda for John McCain. I was right, but I’m going to ignore that, at least initially. First, Krauthammer has to knock down Barack Obama. Referring to Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. ad:

After months of fruitlessly shadowboxing an ethereal opponent made up of equal parts hope, rhetoric and enthusiasm, Clinton had finally made contact with the enemy. The doubts she raised created just enough buyer’s remorse to persuade Democrats on Tuesday to not yet close the sale on the mysterious stranger.

The only way either Clinton or John McCain can defeat an opponent as dazzlingly new and fresh as Obama is to ask: Do you really know this guy?

I think the ad was ridiculous because I’m willing to question the attacked and the attacker. Krauthammer thinks it was “brilliant”. But I understand that not all voters care enough to question beyond the superficial. Analyzing it further would be a digression.

The problem here is familiarity, as suggested. However, I’m familiar with Clinton and McCain. They’re both despicable, career power-seekers. If forced to vote among the three remaining candidates, I’ll take my chances with the unknown and count on the checks-and-balances built into the system. We’ve survived bad presidents before. We’re surviving one now. I just wouldn’t willingly vote for one.

Note: If the Constitutional checks-and-balances fail and President Obama is dangerous, individuals like Mr. Krauthammer who blindly supported their erasure over the previous seven years must answer for their culpability in the matter. It will happen at some point, whether it’s President Obama, President (Hillary) Clinton, President McCain, President (Jeb) Bush, or President (Chelsea) Clinton. Dumping the eventual failure solely on the bad president’s character may be politically useful, but it’s factually repugnant.

After a space-filling bit about Sen. Obama transcending race, Krauthammer goes in for the kill:

The Obama campaign has sent journalists eight pages of examples of his reaching across the aisle in the Senate. I am not the only one to note, however, that these are small-bore items of almost no controversy — more help for war veterans, reducing loose nukes in the former Soviet Union, fighting avian flu and the like. Bipartisan support for apple pie is hardly a profile in courage.

On the difficult compromises that required the political courage to challenge one’s own political constituency, Obama flinched: the “Gang of 14” compromise on judicial appointments, the immigration compromise to which Obama tried to append union-backed killer amendments and, just last month, the compromise on warrantless eavesdropping that garnered 68 votes in the Senate. But not Obama’s.

There is truth there, but it’s what makes Sen. Obama the least offensive bad option we have. Remember, I’m not voting for any of the three remaining candidates. But I hope we’re inaugurating President Obama in January, precisely because his record of achieving legislative action is so weak. Limited government is the goal. If we can’t get that naturally, I’ll take the unnatural result of conflict and political weakness. Gridlock is good.

Krauthammer disagrees and makes the pathetic push for McCain:

Who, in fact, supported all of these bipartisan deals, was a central player in two of them and brokered the even more notorious McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform? John McCain, of course.

Yes, John McCain — intemperate and rough-edged, of sharp elbows and even sharper tongue. Turns out that uniting is not a matter of rhetoric or manner, but of character and courage.

I’ll momentarily pretend that a politician – especially one who sponsors legislation to limit a Constitutionally-protected right to free speech in direct conflict to “Congress shall make no law” – possesses character (and courage). How is being on the wrong side of an issue a qualification for the presidency? Clinton made the same mistake yesterday with this:

“Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002,” a derisive Clinton said yesterday to the retired military officers at the Westin in Dupont Circle.

Five years into the Iraq mess, Clinton can’t admit her mistake and McCain wants to double-down. When forced to choose among three unacceptable people, I’ll take the guy who theorized sooner why the proposed action was a mistake. In government, a pre-mistake “No” is much more powerful than a post-mistake “oops”. It’s more important when we can’t even get the “oops”.

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.