Category: Politics

Uh, what country do you think this is?

In a recent column for Townhall.com, Ben Shapiro wrote about the recent announcement that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez directed the FBI to increase its anti-obscenity efforts against pornography. While the anti-pornography crusade is wrong-headed for many reasons, I’m more amused with Mr. Shapiro’s reasoning for his support of this policy. In challenging unnamed FBI agents who criticized the new program with comments like “I guess this means we’ve won the war on terror,” Mr. Shapiro explains political philosophy. Consider this nugget of twisted nonsense:

Plainly it is not governmental inefficiency these agents are worried about. They find the anti-pornography crowd disturbing because they believe that policing pornography violates fundamental rights. This has become the dominant view in our society: As long as what I do doesn’t harm you personally, I have a right to do it. It’s a silly view and a view rejected by law enforcement policies all over the country. Were we to truly recognize such a philosophy, we would have to legalize prostitution, drugs and suicide — as well as the murder of homeless drifters with no family or friends. After all, if someone kills a homeless drifter, how does that affect anyone else? Consent should make no difference here — that’s an imposition of your values. Just because a murderer offends your moral sensibilities doesn’t give you an excuse to impose your subjective values on a society.

Such logic means destroying human communities. It is uncivilized, in the purest sense of the word. It makes us each selfish actors. The effects of our actions on others are irrelevant. No, you can’t punch me in the nose, but if you choose to perpetrate genocide, and if none of my friends or family members is thrown into a mass grave, what business of mine is it? When everyone is an island, no one is safe. Actions cease to have consequences.

With so many holes in his theory, I’ll just start at the beginning and slog my way through. What he attempts to discredit describe is a libertarian view that everyone has liberties which are inherently free of government possession or granting. I’m not sure who said it (otherwise, I’d attribute the quote properly), but Mr. Shapiro suggests that the prevailing philosophy in America is based on the sentiment that my rights end only where your nose begins. Oh, if that were only true. I only need mention same-sex marriage to dispel that notion as little more than lip service from many. The dominant view seems to be more I have the right to do anything I want as long as I don’t harm you. You, on the other hand, have to live by my idea of right and wrong. Unless I choose to read Mr. Shapiro’s statement without the implied “physical harm” and replace it with the not-implied “moral harm”. In that case, he’d be 100% correct. But he’s not arguing that. Anyone disagree?

There are people who do hold Mr. Shapiro’s original statement as political gospel. I happen to be one of them. We should legalize prostitution and drugs. (Suicide? What argument is that, other than the “Culture of Death” stupidity preached today?) The drug war? If that was a war in a foreign country with large numbers of soldiers involved, the American public would revolt at the devastating failure. Exactly how much has the drug war slowed down drugs? All it does is criminalize what has always happened, what will always happen. People get high. One must acknowledge nothing more than “alcohol” to understand the lack of difference. What’s happening now in the market for drugs is exactly what happened during Prohibition. We’ve done little more than trade the mafia for gangs, which seems an even trade in a best-case analysis. That’s not smart, nor is it effective.

And prostitution? I can’t personally imagine what would drive someone to a prostitute, but wouldn’t it make more sense from a public health viewpoint to legalize it and regulate it? That way, we can test for STDs. We can devise ways to reduce the dangers associated with prostitution. That makes more sense than defending some illusory idea of public morals. I love theories and ideas but health is practical. It’s here and now. We’re never going to stop prostitution without Theocratic rule. We shouldn’t try.

Continuing, perhaps freedom is silly, but it doesn’t specifically matter what law enforcement demands. Law enforcement agencies are beholden to the public (i.e. elected government) it serves and protects. Law enforcement doesn’t set its policies independent of legislation. Mr. Shapiro’s point is ridiculous, unless he’s interested in a police state. I suspect he is, of the “you have to live by my morals” manner. So be it. He’s a columnist, not a legislator.

Everything after that is an absurd attempt to pander to the stupid. Murdering homeless drifters with no family or friends? Forgive me for missing the logical transition from “as long as what I do doesn’t harm you personally” to “as long as no one will miss you when you’re murdered.” Granted, it must be a brilliant transition, but Mr. Shapiro fails to provide it for the rest of us. I want to understand how libertarianism is little more than barbaric hedonism. Enlighten me, maybe with a future column. Unbelievable.

The same argument he makes for regulation of drugs and prostitution can be made for economic regulation. We don’t want people to starve because that offends morals, so we need to make sure that everyone has a reliable income. They won’t work? Who are you to say that everyone should earn their living? If you like going to work, why should you care about how someone else receives an income? That logic falls apart quickly. I assume Mr. Shapiro would agree. So how is the culture held to a different standard than the economy? Political philosophy should be robust enough to not crumble under some issues facing a society. If it does, it’s not a political philosophy, but instead a hodgepodge of subjective applications designed to promote self-interest over principle.

Mr. Shapiro shuffles out his next argument, at which he’s supposedly arrived from his explanation of libertarian freedoms. Consider:

If we are to maintain communities, someone’s standards must govern. Those standards can either make it easier or more difficult for the traditionally moral to live their lives. The idea that no one’s standards have to govern — that everyone can do what he likes, when he likes — inherently means tolerance for evil. Tolerance for evil means nourishment of evil. Nourishment of evil means growth of evil. Growth of evil is a direct affront to traditional morality.

That makes no sense. The libertarianism Mr. Shapiro smears does not exist in any accepted view. But it does hold that standards must govern. Those standards are that everyone is free to live his life as he sees fit, as long as he does no actual harm to another. There’s nothing particularly complicated about that. It doesn’t mean a tolerance for evil, merely an acceptance that people believe “evil” things and may continue to believe “evil” things. Unless the thinker acts on (or threatens, etc.) his “evil” beliefs, government has no authority to control it.

That doesn’t hinder traditional morality, which is subjective, at best. Mr. Shapiro is free to believe whatever he wants, no matter how crazy or “evil” I might imagine it to be. However, traditional morality is not an objective, stationary principle. It’s a moving, subjective target designed apparently to police the salvation of everyone through the litmus of one. That is not a governing philosophy for a free society, nor is it in the Constitution of the United States.

So here’s a thought: leave people to self-determination. Reduce legislation to the allegedly dominant view in society. We’ll see individual actions conform almost exclusively to the actions individuals previously chose under legislated t
raditional morality. People already make choices, regardless of legality, which inherently means that moral laws are useless. So wouldn’t it make sense to direct law enforcement efforts to immediate (physical, economic, etc.) dangers than to moral dangers?

Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K

Everyone knows by now that Representative Tom Delay (temporarily) stepped aside from his role as House Majority Leader because a grand jury indicted him on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. I have nothing to add to that, other than he’s innocent until proven guilty and all that. I’m more interested in his (temporary) replacement, California Rep. David Dreier Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt.

The public relations machine is obviously kicking into gear now, stating how Rep. Dreier is this kind of moderate and that kind of conservative whatever they’re saying, which is probably less moderate since Rep. Blunt was Rep. DeLay’s right hand man. [Ed. – The rest of this stands, as I wrote it about Rep. Dreier.] I don’t know much about him and I have no reason to challenge any of that now. I’m open-minded about how he’ll work the system over the next few weeks and months as Rep. DeLay’s indictment plays out. But I suspect the Democratic smear campaign will start by tonight, if it hasn’t already, and I don’t think that’s wise.

Using basic logic, it makes no sense to think that Rep. Dreier Blunt will attempt any bold action in the near future. He can’t reverse the Republican status quo on the budget. (He should, but he won’t.) He can’t ignite the base with any new social red herrings for diversion. (He shouldn’t, but he might.) Any action he takes will be scrutinized relentlessly as an indicator of his leadership skills. He’s a 13-term representative Majority Whip, so he should have some pull, but any bold action would signify that he isn’t just a place holder until Rep. DeLay’s possible return, undermining DeLay’s future leadership. That would work if Rep. DeLay is really done as House Majority Leader, which is certainly a likelihood given his ludicrous statements and conduct. But the current Republican leadership in Congress has shown an eager willingness to circle the wagons around any scandal. I see no reason this will be different. Until Rep. Dreier Blunt shows something bold [Ed. – something that contradicts Rep. DeLay, since every statement will now be that Rep. Blunt is acting as Rep. DeLay would act], I’m holding onto that. If he does, then maybe I’ll take him seriously and focus on what he’ll try to accomplish.

Welcome to your no-win opportunity to lead the House, Rep. Dreier Blunt.

Update: This is rhetorical, but I wonder why the GOP leadership chose Rep. Blunt instead of Rep. Dreier, as Rep. Hastert preferred? Googling Rep. Dreier will likely offer an explanation.

Do I earn non-partisan credentials?

Unlike what I do here, this shows what partisanship looks like:

Give ’em hell, Harry.

Hey Dems, here’s an easy one for you: follow the leader.

I’ll pull the plug here before I’ll resort to that sort of blind, non-thinking partisanship, especially when it comes to following someone like Sen. Reid. Why? Because I have enough sense to understand that opposition for the sake of opposition is unwise. In this instance, opposing Judge Roberts because he’s a Bush nominee is counter-productive. President Bush has the votes in Congress to get Judge Roberts confirmed. History dictates that presidents deserve a high barrier to rejection for Court nominees. All that comes into play here.

I expressed reservations about Judge Roberts when President Bush nominated him, but I think he should be confirmed. I’ve seen no giant red flags that he’s going to treat the Constitution as little better than toilet paper, so what would I gain from trying to block him, or even vote against him if I were a senator? If any nominee will face opposition, the president has no incentive to compromise. Playing “follow the leader” on this only enflames the partisan war, forcing a perpetuation of the “hate President Bush” theme on the Left and the perception of that theme on the Right. All Sen. Reid is doing is encouraging President Bush to nominate an extremist to the Court to fill Justice O’Connor’s position. Democrats honestly think this will inspire voters? It may boost fund-raising at Move On, but it doesn’t win elections. I have too much sense to attach myself to symbols instead of ideas. That’s the standard I hold myself to when I write about politics.

Now I’m going Buck&#153

I’ve made numerous suggestions throughout these pages, but here is a summary to accompany my bitching:

  1. Fix the tax code. The flat tax is essential to prevent the continuing madness that is our anti-free market tax system.
  2. Cut pork barrel spending. We don’t need bridges that don’t leave a state and only serve 50 residents. Make it harder to insert pork into future appropriations bills. Hold their representatives accountable for their wastefulness.
  3. End agricultural subsidies for favored products. If the market needs/wants 700 trillion pounds of corn, dairy, meat, and soybeans, let the market dictate that and decide how to pay for it. Central planners deciding what we need only leads to inefficiencies and abuses.
  4. Repeal the prescription drug benefit.
  5. Reform Social Security with private accounts (since mandatory social security contributions aren’t going away – the real answer).
  6. End bailouts of businesses when they make mistakes. If Southwest can run its business profitably, so can US Air and Delta and American and every other behemoth struggling to understand capitalism. Also, stop subsidizing Amtrak on routes that lose money. If no one uses them, that’s the market saying that it doesn’t want the service. Making it acceptable to fail and stay in business only encourages risky, irresponsible behavior. It’s why FDR hated the idea of deposit insurance. It only encouraged the banks to be irresponsible with customers’ money because the government would bail them out.
  7. Implement better management oversight of government agencies. Institute legitimate cost controls. Contracts should not be paid until funds are budgeted and verified available. Once funds are spent, budgets should be reduced.
  8. Get the government out of flood insurance and pension guarantees and every other nonsensical abandonment of free-market policies. If there is risk involved, the private economy will figure out how to properly incentivize responsible behavior. Etc., etc. from #6.
  9. Return education, housing, etc. to the state and local governments. Make the citizens who benefit responsible for paying for those benefits.
  10. Repeal drug laws for low- and moderate-level drugs. Spend the crime fighting dollars on crimes with victims.

Should I go on?

When I post something that is bitching, I don’t do it because I want to score points or I’m devoid of any solutions. I bitch because I see hypocrisy in supporting everything the president or Congress or whoever says without any acknowledgement that something negative might exist. I bitch because we deserve better leaders and we can have them, but the first action is showing that the ones we have are incompetent or unwilling to fix this mess.

I’ve supported the Left in the past because I know the Right is fucking things up, which does not mean I believe the Left is better. But the Left is not in control of the government now. If they were spending us into oblivion or taxing the economy into recession or expanding the federal government as a matter of political giveaway or paternalism, I’d say so, as well.

For what it’s worth, I think they will do the same in 2006 or 2008 or whenever they return to power. but I’m not pointing out their nonsense because it’s so hysterical and lacking in leadership and common sense that it speaks for itself. That’s why I’ve advocated for having a viable third-party candidate in 2008. I want someone who will force the federal government to do what it should (national defense, legal system) and stop doing what it shouldn’t (education, censorship, general paternalism). It may not be spelled out every time I post, but there are enough statements and obvious inferences that I don’t feel the need to list them every time I bitch about some idiot politician or partisan hack.

And I’ll keep doing the same.

The megahorn batteries are dead

How can anyone write this recap of a briefing by Rep. Tom DeLay and not comment on his “ongoing victory” nonsense?:

Raising taxes would kill jobs, choke off investment, and stifle economic growth. That’s not exactly a recipe for the kind of economic renewal that region so desperately needs.

Instead, I hope some of the money can be the product of spending sacrifices elsewhere in the federal budget.

There are programs all over the federal budget that are bloated or wasteful or inefficiently using the funds we provide them, and I’m very interested in identifying them.

We can fund this relief effort without raising taxes or wasteful spending – and it’s up to us to do just that.”

He stated that there are bloated, wasteful, and inefficient programs in the federal budget and this doesn’t warrant even an afterthought about his stupidity? Being a partisan shill must be very relaxing some days since the intellectual lifting is so light.

Who’s holding the big safety net?

Analyzing this weekend’s German elections, this statement struck me as interesting.

As we see it, things don’t look particularly good for Germany or German-American relations. The key word at this point is: Gridlock. Expect to see a lot of it in Germany’s future.

From what little I know of the German elections, I agree with that. Of course, that’s not what Germany needs right now, but there it is. Instead of economic reform, Germans seemingly voted for more coddling from the state instead of making hard choices. It’s easier to use the welfare state to spend into economic disarray than to reshape society for a better future.

It’s probably not good for them, but seeing how well one-party control affected our government’s fiscal responsibility and reform, I envy German gridlock. Maybe in 2006 we can duplicate the German election results.

(Hat tip.)

And so you see, the new worrd is inevitabre

Sitting on the couch last night, I couldn’t prevent my focus from shifting back and forth. First, the president’s speech. Then my wallet. Back to the president. Wistfully on the contents of my wallet. Open-mouthed at the president. Teary-eyed at my wallet. Defeated at the president.

Should I just give the Treasury pre-approval for open withdrawal from my checking account or do I have to go through the charade of writing the check?