Voting

The subject of voting has been coming up a lot recently as we inch closer to the general election. I have recently been having a long back and forth conversation with a self described libertarian, who sports a "Fuck the Republicrats: Vote independent" banner on his myspace page, who has been desparately urging me to vote for McCain.

His primary reason seems to be that I am underestimating the damage that a Clinton or Obama administration might inflict on us, so he has reasoned that we would be best to vote against them. He is also a bit of a war hawk, and is attracted to McCain's "follow Bin-Laden to the gates of hell" mentality.

I have been appealing to the libertarian non-aggression principle as a reason not to support a mainstream party, but to no avail. In full disclosure, I should point out that our state is sort of an anomoly in that we have the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation, so we usually do not get the opportunity to vote for L candidates. Given this local state of affairs, I usually go to the polls to vote against bond issues, occassionally for politicians in local elections, and I default to non-voting in the general presidential election as a means of voicing my lack of a viable choice for president.

I brought this up today because I have a question for my anti-statist allies in the blogosphere. Do you plan on voting in the general election, and if so who for?

Police Brutality

A police officer has been fired after an incident in which a female prisoner, who was taken into custody on suspicion of DWI, wound up lying on the police station floor in a pool of blood. Much of what happened was recorded on a videotape, but there is a gap of undetermined length. During that time, the woman was believed to have been injured. She said she was beaten up, the officer said she fell.

Warning. Both videos contain graphic images.


Raw video here:



ABC News version here:

John McCain

I recently received an email message with a link to a Wall Street Journal article concerning John McCain on taxes. Looks like the Republicans are trying to quiet the fears of many fiscal consevatives in the party, and convice them to hold their noses and vote for McCain. I have posted my response below.

Thanks for passing along the article on McCain. I must admit that I
feel slightly less agitated by him knowing that his vote against the 2003
microscopic tax cuts was in protest of the bill not going far enough to reign in
spending at the same time. I have also spent the last few minutes studying
his votes and positions over the past 10 years, and I must say he appears to be
slightly more friendly to the low tax, more social freedom, issues that I hold
dear. However, I still find him light years away from someone I could ever
consider giving my stamp of approval via voting booth.

Although she is even further away from me on most issues,
I would probably feel more comfortable with Clinton in office than McCain for
the next four years. This would undoudtedly cause the Republicans to rally
once again and sweep congress to oppose her and we would return to that sweet
gridlock whereby the two parties spend all of their energies fighting eachother
and very little gets done in the way of tinkering with our economic and social
liberties. I look back on the 1990's and see that while Clinton was in
office, the Republicans as the opposition party were much more helpful in
fighting runaway government spending than they have been as the majority party
over the past 8 or so years. Honestly, the possibility of them regaining a
majority scares me. George Bush's compassionate conservatism has infected
the Republican party. It is like a disease that allows Republicans to grow
the size and scope of the government under another name, but it sure looks a lot
like modern day big government, bleeding heart liberalism to
me.

I don't like the direction our government has gone over the past 50
years, and I can't consciously, or morally support the controlling forces that
have been responsible for growing the state to its present form.

I can not as many on the right have said they would do, and hold their
nose and vote for McCain.

Speeding Ticket Tonight

I was pulled over by a police officer on my way home from work tonight on the turnpike around 7:15 PM. The officer clocked my speed at 76 in a 65 mile per hour zone. I got out of my car and instinctively put my keys into my pocket while walking back to his car. He asked me why I "went to my pocket" as I was walking toward his car, and said that he had told me not to "go to my pockets." I told him that I must have been more concerned about making sure my license and insurance were secured in my hands on the windy highway road when I instinctively put my keys in my pocket. I must not have clearly understood him as he was speaking to me from practically inside his own car while my window was still only half way rolled down.

After I had been sitting in his car for a few minutes while he was writing the ticket, he asked me if I'd been drinking tonight. I figured that was probably a typical question. I told him that I had just gotten off work and that I had not been drinking. Then I started thinking about what I had just said when I realized that whether or not I had just gotten off work had nothing to do with my current sobriety at that moment. So I then followed up my last few words by telling him, "I don't drink."

After a few more seconds transpired the officer told me that I was going to receive a $220 ticket. He also asked me if I knew that $220 was the penalty for going 11 over. I told him I did not know and that it would hurt. Of-course I meant it would hurt figuratively speaking. A few seconds later he informed me that he was only giving me a warning. I could not believe I had gotten that lucky. I have only been pulled over for speeding half a dozen times in the past 10 years, and never, not once been lucky enough to have an officer deliver the mercy of only a warning. I had always heard of people getting off with only a warning, but never had I experienced such luck myself.

That is all it is, luck. The other human being sitting on the side of the road with flashing lights atop his vehicle who happens to be holding the badge and gun can decide whether or not to require me to drain my bank account by some arbitrary amount based on his own mood or whim of the moment on that particular night. I was driving on a lonely highway road 11 miles per hour above the arbitrary speed limit set by some government bureaucrat or panel of bureaucrats in some government office. Never mind that I was in no way endangering any other human being whatsoever. Never mind that even while traveling the roads closer to peak times, there is actual empirical evidence that driving slightly faster than the speed limit is safer than driving slightly slower than the set speed limit. The reason for this is simple. There is a natural flow of traffic so to speak. This natural flow can be quantified as the mean speed by all travelers of the road. The normal protocol for city engineers is to set the speed limit 1 standard deviation above the mean speed of the road. This is known as the 85th percentile rule. In reality this rule is often ignored though mainly for political reasons. Speed limits have very little to do with public safety, and a whole lot more to do with raising city revenues. If you believe otherwise then you haven't been paying attention.

To make a long story even longer here is how it ended. I thanked the officer for letting me off with the "warning" before exiting his vehicle, and he looked at me and he actually said, "remember that the next time you give me a pay raise." I just looked at him until a few seconds passed and he broke into laughter and said, "just kidding."

Can a Muslim be a 'Good American'

I received an email forward recently titled "Can Muslims be Good Americans?" It was quite interesting to me and prompted a response from me to the sender that I thought would be of interest to readers. I believe that the claim about Barack Hussein Obama, as he is called by his full name, being a Muslim and asking to be sworn in on the Quran if he wins the election is a fabrication created by a far right 'bomb thrower' for the purpose of driving large numbers Christians into a frenzy of opposition to him. It saddens me that in the 21st century, religion is still the driving force to action or reaction for so many among us. I am not surprised about 'bomb throwing' in politics as I understand that this is a nasty, muddy sport, but I am still saddened by the kinds of ideas that seem to work best in motivating large segments of our population to action.

First is the email in its entirety, and then it is followed by my response to the sender.

Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out
about any atrocities.....Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20
years.The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God
of Arabia ..

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His
Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran)

Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of
Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he
turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him To
makefriends with Christians or Jew s.

Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the
great Satan. Domestically - no. . . Because he is instructed to marry four Women
and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )

Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution
since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be
corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran donot
allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Isla m cannot co-exist.
Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the
Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly
father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very
suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both
"good" Muslims and good Americans.

* * * Call it what you wish..it's still the truth. * * * You had
better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our
country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
. . And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President? You have GOT
to be kidding! Wake up America ! Obama even says if he wins the election,
he will be sworn in on the Quran---not a Bible!

My response:

This is very interesting, but I have just a few questions about it. Please help me to understand some of these claims.

I would be interested to see the source which claims that Obama has said that he will be sworn in on the Quran. By all accounts that I know of his religious views he is a Christian and claims to be a Christian.


"Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt."

Mike Huckabee has said in a speech in Michigan last week that he wants to change the Constitution to be more in line with God's standards. Actually he said this, "But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do, to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards." Is the Constitution really based on biblical principles? By his own statement above it does not appear that Huckabee believes so. Is it possible for Huckabee to be considered a "good American" since he can not seem to accept or reconcile the Constitution as it is written with his interpretation of the Bible?


"Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran donot allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic."

I have been arguing this point since the start of the Iraq war to my Republican friends, but to no avail. If one can accept this point then one can understand that our government is needlessly and carelessly wasting billions of dollars and precious lives in Iraq. Remember the name of the original mission: "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Warm regards,

Brewrunner

Soul Searching

As any passersby of this blog well know, I have been under the influence of Ron Paul mania since May of this year. The reasons for this are simple. I have been an admirer of Dr. Paul's since I first saw him on a John Stossel ABC News special in early 2001. This was near the beginning of my discovery of the libertarian philosophy, and I was astounded to see that there was a congressman from Texas who advocated the same beautiful principles I had come to see as the truth and the way to a more just society. From that moment on I kept up with Congressman Paul's career via his articles and videos mainly by way of Lewrockwell.com.

Over the next few years my philosophy began to evolve into a more anarcho-capitalist, libertarian mixture, as is evident my choice of tagline for this blog. The most influential people that I give credit to for the evolution of my philosophy are the late Harry Browne and Lewellyn Rockwell Jr. Rockwell is the reason for my anarcho-capitalist leanings, while Browne is the reason I have still pursued change through politics.

Fast forward to May of 2007 when Ron Paul announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. I was as excited and hopeful as the next libertarian that finally one of "our guys" who had already broken inside the system would be invited to the nationally televised debates. Ron Paul would be able to exert his influence from within to "save us" from the fascist, statist barbarians who have enslaved humanity for the past several hundred years. This just seemed like the opportunity we had been waiting for. Some on the web have even likened Paul to Neo in the matrix. This is the idea that Paul is the manifestation of some sort of prophecy that will finally wake millions of Americans up to the state of slavery that they have come to live under largely without even realizing it.

It was especially interesting when the writers over at Lewrockwell.com seemed to be trumpeting Ron Paul's campaign as loudly as any other libertarian news outlet. The reason I thought this interesting was that I can remember a statement by Lew himself during an interview a few years ago that contradicts his current support of Paul. During this interview Lew had stated that he did not think that politics was the way to bring about change in the direction of liberty. Any follower of Lew's philosophy knows that he has advocated that you can not bring about change unless you win the battle in the marketplace of ideas, which is largely outside the political arena. Lewrockwell.com has even elected to change the tax exempt status of its organization in order that it may publish columns endorsing and opposing political candidates for office. So has Lew abandoned his philosophy for Ron Paul? Perhaps Lew feels, as many others including myself up to this point, that Paul is our last best hope for real political change.

As for the main point of my post today, I have to recognize that I have compromised some of my own principles in support of Ron Paul. The first thing that initially bothered me about his platform was his stand on border security. I understand that he has always taken the Constitutionalist point of view, which requires that he advocate enforcing the law in this area. My conflict is that I can not reconcile this point of view with the non-aggression principle. Illegal immigrants have not initiated the use of force against anyone simply by walking across an imaginary line drawn up by the state. They are guilty only of violating political law, not natural law. Nevertheless, I let this disagreement of philosophy slide, as I found it to be a nice selling tool when talking to Republicans about voting for Ron Paul in the primary. The disappointing affect was that even with this selling tool, border security, which as been dubbed a wedge issue by pundits in the media, I have seen less than optimal success when looking at the disappointing low percentage of Republican support for Paul.

So where does that leave my current position of support for the Ron Paul campaign? I would say it is now less enthusiastic than it was a few weeks ago. The money raised and the media attention has been great if not for the libertarian philosophy specifically, but definitely for the idea that it is well past time to put the brakes on government growth. But is this going to work? In the end, are we going to look back and see this as the tipping point for the real moral change of values in the populace? I keep telling myself that this is that time in our history when it may well happen, but there is another point of view out there that has given me my new found less than optomistic hope for the Ron Paul Revolution, at least so far as a catalyst for putting the brakes on government growth.

This person is Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio. In one of his recent podcasts, Molyneux put forth the argument that throughout America's political history, libertarians have been attempting to infiltrate the system and make changes. This has resulted in ever increasing government growth, no matter how promising it may have looked through the lens of the current period in history. I will not recite Molyneux's whole premise on this post, but readers who are interested are encouraged to visit his website and download his podcast number 927.

Readers may be thinking that this is not anything new and profound, and I will be the first one to admit that. The fundamental question is whether or not expending so much time and energy campaigning for Ron Paul is the most valuable use our time in advancing libertarian moral philosophy. Molyneux proposes that there is an easier way to achieve personal freedom in ones own life, and that it can be found with the use of two words. These words are "against me." When conversing with friends and discussing government subsidies, redistributions of wealth, and so forth, libertarians need to stop speaking of the use of the initiation of force in the abstracts and start talking personally. That is, it is a lot easier for people to say that they support certain government subsidies for certain purposes and certain groups, but it is much harder for them to look you in the eye and say that you should be shot if you disagree. The question that you must ask your friends is, "do you support the use of force against me." If they can look you in the eye and answer yes to this question, then you ought to have no problem knowing what to do with them in terms of your relationship. Once you have figured out who your real friends are via this fundamental question, you will have real personal freedom in your life no matter what state is doing. The further implication of this idea is that if every libertarian lived by this philosophy, that is to say if every libertarian practiced what he preached, our society would be free very quickly. As of this point in time not enough libertarians are willing to practice what they preach according to Molyneux.

So I am now a cross roads with myself in both my personal life and my involvement in the Ron Paul campaign. I have always understood the concept put forth by Molyneux in the preceding paragraph, but I have never applied to my own life and friendships. I have never truly practiced what I preach.

Tea Party 'O7

We've seen what the last money bomb did on November fifth. Let's do it again on December 16th, and show this country that November fifth was just the tip of the iceburg of support for Ron Paul.

Is the Ron Paul Campaign Dangerous?

I have just finished reading J.B. Williams article, "Why The Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous" over at gopusa.com, and I have a few comments.

I find his claim that there are virtually no real Conservatives supporting Paul to be way out of touch with reality. I come from a very Conservative upbringing, but sadly I have been politically homeless for the past several years due to reckless spending and what I have come to view as a dangerous foreign policy out of step with that advocated by the founders of our country. I have studied the history of the Republican party, and I have observed an abandonment of most of the core principles over the past 8 years. Ron Paul has brought me back into the Republican party, as he has done with countless others here in my own city who are now working with me to get Mr. Paul elected.

I concede Mr. Williams' point that many Democrats and Independents are jumping parties to support Paul, but shouldn't the Republican party be celebrating this. I thought that when large numbers of people switched parties for any reason that it was called growth, something the GOP has sadly seen little of recently. Paul represents a unique opportunity in our history to return to the true Conservative Republican values of self reliance and true self government. Not the kind of self government that Pres. Bush speaks about when he speaks of "liberating" third world countries and subsequently imposing his idea of self government on them by occupying them for seemingly the rest of time. When I see the now small remaining base of the Republican party refusing to embrace a candidate who has managed to persuade millions of of Americans of all political and social backgrounds that our current direction of more and bigger government is the wrong direction, I remember why I ceased supporting the GOP back in 2001.