Quote of the Day
There is no exercise better for the heart than reaching down and lifting people up.
John Andrew Holmes
Earlier One-Off Post: Testing: Academics, Work, Politics
The HillaryGate Coverup
A Pet Peeve: Misuse of the Term 'Fascist' and its Application to the Koch Brothers and Other Libertarians
First of all, I have to admit I have used the 'fascist' term more than most people (especially if you've read my regular FB Corner feature). I recently read a fellow libertarian say it's overused; now when I've used the term, it's not in the commonly used sense of a German Nazi from WWII, personality cult, genocide, or any of the related ideologies like racism or anti-Semitism. When I use the term I'm making a specific reference to the domination of the authoritarian State; I've more recently distinguished between left-fascists, with their pursuit of economic dominance under a command-and-control, where an independent private sector is tolerated to the degree it complements State initiatives,.and right-fascists, which focuses more on law and order/national defense, which I've sometimes used to describe the Trump Presidential candidacy. And let's be clear: the term 'national socialist' is NOT an accident; Hitler was no free market capitalist. If you look at his rhetoric and his political agenda, he supported the usual redistributive policies; his anti-Semitism was particularly tied to populist class warfare linked to alleged Jewish capitalist dominance. When I use the term fascist, I'm not necessarily referring to Nazism and its racist connotations; but basically a private sector that knew its place in the context of a government-dominated economy was useful. And even right-wingers may support government intervention in the economy, like Pat Buchanan with protectionist policies.
I am NOT in the habit of defending the Koch brothers, and they have never contacted me or paid me a penny. But when I saw a Facebook group based on attacking the Kochs as "fascists" (in the group name!), I had my fill. The Koch brothers are about the furthest you can be from fascism. They want a small central government, they want the government out of economic and foreign intervention, they want an end to corporate welfare. A small government footprint is a boon across the economy, not just Koch brother interests. Arguing for a smaller, more feasible government is not a distinctive business goal. They are not demanding federal favors, unlike the public unions although a higher economic growth will raise all boats, including the Koch business. So stop using the term fascist to describe libertarians or conservative, economically illiterate leftists; you are simply embarrassing yourself with crackpot conspiracy theories.
Facebook Corner
(National Review). "What kind of a government disdains the deepest convictions of citizens by forcing them to finance what they see in videos — Planned Parenthood operatives chattering about bloody human fragments?"
"Roe vs. Wade is law. The USA is not run by religious law. Iran is, though. Perhaps you should move." Listen, genocidal retard. Roe v. Wade is a badly decided judicial opinion, even Supreme Mother Ruth Ginsberg admits that. What about George Will's point "When life begins is a scientific not a philosophic or theological question: Life begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with those of the ovum, forming a distinctive DNA complex that controls the new organism’s growth."
A preborn baby's body is his or her own property, not the property of the parents. The revulsion against abortion and infanticide, practiced in Rome at the time of Christ, is NOT a matter of religious faith. The genocidal fascist doesn't even seem to be aware that George Will, a self-admitted atheist, is the writer of this piece. We have laws over murder and theft, which appear in the Ten Commandments? Does that mean the laws should be stricken because the Judaic-Christian tradition prohibits them? Jesus, in fact, did not address them because abortion and infanticide were not practiced in Israel. However, as the new faith expanded beyond Israel, the Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents, specifically rejected the practices, just had the ancient Greek non-Christian Hippocrates.
(Rand Paul 2016). This is a good response to some of Rand Paul's recent libertarian critics. Every libertarian who wants Rand to become president should read this column: There "needs to be some realism about the Republican primary electorate as it is in 2015-16, not just how young libertarians wish it will be in the future."
No. I do agree that Rand Paul is less ideological and blunt than his father, and even I, a fellow fusionist libertarian-conservative, have had disagreements on ISIS, TPP, and immigration, among other things. (I am non-interventionist, pro-markets/trade, and pro-immigration.) I am still a supporter of Rand Paul and expect to support him in 2016.
Now there is no doubt Rand Paul is taking hits from some of his Dad's followers for his purported sins against ideological purity. (Not that Ron Paul didn't have his own principled fuzziness; for example, Ron has not been a principled open-immigration advocate.) I think that there are many reasons why Rand has had problems, but I want to point out in the 2012 image attached that Ron Paul was similarly hovering around 9-11%.
Why do I think Rand has been falling off the two digit range? The field is getting bigger; Rand does not have executive experience, we haven't seen the government balance sheet implode yet from crushing interest payments in a zero-sum game with other expenditures, and Rand Paul seems to be an existential threat to the pro-security and/or anti-immigrant populists; Paul is going to be a target for anyone benefiting from the status quo. Personally, I think Rand needs to attack the last generation of leadership, the high spending, the nation building.. And I think you have talk about the 60% per year in mandatory spending. It may well be that Rand starts to think of 2016 as a stepping stone to a 2020 campaign.
(A Libertarian Future). Informal Poll: Are you a pro-choice or pro-life libertarian? Comment your answer below!
Pro-life. A preborn baby, whose DNA at the point of conception is different from his or her natural parents, has his or her own unalienable rights of life, liberty and property. Discriminating against a child because of his or her stage of development or necessary biological dependence on the mother is arbitrary and capricious. A born child is just as helpless and dependent on his or her parents or caretakers.
In my judgment, a libertarian who arbitrarily defines the rights of the preborn without due process undermines the principle of equal protection of our negative rights/liberties and is a hypocrite. All adults are aware that voluntary heterosexual behavior between fertile partners can result in pregnancy; they need to be responsible for their behavior. There are ways before and at the time of relations to mitigate their risk of pregnancy. The opportunity to bring new life in the world is an awesome miracle; our rights are only as secure as our recognition and defense of the rights of the most fragile people for who we are responsible and others who are vulnerable.
I also oppose capital punishment and mercy killing.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Kenny Rogers, "A Love Song"
