You are here: Home > Libertarian

Tag Archives | Libertarian

The Ideological Black Hole of Labeling

By on May 8, 2019 in Ruminations

I often will say “I’m against labels.” One of my friends likes to point this out with some friendly (I hope) jabs regularly on social media much to my amusement (you know who you are), and admittedly, sometimes to my frustration. So, I want to clarify what I really mean by “I’m anti-labeling” because the truth (as it always is) is more nuanced than that pithy phrase can explain.

I like pithy phrases. I sometimes use them as a way to jolt a conversation or shock someone I’m conversing with to look at me a little like Scooby Doo looks at The Gang when they decide to chase a ghost. But to me, that’s often all they are… a conversation starter that I hope will become a deeper discussion. It doesn’t always work that way (in fact, it probably works in quite the opposite way much of the time), but that’s my style, such as it is.

So, “I’m anti-labeling” is one of those phrases I will use to provoke (not necessarily in a bad way) whoever I’m talking with into responding, and thereby hopefully move a conversation in a particular direction. But I will reveal a dirty secret: I don’t hate labels, and will use them frequently. Frankly, its impossible not to use labels unless one is intentionally trying to be verbose (or is naturally verbose like this writer can be when writing blog articles). Labels are just shorthand for longer definitions. They simplify conversation. They are an easy way to explain more complicated views, positions, history, backgrounds, whatever it may be. They’re just summarizing words, and everyone uses them, even me. What I actually mean, when I say I hate labels is I hate when labels become part of a person’s identity to the point that they matter more than the individual sum of one’s parts. When they suggest one trait or idea excludes others, and lock us into that identity, either by others, or by ourselves indefinitely.

See, I believe life is a journey, and while our traits and ideas make us who we are, they are 1) often malleable, or 2) a fraction of who we are, and 3) vary even among others who have the same or similar “traits” and ideas.

For example, I am an atheist. A few years ago, this label represented a large part of my identity because I was exploring being open about having this viewpoint after having been a devout Christian.  It was part of my transformation process to be outspoken about these ideas that were important to me. I needed people who knew me to know this was who I was now, partly as a way to test if they would still accept me, and also for me to be able to know I could be myself around them. While very little of my views on the subject have changed since then (though I’m open to changing them if new evidence comes along), I just don’t feel that label is as important as it once was to who I am now. I don’t seek out other prominent atheists to hear their ideas as much, and I’m not as drawn to atheist communities as I used to be. It doesn’t fire me up to battle with believers like it once did (though I still do enjoy it if the occasion arises), and while I still wish there was less religion in the world, I don’t care as much to tell you that.

Yet a person could see that very true label and assume much about me. Some of it is probably true, some of it is not, and a lot of it just falls into that nether world area of true, but not that important. A lot of it is the other person bringing with them one definition of the term that varies greatly from mine. If I allow that label to be everything that I am, I fear it will capture me like a black hole captures light and matter. I’ll never escape it even when confronted with new ideas that challenge my assumptions and views. Black holes have some purpose. They are like a galaxy vacuum cleaner, and eventually, they destroy everything in their path so the universe can start over. A label can be like this too. It becomes so abused by its users that it eventually destroys itself, and everything that touches it.

First image of a black hole. Credit: Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration

But I don’t want to be destroyed, nor do I want society to destroy itself (yet), so I reject labels as a matter of routine partly to say to others you cannot define me, and partly so that I do not throw myself into that black hole of identity.

What I do want is to always be willing to throw away, or not concern myself with, parts of my identity if it makes sense to do so. To throw the label in the black hole, but save myself. That doesn’t mean I will. There may never be a need. Some aspects of my identity I can never throw away, but I can reduce how much they matter to me.

Another example, growing up, I always knew I was half Finnish-American (3rd generation). That is a big part of my family’s identity. My other half is a little more “mutt”, but includes Norwegian (Vikings!), German, English, and includes ancestors who came to America on the Mayflower, and who fought in the Revolutionary War. I’m proud of that heritage and see no reason not to claim it. It bonds me with that side of my family, and other Finns I meet in the world. (It also forces me to pronounce “sauna” correctly and correct anyone who does not). But being half Finnish is only part of who I am, and because it is something I cannot control, it means a little less to me than the ideas I’m trying to live my life by, how I treat others, what I do in this world, and the people I love. If being Finnish-American meant I had to treat others terribly, I would leave dissociate myself as much as I could from the label, even though I can never really change that part of my ancestry. Fortunately, for now, I don’t have to make that choice.

Another label I both use and shun paradoxically, is libertarian (small “l”). It’s a word that means many things to many people, especially in this moment in time, as our online lives have become more divided by politics, and teams. I find its easier to use libertarian to broadly explain my worldview to use the term (along with “classical liberal” or voluntaryist, or min-archist, and others), but it’s a double-edged sword. Once you use the word to describe yourself, it will be thrown in your face, and used to define everything you are, often times by people who don’t fully understand what the words mean to me. If others who call themselves libertarian behave badly, you will be tarnished by association with them, even though you also decry their behavior, or certain views. In short, people will use their own biases against you and not bother to learn what you actually mean or think, because they believe they know. On the other side, it can become a shield, or a tribal coat of arms one uses to gather with like-minds against the “other.” This is true of all political labels. But “libertarian” is only a useful term so long as it means what I am. I do not mold my views to be more libertarian.

One reason I keep using the word is the libertarian tent is large and actually describes many different micro positions that fall under an “individual liberty first” umbrella, and includes people who love vibrant debate, and thoughtful position tweaking (something I wish more people on the outside looking in understood). If that changes, I’ll abandon the term and the tent without regret. In fact, right now the term “classical liberal” is currently being usurped by those who previously called themselves “on the left” but who no longer identify as a progressive. It doesn’t quite fit libertarian anymore, but I’m holding onto it for now because it does fit parts of me.

image of many political party logos

All I’m asking is that you get to know me (and anyone else) for the sum of my many different parts, not the parts themselves, and allow that people constantly change those parts as they learn new things, meet new people, and have new experiences. I truly want to do the same with you, but we cannot until we accept that no one label defines us (even if we think it does or want it to). Be willing to abandon the label when it fails to mean what you think it should mean, and be willing to ignore the label even if it is true and cannot be changed because of an immutable trait. Never let the tribe’s collective view suck you entirely into its gravitational field. No intersectional identity or political label can ever do justice to the individual. When we fall into a black hole, or push others into one, we limit human progress.

Peace,

Persephone K

Hey, a long time ago I wrote a related piece on this topic. You can check it out here: https://www.persephonespath.com/the-trouble-with-blogging/

Comments { 0 }

My Thought Evolution on Freedom: Remembering 9/11

By on September 11, 2015 in 9-11-2001, Atheism & Skepticism, Government Reform, Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-liberty-image26285626Two obvious points: 1) Its been a really long time since I’ve blogged!  2) Obviously, its the 14th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/2001.

I’ll skip the boring and lame reasons for #1 and focus on #2 today.  Every year on 9/11 I feel like I should have something profound to say. I never really do, and today its especially true, but I do have something to say.  I started this post on my Facebook page, thinking it was just going to be a sentence or two, and it quickly blossomed into a full post, so it sparked my enthusiasm to fire up the old blog again.  This should be a short one, though.

9/11 changed the course of my life. That is not hyperbole. If it had not happened, I’d be leading a different life in many ways. Not a better or worse life, just a different one. And I’d be a different person with very different viewpoints on many topics, if I had a viewpoint on those topics at all. 9/11 was the butterfly flapping its wings across the world creating the storm of my life.

I’ve spoken before about how 9/11 changed my views of religion (specifically here and here), but I think what stands out most to me today, is how 9/11 changed my view of what it means to be free. 9/11 was also my birth, or maybe the beginning of my adolescence, as a libertarian (although I had no idea what that term meant at the time).  9/11 itself evoked extreme feelings of patriotism for me, as it did for many Americans.  It sparked me to join the fight by going to work for an agency involved in the “Global War on Terror”.  That experience led me to learn more than I ever had before about economics and Classical Liberal philosophy.  Perhaps a future post will dive more into why that happened.  In turn, what I learned in those areas has altered my view of 9/11 from what it was the day it happened and the first few years afterwards.  I no longer think of today as a day of unbridled patriotism.  Instead I think of it as a reminder of how far the country has come from the ideals it was founded upon.  I still believe that the “American Experiment” was one of the greatest endeavors humans have ever attempted. We always have been and always will be a work in progress. I’m worried that we have given up on the effort to live up to our ideals, however, and are heading down a path of becoming the thing we fought against.

I feel truly lucky to have been born in America.  I’m one of the lucky few of the billions who have lived in my time and before.  9/11 taught me that where a person was born shapes a lot of who they become, and I don’t take that for granted.  But I also don’t accept blind patriotism anymore.  I believe in the ideals of individual liberty, and I fear that 9/11 pushed us as a nation further away from living up to those ideals.

That terrible day should never have happened. The lives lost should have been able to continue their days as if nothing had happened, but instead they were stopped in time too early. Not a single person deserved what happened to them that day, except for the 19 participants in the plot. So, I remember those lives today with honor, even though I never met one of them.  And I will continue to honor them by remembering that they were individuals with hopes and dreams, wanting to live their own lives in peace.  That those men who took their lives thought more of the next life than this one, and took away the choices of 2,958 (I do not count the hijackers in this total) in this life is haunting.  9/11 taught me that this life is the only one we know we have, and that my right to interfere in the lives of others going about their own business is (or should be) limited.

Peace,

PersephoneK

world-trade-center-lights

Comments { 0 }

How I learned I’m a Religious Marxist and Other Silly Things

By on December 10, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Liberty & Freedom, Ruminations

dreamstime_s_7671893_GOLDCoinsToday, I was told two things about myself I didn’t know (add groan). The first being I’m a Marxist. The second being that since I’m an atheist, I subscribe to a religion. While it’s entirely possible I misunderstood the person’s intent (this was after all a Facebook discussion, which aren’t known for their details and included people I’ve never met in real life), I don’t think I did. And it made me want to explore these hilarious ideas more in depth.

As an atheist, I’ve been told many times by religious people that atheism is a religion, and the variation of that is it takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Let me start by using the dictionary definition used by the person who told me atheism is a religion:

Religion (noun): a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

There is a lot there, but from what I can tell, atheism does not meet any of the criteria listed. Atheism is not a set of beliefs about anything. There is no universal doctrine about creation, the purpose or nature of the universe. There are no devotional observances or rituals that all atheists must subscribe to. There is no one all-inclusive moral code. Atheism is merely a rejection of any supernatural supreme being aka god(s). That is the only thing that binds atheists together. Now, from that lack of belief, there naturally come many similarities in world views, but not always.

Religious people often mistake passion for religion. One can be passionate or outspoken about the topic of atheism or theism. But that passion does not automatically make one religious. This distinction confounds me, and most atheists I know. It’s usually thrown out as a red herring in order to make the atheist look like a hypocrite for daring to care about whether or not people believe in god. I care about world peace, ending hunger, women’s rights, music, and movies. Does that mean I am part of corresponding religions for each of those? Any reasonable person would have to say no. Religion, as its definition states, includes a supernatural agency (or agencies), and devotion or rituals related to that agency. Atheism does not meet this requirement.

Regarding me being a Marxist… this is even funnier. There was a time, in my younger and Christian days, when I very well was headed down a somewhat Marxist path. I’ve always been a capitalist, but I can remember a window of time during high school when I began to see the world from a Haves and Have Nots lens. When I saw the pursuit of material wealth as crass and corrupting. I saw Jesus Christ as the ultimate example of an egalitarian leader, showing us how to live together in peace and harmony. I did not want to be thought of as one of the greedy money changers in the Temple that angered Jesus so much in the gospels. And those money hungry Ferengi on Star Trek just seemed gross.

Then I learned about Adam Smith and John Locke. I read Frederic Bastiat and Milton Friedman. I learned, despite not being exposed in public school or through the mainstream media, that Capitalism overwhelmingly has increased human well-being over pretty much every other social strategy every conceived by man. This isn’t theoretical. Its reality. That data was supported by my anecdotal observances, especially when I worked for the Federal Government. I learned about incentives, and how they really matter. I learned that what many people think is Capitalism, isn’t. Capitalism is not the dominance of big business, riding on the wings of big government to squash the little guy. That is crony capitalism, where the government colludes with business to control the markets and pick winners and losers. True Capitalism is the most democratic process there is. It’s the way I as an individual can most make an impact every single day in the course of society. The United States currently leans more towards Crony Capitalism than most libertarians would prefer. This results in “too big to fail” banks, local restaurants crowding out the food truck competition, and ridiculous licensing rules making entry into a business all but impossible for many would-be entrepreneurs. All of which leads to more power for the established businesses and entrenched politicians, and less power and higher prices for the consumers. In true capitalism, businesses must serve their customers well, or they will exist no more. Serving consumers (read you and I) well means a better economy. A better economy leads to more prosperity for all. This is not Marxism. This is not shared work and shared fruits. Crony Capitalism may be closer to what Marx was fighting against. He saw the businesses and the governments with all the power, and the little guy getting beat up time and time again (figuratively and literally), powerless to control the winds of fate. In true Capitalism, the little guy holds all of the power. The little guy gets what he wants for better prices, leaving him with more money to get other things (or services) he wants.

The person who called me a Marxist did so because he Marx was an avowed critic of religion. He called it “the opiate of the masses.” This might be one area where Marx and I see eye-to-eye (hey, I’ll give credit where it’s due), but his prescriptions (ore his followers interpretations of them) for overcoming religion were about as far in the other direction as I could be. Communist governments are usually a-religious. Christians I have met often assume that where atheism resides, so must communism, socialism, or Marxism. I won’t even get into the ridiculous barb often thrown at atheists that most of the atrocities committed in the 20th Century were committed by atheists, but I will merely say that it is a logical fallacy to suggest that because one is an atheist, one must be a Marxist. As I mentioned earlier, atheists have no universal moral code or philosophy. It is merely the lack of belief in a supernatural deity or deities. Marxism is a philosophy for how society should behave. As an atheist libertarian, I believe in the proven power of capitalism to solve many of the world’s problems. If I could ever be accused of being religious, it would be regarding my love of capitalism. It has done far more in the name of ending human suffering than anything else the world has known.

But to do so, would defy the definition of religion. So I won’t.

Cheers,
PersephoneK

P.S.  I wrote this extremely quickly and didn’t edit it at all (except to spell Ferengi correctly and add some hyperlinks).  Apologies if that’s evident.  Sometimes you just have to get ‘er done!

Comments { 0 }

Tearing Down the Two Party System Benefits All

By on October 17, 2013 in Government Reform, Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

PoliticalPartiesLogosAs a Minnesota Native, I disagreed with almost everything the late Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone tried to do as a politician.  But I, along with many of his colleagues on both sides of the isle, respected him for his principled stances on issues he passionately believed in.  He was an ideologue who made no apologies for it.  He wasn’t afraid to stand against his own party if it meant doing what he believed was the right thing, and the thing he believed his constituents elected him to do.  In that way, he reminds me of former US Representative (Texas) Ron Paul, the defacto spiritual leader of the modern libertarian movement.

We need more Paul Wellstones and Ron Pauls in politics.

I don’t mean we necessarily need more who think exactly like them, or who agree with their specific ideology, but we need more politicians who are less concerned with the games of politics than they are with doing things they believe are right.  We need politicians who stand up for powerful principals instead of clinging to party loyalty.  Ironically, I think we have more people like that on Capitol Hill now more than ever before in my lifetime.  It takes a lot for me to admit that, as those who know me know I’m generally cynical about politics, and politicians in general.  Even more ironically, those same “trouble-making” politicians have been accused (unfairly in my view) of the very political games many Americans are tired of, and causing the latest government shutdown which ended essentially in a stalemate today.

While political games will always be part of the system, the games played in the latest shutdown spectacle were different than business as usual in the Beltway.  Much different.  In a way that might not seem obvious, they signal one of the greatest problems with the American political system.  Its not what you think I’m going to say…. The shutdown more than anything else highlights the problem with the two-party system.  Specifically, the two party system makes principled rebellion a dirty word when in fact it should be celebrated.  That is, after all, why this country exists in the first place.  If we broke free of the two party duopoly, I think two seemingly contradictory things would begin to be more common in Washington politics: Principled (Ideological) Stances and Cooperation.  Let me try to explain why.

An unpleasant fact of politics is that it takes money to win elections.  The only real way to get money in our modern system is by being affiliated with a political party.  Parties are basically election machines.  Once a candidate has its support, all of the components of that machine work together to fundraise, promote, and otherwise support that candidate.  The bigger the political stage (i.e. Presidential election vs local city mayor), the more the machine grinds away for the candidate, and the more important it is for the candidate to have a party affiliation.  In short, the candidate can’t do it alone without the Party.  Its no surprise then, that Party loyalty has become the primary factor in most political gamesmanship in Washington.  Whether they say it or not, politicians generally put Party first.  To do otherwise is potential (likely) career suicide.

Yet, during the latest shutdown a curious thing happened.  Several “Tea Party” Republicans defied the Republican establishment and stood on principle.  They’ve been demonized heavily by the media, (TeaBaggers anyone?), other Republicans, and many of my more politically vocal Facebook friends (LOL!), but in truth, they did exactly what they were elected to do.  Each of those Republicans had run their election campaigns primarily on the idea that the Affordable Care Act (ACA aka “ObamaCare”) was a terrible law that should be killed.  Of course, almost every other (if not all) Republican(s) also think ObamaCare is a terrible law, and have tried to kill it from the beginning.  Unfortunately for them, they did not have the majorities necessary to defeat the bill from passing in the first place, or to change portions of it once passed.  That’s how many of the Tea Party Republicans got their seats in Congress and the Senate.  Although polling has consistently shown that the American public does not like ObamaCare, with the popularity level peaking around 40% in 2012, it has remained the primary platform for the Democrats and President Obama in particular during his administration.  With the Democratic majorities, they were able to ram the unpopular bill through and pass it into law.  Once passed, they fortified their commitment to keeping it largely in tact.  And they’ve had the political upperhand to do so, especially since the Republican Party is so divided between the “established” faction and the Tea Party faction.

So, in this latest battle, what we have are Democrats united on a law that most Americans hate, and having the power to remain so without compromise, partially because they control the Senate, and the Executive Branch (aka the President), but also because the Republican Party, which controls the House is divided into two camps.  One camp, the majority of the Republican Party (the Establishment), believes in maintaining power at all costs, and the other camp (Tea Party) is willing to lose all power (Polling has shown the entire Republican Party has been largely blamed for the shutdown) because they believe it is the right thing to do.

You may disagree with me, but all other things being equal, I would rather stand with a minority that has integrity than a majority that cares more about keeping its political power in place.

What does this have to do with the two party system being a problem? My point with all of this is not about whether or not I think ObamaCare is a good law or whether or not the Tea Party has the right plan for America.  This shutdown situation could have just as easily happened with any other contentious issue, where the political players are aligned in a similar way.  When one party has such tremendous power it can push unpopular laws through, and then hold that power over the other minority power.

For some proponents of government, maybe even for a majority of Americans, this might seem like a good thing.  It means that Washington politicians are seemingly doing what we want them to do.  They’re “getting things done.”  They’re passing laws left and right.  Americans were largely unhappy with the shutdown because they feel politicians should be cooperating and compromising.  I agree that politicians should pass necessary laws.  I agree that to do so they must often compromise (unless they have absolute majority) and cooperate.  They must build relationships.  What the two party system does is corrupt those goals.  It allows two behemoths to have overall power over the American people despite most Americans not being aligned entirely with one Party’s platform over the other.  The crack in the Republican party that lead to the shutdown ironically probably would not have done so if there were more cracks in both parties that called themselves something else entirely… In short, if there were many parties instead of two, it would be less possible for a small faction to shutdown the government in the first place because it would have never gotten to that point.

Most Americans may lean one way or the other, but they are not Party loyalists.  Those they elect are by necessity, but they are not.  A recent Gallup poll says that 60% of Americans think a third party is needed and that the current system does not reflect their ideals.  The two party system forces Americans to choose between two groups that may preach very different messages, but in practice behave exactly the same.  They serve to maintain their own power, not to serve the ideals their platforms espouse.  At least until a “radical faction” breaks away, stands on principle (does what they say they will do) and gains the ire of both established groups.  From my perspective, this group of politicians willing to risk their political careers because they believe its the right thing to do is what we need more of in Washington, and it makes me tremendously sad that they are getting labeled as “shameful” or “despicable” or even laughably the “radical right wing.”  By breaking the two party system apart these smaller voices would simultaneously lose their power, forcing compromise, and more accurately reflect the American people’s ideals in the right proportions.

Imagine for a moment that instead of two entrenched parties, there were many parties in Washington (more than three ideally).  If no single party had a greater than 50% majority hold I envision a few things resulting.

  1. Parties could stand for one or two principals instead of having to fit numerous agendas on their platforms.  Americans would know exactly what the primary focus of a politician is.  In that way, party loyalty would be tightly entwined with the principals the party stands for.  Americans would have more choices that more accurately reflect their own ideals and beliefs on how best to most the country forward.  Would you prefer to live in a world where you could only pick between vanilla and chocolate?  As a lover of combinations of flavors, I would find that terrible.  Vanilla with chocolate syrup please!  Remember when there were only four channels on TV?  Hell on earth.  Why do we allow that system to survive in something as important as politics?  Politics is how we decide how we want to live our lives as a society.  It is the method we use to determine the freedoms we have and don’t have, and the repercussions for defiance of the laws we deem important.  Politics is surely more important than ice cream flavors or TV channels.  Isn’t it?  I can’t even imagine the ideas that could be generated if the two parties lost their duopoly control on the system.  Thirty-one flavors for all with never-ending refinement depending on demand!

  2. Compromise between parties would be essential to pass laws in a multi-party system.  If no single monstrously large party had a true majority, in order to pass laws politicians would be forced to build relationships with other party members on issues they are in agreement.  You would find all kinds combinations of alliances on different issues.  As a libertarian, I often find myself agreeing more often with Republicans on fiscal policy (though they don’t usually live up to their rhetoric), but agreeing with Democrats on social issues (but not usually the details of social policy).  While I have agreed largely with Tea Party republicans on their ideas about taxes and financial reforms, I disagree with them largely on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, to name a few (although one can be against gay marriage but for a law supporting gay marriage — a nuance lost in our current duopoly).  Essentially, none of the two major parties reflects my ideals in any serious way.  I’m not an anomaly.

  3. Laws would be harder to pass and there would be fewer of them.  To some people this may be a terrible prospect.  After all, that’s what we send our Representatives and Senators to Washington to do, right?  Pass laws!!!  I found this article calling the 113th Congress the worst ever because they failed to do anything by passing only 22 laws (as of August 2013).  I personally see that as a victory.  The worst situation is when one party controls all branches of government.  This is when tyranny of the majority happens, and is not what the writers of the constitution envisioned for the democratic process of our Constitutional Republic.  My perspective is that each and every law that is passed should be done so as a solemn last resort, and after only careful consideration of what it will and should do, and the consequences that will result.  Laws almost always mean limits on liberty, both personal and economic.  Very rarely are laws repealed once enacted, and each new law forces Americans to alter their lives in very real and serious ways.  There should be public debate and transparency with each law considered.  They should never be passed frivolously, and always only* according to the Constitution.  They should never be passed because one party has a majority and does so anyway in defiance of the public’s wishes.   This couldn’t happen in a multi-party system.  Additionally, the public should have full access to the reasoning behind the law and the possible unintended consequences of its enactment.  If politicians were forced to focus on fewer laws, I believe that would be a step in the right direction for engaging the American people on exactly what they’re doing on our dime.  As a bonus wish, I’d also require all bills to be single issue focused (aka no “pork”) and short (Have you read the Constitution… the longest Amendment is the 12th and has 403 words, the equivalent of little more than ½ a page single spaced in Word with 12 point font.  ObamaCare had reportedly 2700 pages!), and all laws should have a sunset date (of no more than 5 years from enactment)*.

Unfortunately, changing the two party system is an uphill battle. The current party system exists not because it was what the Founders envisioned (President Washington belonged to no party), but because of a systematic power-grab of the two major parties over 150 years of politics.  Throughout our nation’s history, parties have changed both in name and in their ideals, but in the modern age, change seems unlikely to gain a foothold primarily because of laws that exist in many states and federally that make it all but impossible for third (or more) parties to gain any traction in elections.  The issues are complex and vast, and vary from state to state, but in summary, a third party gaining traction in a national election has little to do with their ideas not aligning with a large number of voters and more to do with the two big parties liking the system to stay that way.

The current election system is, to put it bluntly, rigged to prop up the parties in power, and squash all attempts to add other voices to the political dialogue.  As a result, most Americans find themselves picking the lesser of two evils during elections, or trying to pick the candidate they align on with most issues.  Rarely do Americans pick a third party.  The main reason for that is they “want their vote to count.”  This pattern only perpetuates the cycle of Republicans and Democrats maintaining control, further entrenching them into our psyche, and defining the dialogue.  Its no secret that I consider myself libertarian (small ‘l’) or classical liberal.  I didn’t really know what that was until less than ten years ago.  Up until the last election, I found myself falling into the trap as well.  I didn’t want to waste my vote, so I picked the candidate that I thought was “kinda close” on the issues that I felt were most important.  During the last election, I finally decided that I couldn’t do that any longer.  I’d rather have my vote wasted than vote for a candidate that I find impossible to live with.  So for the first time ever, I did not vote for a major party candidate.  Obviously, my guy lost, but I slept easy at night knowing I followed my conscience.  I would love if more Americans didn’t have to choose the lesser of two evils in order for their voice to be heard.  Paul Wellstone once said, “I would just feel like a shill if I didn’t vote for what I thought was right. I just couldn’t do it.”  If we could tear down the two party duopoly, I think we’d finally get to the point where most Americans wouldn’t have to feel like shills.  We could all stand on principle, and debate each issue on its own merit instead of fall in line behind our tribal tendencies to defend “our side” against “them.”  And we’d be more inclined to reach across the aisle to find common interests with people who mostly align with another party.  Events like the government shutdown would be things of the past because cooperation would be a requirement for achieving any result on The Hill, but at the same time, politicians would be closely aligned with very specific agendas and ideologies that would take precedence over party loyalty purely due to necessity.  We’d find a lot more Paul Wellstones and Ron Pauls — men and women with integrity unafraid to show that what they stand for is what they will act upon, but while simultaneously allowing many more voices and ideas to be front and center in the debate.  Tearing down the two party system will create a new system that more closely resembles what America stands for and is — a melting pot of all the different cultures and best ideas of the world where we cooperate and work with people everyday who believe differently from us on some issues.  That’s the American dream realized.  Our political system should reflect that.

As with all of my posts, this blog serves as a forum for me to work out my ideas, and are never meant to stand the test of time or be forever set in stone.  I tend to write my posts on the fly with little preparation, although I usually have thought a lot about a topic for a while.  I have a life to live and don’t spend hours writing my posts (usually).  In a way, my blog serves as a place where I publish rough drafts of my ideas that I will refine over time.  As a result, sometimes clarity of idea can be lost.  What makes sense in my brain isn’t always translated well to the page on the first (or sometimes second, third, etc) go-round.  This is why I have this blog in part… to improve that communication skill, and to see the progression of my ideas.  I rely on comments and questions from you to help me plug up holes in either my thinking, or my communication of my thinking.  I’m sure this blog will be my most contentious yet.  Please, have at it!

Cheers,

PersephoneK

*Edits added after original publication to increase clarity.

Comments { 0 }

Unrealistic Expectations: Security vs Freedom

By on April 23, 2013 in Everything Else, Government Reform, Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

AP Photo

As Americans, we must decide whether or not we prize security over freedom. We cannot have it both ways. It’s time for us to understand that. The bombing on April 15th at the Boston Marathon re-enforced that point for me, although it’s a topic I have thought about a lot over the past years since September 11, 2001. After the 9/11 attacks, our nation changed significantly, both in our psyche and our structure. Preventing such a horrendous event from ever happening again became a personal mission for me as well, leading to a new career path. I applied to, and got a job with, a certain federal agency charged with protecting America from future terrorist attacks. Over the course of my nearly 8 years there, and in the time since I left it, my view point has changed from being fairly strongly “hawkish,” to one that is much more Libertarian (though I prefer “Classically Liberal”). In short, I don’t believe we can truly protect our nation from attack while also preserving civil liberties to the level we should expect, that is, to the level preserved in the Constitution.

I once decried the foreign policy of Libertarian Guru Ron Paul as “terrifying,” but now, while perhaps not completely in agreement with his isolationist ideals, I have shifted significantly towards the non-aggressionist end of the spectrum. I don’t know that I will ever be “dovish”, the usual opposite of “hawkish,” because I believe in using force as retribution when attacked. However, I believe our Nation’s foreign policy needs a significant change to a non-interference mantra. We cannot, and should not, try to push our agenda upon the entire world.

This shift in my thinking has been formed over time, from many influences, but is based upon two primary principals:

  1. I believe that by valuing individual liberty (here and abroad) above the wishes of the collective (or government), we have a better chance of achieving world peace in the most moral way possible, and
  2. I do not believe the government has the ability (both in resources and competence), nor the moral authority to protect us from all threats, perceived and real.

If I added an unofficial third principal, it would be that the law of unintended consequences often rears its head in horrifying ways.

How does this relate to security vs liberty? I do not believe perfect (or near-perfect) security is possible, regardless of the laws or policies we enact. Even the most totalitarian states are vulnerable to terrorism, and violent crime. A person intent on causing harm to one or more individuals, will find a way to do so. But in the process of trying to prevent as much carnage as possible, we as a society, tend to readily acquiesce our freedom as a surprisingly fast pace. And as we try to impose our will on each other and other nations, we stir a hornets nest of unintended responses and attitudes, not only because violence towards our enemies inevitably hurts innocents, but because in doing so, we become hypocritical of our moral imperative to protect individual life, liberty, and property, thus denying the right to pursue happiness.

After 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon attacks, and countless other atrocities, the natural inclination from terrified and horrified citizens, and politicians is to rush to DO SOMETHING! OR BLAME SOMEONE! OR DO SOMETHING BY BLAMING SOMEONE! Make laws and shame those that disagree! The choices we make immediately following something as horrific as these events highlight our emotional natures, and suppress our rational sides. Politicians throw barbs with the objective of trying to demonize the other side by playing off our natural emotional responses to feel revulsion, and our inability to put them into proper historical context. Inevitably, rash responses follow, and all too often get enshrined into law, further diluting our free society.

I’m currently reading Steven Pinker’s “[easyazon-link asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us”]The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined[/easyazon-link]”. This book should be required reading (if I believed in such a thing, which I do not) for all Americans. With astounding amounts of evidence, Pinker proves his thesis that the world is a much less violent place right now than in all of human history. It can be hard to believe such a statement when faced with the 24/7 news cycle bombarding us with images of bomb victims, or the latest school shooting. And of course, nothing can truly heal the wounds of victims and family members whose lives have been irrevocably changed, or snuffed out. Their suffering deserves attention. They deserve our compassion. But they do not deserve us changing the fundamentals of why this country exists. Ironically, even as we have become safer, we have become less free, mostly by our own submission. This is a trend I hope we can reverse.

It’s easy to forget what the Americans who fought the Revolution risked in order to create a state ruled by the people, yet one that protected the minority and majority alike by recognizing certain fundamental, and pre-existing rights. It’s easy for us to forget what an amazing goal and ultimate achievement this was, during a time when monarchies and empires controlled their citizens with absolute authority the world over. As American students, we learn about Patrick Henry’s cry to “Give me liberty or give me death!”http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-liberty-image26285626 and we think, oh, that’s nice, but that doesn’t apply to my life right now. Or we think of it in a detached way, as if the Patriots were not real people fighting for real ideals in a life or death situation of winner take all. They were willing to die so that a new experiment could take shape to form a society that valued the liberty of individuals over the whims of the King or the collective. They believed that through individual liberty, the society as a whole could be one of maximum peace, tolerance, and prosperity. It’s a gamble that has been proven to work over and over again since then. The freer a society, the more peaceful and prosperous its citizens are in general.

But with the quest for liberty, we inevitably must accept a significant risk in our safety. Often in politics we hear the mantra, “if it saves one life, we should” enact that law, or restrict this freedom. My response to that particular use of our emotions as a political plaything: Of course we should try to protect lives. Of course we shouldn’t disregard the human toll. But we need to do so in a reasonable and effective way that doesn’t make this life undesirable to live, (if not for us today, but for future generations), in a way that preserves our diverse sub-cultures, and does not trample on the pre-ordained rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit. We drift further and further from those ideals as time goes by. We have allowed fear to drive us into a collectivist way of thinking about how to improve society.

So, this brings me to my original point. Preventing terrorism is not really possible. The fact of the matter is, it is not possible to predict any future event, no matter how much money we throw at the terrorism leviathan, no matter how well trained our intelligence services are (and I’m not saying they are). There will always be a way to punch a hole in the security measures we implement. What our preventative measures almost exclusively do is make life more burdensome for law abiding individuals, while doing almost nothing to curb the violent ones. The burdens we’ve imposed on ourselves may seem worth it at the moment, but how often do we see laws being repealed, or softened? Nearly never. The call is almost always for MORE MORE MORE! And we the people allow this to continue. We are complicit because we do not value liberty any more. We are not taught to value liberty. We are taught to think of “society” as a single organism. We do not understand the unintended consequences of blessing the government with greater control over our movements and privacy. We somehow have been convinced that only through strong, central government intervention can we achieve some sort of Utopian society. We’ve been led to believe that individuality is wrong, and instead we are one people with the exact same thoughts and dreams. That we are there to serve our government, rather than our government being there to serve us.

Unlike many Libertarians, I do not believe the government is overwhelmingly corrupt. I think corruption undoubtedly exists. And I believe strongly in the axiom that “power corrupts”, but I think overall the abuses we see within government are the usually result of incompetence, and/or misaligned incentives. That is not to say that there is something inherently incompetent in people who work for the government. In my experience, some of the most amazingly talented and intelligent people work for the government. They care deeply about your life and your security. Many of them risk their lives to keep you safe. But as bureaucracy grows, so do incentives that are out of whack. Only through competition can individuals and organizations be held accountable in a truly democratic way. That system is simply not possible within government on any kind of large or adequate scale, which is one reason why I believe we need to limit the government’s authority in most aspects of our lives, especially when it comes to laws or policy designed to prevent something bad. Ultimately, government is made up of humans who are just as imperfect as you and I. To expect “it” to solve our problems is like tilting at windmills.

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-windmills-kinderdijk-image26564171

The FBI is the best in the world at solving a crime that has occurred and bringing the perpetrator(s) to justice. But to ask it to prevent a crime as if it has the power of the pre-cogs from Minority Report is ludicrous. There is currently much discussion in the media about the report that the FBI had interviewed the Boston bombing’s deceased Tamerlan Tsarnaev two years ago, yet allowed him to carry out the attack. Senator Lindsey Graham is quoted as saying, “So maybe it’s the system failed, didn’t provide the FBI with the tools, or maybe they didn’t use it properly,” he added. “That’s why maybe we need to find out what happened.”

Without getting mired in the minutia of how the laws of the land work, I will just summarize by saying, the expectation that the FBI could have prevented the bombing based on this earlier interview of Tamerlan Tsarnaev is absurd unless you also accept the idea that your personal liberty is meaningless. Tsarnaev was a US Person, a description that brings with it certain rights and requirements pertaining to investigations by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Absent any specific information that this guy was plotting an attack, (not to mention the sheer volume of these types of interviews the FBI does), it is beyond silly to suggest the FBI could have done anything to prevent the bombings, unless of course, you would prefer the FBI trample on the rights of US Persons. The same could be said of almost every single terrorist attack that has ever occurred. Misusing the benefit of hindsight knowledge to criticize an agency for something it has no power to stop is vile.

According to Daniel Kahneman in his brilliant [easyazon-link asin=”B00555X8OA” locale=”us”]Thinking, Fast and Slow[/easyazon-link], the Nobel Prize winning psychologist, individuals, even experts, are terrible at prediction. Even financial advisors, people trained through the incentive of making money for personal benefit, do a terrible job at predicting markets. And in order to attempt to analyze a trend, you need data. The more data, the better the analysis. All kinds of data are needed, and in the case of intelligence, you don’t really know what data you need to find a trend. It’s not like investigating an event that has occurred in the past, where you know how it ends, and can track the evidence backwards. The thirst for data means that data must be collected. And when you don’t know what you’re looking for, you want it all. In the case of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, it appears the information the FBI was given was that he had become more radicalized and had changed. I don’t mean to point out the obvious, but becoming radicalized is not actually a crime. We have something called the 1st Amendment in this country, and you are allowed to say and believe some pretty hateful things. That is not evidence of a crime, nor should it be used to put you under suspicion absent additional information that points elsewhere. In this case, the FBI was protecting your rights, and is getting trampled for it in the media and by grandstanding politicians. Yet, we as citizens are culpable in that theater.

We cannot ask the US Intelligence Community to analyze data that is paradoxically too voluminous and yet inadequate in detail, and expect it to predict impossible future violent events while simultaneously protecting our right to privacy and free speech, among other rights. You simply cannot have it both ways. Not only is predicting future terrorist attacks (or other crime) with any level of certainty or specificity an impossible goal (even if our current USIC model was perfectly structured, which it isn’t), but it is certainly not possible without giving up our fundamentals of liberty. So by trying to force that impossible mission upon the government, we make both failure, and (usually unintentional) abuse of civil liberties probable.

As I’ve thought more and more about this basic truth, I have decided that the mission of US law enforcement needs to be explicitly changed back to serving justice rather than crime/terrorism prevention, both in the letter of the law and in the American people’s minds. Justice and prevention are not the same. In a free society, we grant human beings the right to live their lives in any way they see fit so long as they do not infringe the rights of others to do the same. Put another way, my rights end only where yours begin. I cannot hurt you physically. I cannot steal your property. I cannot infringe on your fundamental individual rights, many of which are stated explicitly in the Constitution, many of which are not. Any law that restricts my freedom is not justified unless it supports that notion of equal rights. Any law that prevents my equal freedom is not a just law. Unfortunately, our legal system is riddled with these laws. Take for example the rash of anti-texting laws sweeping the nation. If I text and drive, am I more likely to get into an accident? Yes. Without question. But will 100% of individuals who text and drive get into an accident? Absolutely not. So, if I text and drive, and a police officer cites me for it despite me never having hurt a single person, how is that a just law? He is citing me based on the mere possibility that I may hurt someone or someone’s property in the future, even though I may never do so. That is the definition of pre-crime. The federal government, in particular its law enforcement agencies, should exist to provide me justice when my rights to live freely are trampled by other individuals, and that is it. A law that says I cannot text and drive even though I have not hurt anyone else is a law that suggests I have hurt the state in some way by not hurting someone else (after all, how can I be restricted when I have not hurt anyone or anything)? When the state becomes the injured party, we have a problem. How is it just to hold me accountable for a crime I may commit? A law is not just, just because it’s a law.

Our mindsets as a society should not be to first assume the government will protect us from everything, from things like our abuse of food, to the dangers of texting while driving, to the huge things like terrorist bombings. http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-freedom-way-image18974409A focus on prevention should not be, and cannot be, the role of government. Government’s responsibility should be to seek justice for us when we are harmed and our rights are abused by other individuals (or sadly by the state). It is our responsibility as individuals who seek peaceful coexistence with other individuals who think differently than we do, and who value different things than we do, to find a way to live together, and influence one another in non-coercive ways.

Are we really making gains as a society if the only way we can force our neighbors to act in ways we prefer is to make laws, which are backed by government’s monopoly of force? I say we are not. I do not believe we can ever rid our world of violence or evil people, but I especially do not believe we will ever do so by expecting the government to protect us from evil. It cannot do so to perfection, nor can it do so without restricting privacy, abusing rights (however inadvertently), and using force. My dream is for a world where the government is there to help me seek justice against those who have harmed me, and to help me enforce voluntary contracts, but that otherwise leaves me alone to work with my fellow citizens to make the world a better place by using the power of words, and actions that promote human well-being.

Justice versus security? I choose justice. I choose freedom. How about you?

 

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 2 }

My Plea to Anyone Voting “Yes”: A Libertarian Marriage Amendment Perspective

By on October 9, 2012 in Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RZVN56TAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”100″]On Election Day this year, Minnesotans – like myself — will vote on whether or not to add a ban of gay marriage to the state’s constitution.  This is an open letter to anyone planning on, or considering, voting “Yes”, as in, planning on voting to add the amendment to the constitution and thus ban gay marriage by law.  Even if you’ve made up your mind, I implore you to let me bend your ear (or eyes), and I promise in return to respect your choice, whatever it may be.  It can never hurt to have another perspective.  

Let me say upfront, I understand where you’re coming from.  Fifteen years ago or so, I would have absolutely voted “yes.”  My position at that time was largely informed by my religious values.  I’m not here to argue those views (if you share them) because they are unarguable.  If you hold certain religious beliefs, you hold those beliefs.   Nothing I can say here would change that, nor do I wish to try.  The debate on the merits of religion is not relevant to this issue, despite it being entwined with the issue in the media.

What is relevant is how you regard freedom, and the covenant We the People have with our government as expressed in the US Constitution.

You may say this amendment merely impacts a state constitution, but all state constitutions must adhere to the US Constitution as the ultimate law of the land.  If you read the US Constitution, you’ll note that all of the Amendments, except for the 19th (Prohibition of Alcohol), preserve the rights of the people, not limit them.  That one amendment limiting freedoms was repealed soon after it was enacted.  It didn’t work.

This is a powerful concept:  Laws limit freedoms; Constitutions preserve them. 

The US Constitution was designed so that no law could be created that limits freedoms (of the majority and the minority alike) preserved within it.  I am not going to argue that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution.  It’s not.  Not directly.  But the Founders very carefully crafted the original Bill of Rights with the intent of enabling individuals to pursue their own individual happiness without stepping on the rights of others to do the same.  That is the primary purpose of the Constitution.  

I’ll say it again in another way.  The Constitution is there to ensure you can do anything you want – anything – so long as you do not infringe on another person’s right to do the same.  

This new amendment if enacted, clearly limits the rights of certain individuals to pursue their own happiness.  This amendment if not enacted, does no such thing to any individual.  I take it as a very serious matter any law that restricts freedom for any reason.  You can disagree with a behavior and not require that it be set into law.  The creation of any law – much less one set in a constitution – should be undertaken with extreme caution, and thoughtful reason, and not merely on the basis of trying to mold the world into a single group or individual’s ideal.  We are all doomed to having our freedoms limited if we misunderstand that truth.

True freedom is messy.  True freedom requires that we live among people who do not hold our values.  True freedom requires that we work together, if not to live in harmony, then to at least leave each other alone.  Each law we add to the books tears down the fabric of true, voluntary (free) society a little more.  Would you rather your neighbor adopted your beliefs because they are beliefs worth having or because they are required by law to do so?

Another argument for voting “no” is more esoteric.  The discussion always turns to the idea that those who are pro-gay marriage want to “redefine” marriage.  The problem is that marriage has had vastly different definitions during our relatively short time as a country, much less throughout all our existence as social creatures.  If you have the time, I’d encourage you to read a fascinating book called [easyazon-link asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us”]Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage[/easyazon-link] by Stephanie Coontz.  It is quite dense, but it is immensely thorough in its study of the history of marriage throughout human history, from ancient cultures, to our own.  One thing is certain: Marriage has never had a consistent definition.  

Marriage has been through many upheavals and re-definitions throughout its existence.  For example, marriage licenses required by states and other governments are a recent phenomenon.   Until very recently, the state had no business in “defining” marriage.  That was done by religious institutions and local custom.   In some cultures, a couple merely had to say “we’re married” for it to be binding.  Just as easily, they could say “I divorce you.”  The point being that marriage was a contract between individuals.  Some hold it as a religious sacrament, and that is fine.  Nothing prohibits you from getting married in a church, and having that recognized by God without getting a “legal” marriage certificate.  True, there are many “benefits” bestowed upon married couples in today’s law crazy world.  The stakes are high for deciding who is married.  I would solve that by saying the state should have nothing to do with deciding anything about marriage.  Leave that to We the People.  Leave that to your churches, mosques, and synagogues.  Leave that to you and your partner (gay or straight) to decide what commitment you want to have to each other and how you want that defined.   

Laws never succeed in changing behaviors as much as social pressure and good ideas do.  True democracy comes from the bottom up – from us – not from the top down via mandate.  Prohibiting alcohol did not eradicate its use, and alcohol abuse has arguably done much more to destroy the fabric of society and family than gay marriage could ever dream of doing.  I am not asking you to give up your beliefs about gay marriage.  As I said when I began this essay, I once believed as you do.  I understand why you hold those beliefs and do not wish to demonize them despite having significantly changed my own beliefs on the topic.  But I implore you to not be part of setting something in near stone because it does not conform to how you believe your life should be lived. 

The beautiful thing about this country and the ideals upon which it was founded is that people with vastly differing opinions and beliefs about how life should be rightly lived can literally live side by side in peace.  Thomas Jefferson was speaking of religious tolerance when he said the following, but I think it equally applies to the idea of marriage:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  

The only way to ensure that one day your own ideals won’t be made illegal is to preserve the rights of others to be different — even if you don’t agree with their lifestyle — as long as they do not hurt you, take your property, or infringe upon your own rights to purse Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  Voting “Yes” on this Amendment is about far more than gay marriage or marriage in general.  Voting “yes” sets us down the path to giving up on this Great American Experiment and deeming it a failure.  

That is the ultimate tragedy. 

I doubt I have convinced you to change your vote, but I hope I have at least given you something to consider.  Thanks for reading.  Vote “No!”

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 4 }