Mr. Market the Punisher
Rand Paul's victory in Kentucky Republican primary last Tuesday was arguably the most significant victory for small government libertarians in recent memory. Smelling the danger, liberals were quick to pile on, building ammunition for the coming muckraking. There was the NPR interview asking whether Dr. Paul would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. Then most recently was the Maddow interview on Wednesday.
While I respect and admire Dr. Paul for treading these dangerous grounds, and although he has so far avoided the traps set for him, I am disappointed in his answers. Especially in the Maddow interview, he comes off as avoiding the question, and he really does not offer a strong defense of the small government libertarian position. "Freedom must include allowance for abhorrent behaviors" is a weak, old and tired defense of libertarian position of minimal government interference. The libertarian position deserves a stronger defense—one that resonates with those who are not necessarily libertarians.
One of the best arguments for free market economy is, for most people, actually not the freedom—if that were the only argument for free market economy, China would not be dipping its toes in it. It's the efficiency of free market economy. When it comes to allocation of scarce resources, centralized decision making simply cannot compete with distributed decision making by price-signals in a free market economy.
Likewise, the strongest argument for staying the government's hand can be found in the efficiency of free market not just in producing goods, but also in enforcing the society's moral standards. In the Maddow interview, while proposing to ask her question with concrete examples, she dives into hypothetical situation involving a discriminatory school. The most effective answer to her question, how would Dr. Paul deal with such a situation, would have been a counter-question, asking: if this were to happen (acknowledging how unlikely this is to actually happen in today's society), what would Ms. Maddow's reaction be, absent laws like CRA allowing for lawsuits? The answer is found in the Left's reaction to Arizona's immigration law (although in this case it is one of over-reaction): boycotts. If a school (or a restaurant, or a state) were to actually engage in discriminatory actions, in today's society, even without laws like CRA, such a school would be boycotted out of existence. The school may relent, but even that might be too late. The market can act as the most effective enforcer of social standards. The government is bound by its own laws, which can be too slow to adapt, and even when right laws are available, lawsuits, in the interest of due process, take a long time. Where financial recourse is available, the market brings its swift vengeance on those who step too far outside the mainstream.
And in fact, we need not rely on hypotheticals to make this argument. We have plenty of examples of this principle in action. Arthur Andersen, Enron's accountant, managed to get its conviction vacated after a long legal battle. However, even absent criminal conviction, the market delivered its punishment on Andersen that the government could not mete out.
Or take the example of Microsoft. Despite customer and competitor complaints, the government's antitrust suit went nowhere. Today, Microsoft's biggest threat (and the whip to keep it on the right path) comes not from the government but from disruptive new technologies (like search engines that actually work) and new competitors that only a free market economy can produce.
So the most convincing reason we can offer in arguing that anti-discrimination laws (or any other laws prohibiting abhorrent behaviors) is that they are superfluous. As long as there is a financial recourse, such as a boycott or supporting a competitor, the market can deliver its judgments more decisively and speedily. And while there is a temptation (and sometimes need) to have the government as a backstop in case Mr. Market does not render the "right" judgment, we can remind people of one fact and one danger: government does not produce anything on its own. It must live off Mr. Market, and with excessive regulations and laws, it can drain Mr. Market's strength, enough so that Mr. Market the Punisher is little more than a paper tiger (this is the case when you have government-sanctioned monopolies, for one), and Uncle Sam, most likely, will be captured by powerful interests that have far easier time controlling a single centralized entity than the free market.
Sometimes inaction is the best course of action
Parable of a fund manager from a Morningstar article by Dan Culloton:
In 2007, a happy investor sitting on top of five years of gains visits her financial advisor. "Things have gone great," she says. "What should we do next?"
"Nothing," says the advisor. "Stick with the plan."
In 2008, the same investor, now distraught over the unfolding financial calamity, accosts the same advisor. "You idiot! The world is ending and you told me to do nothing! What now, smarty pants?"
"Nothing," the advisor says. "Stick with the plan."
At the end of 2009, the much-relieved investor returns to her advisor beaming over the gains of a strong rally. "You're a genius!" she exclaims. "What do we do now?"
"Nothing," the advisor says.
"What the heck?" the investor responds. "No matter what the market does, you tell me to do the same thing: nothing. What am I paying you for?"
"To keep you from doing anything," the advisor says.There is wisdom in this little parable, whether or not you found it funny. Inactivity, to paraphrase Warren Buffett, is often the smartest option if you already have a sound long-term strategy.
Although the article doesn't go there (after all, it's a mutual fund article, not a political piece), but the moral of the parable applies to governance as well. If you have good fundamentally sound economy, governance by flying by the seat of your pants can (and probably will) lead to greater harm than good—just as excessive trading by reacting to every news and crisis would.
Unfortunately, the liberal statist program subscribes to the exact opposite mindset—that any government action is better than inaction (and politically speaking, perhaps that's true, although the real cost of some programs far outweigh real benefit of them)—and like an active stabilization system gone out of whack, each action designed to stave off one crisis triggers another crisis in a downward spiral towards more and more state control over every aspect of our economy—and, eventually, our life, as debates over some provisions of Obamacare, the proposed soda tax, and proposed bans on salt in New York City indicate.
Somebody has to break this cycle—and who will?
Insult upon injury, politics of victimhood
Apparently for Mr. Frank, it isn't enough that liberal politics of victimhood has pushed such agenda as affirmative action and various wealth redistribution schemes. He has to accuse us conservatives of using that liberal stratagem:
Contrast that with the cravenness of so many of today's conservatives, whose first rhetorical instinct is to seize the mantle of victimhood. This is how modern political genius expresses itself, with even the biggest bullies contorting themselves to claim injury and persecution. No longer do they boast of having speared their defamers; instead they instinctively depict themselves as the skewer-ee, their innocent foreheads wrongly and unfairly pierced.
Then he goes on to refer to tea party posters he has been maligning for months. Perhaps in his little liberal circle, every act of protest looks like claim to victimhood (as it often is for liberal protesters), but Mr. Frank is wrong in his claim. Tea partiers do not claim to be victims. In fact, the whole point of our protest is to ensure that we do not become victims of the big government, not to wear it as a false aura.
In fact, the irony is lost on Mr. Frank as he cites exactly how liberals do wear victimhood as a crown:
The bill was voted through anyway and within a few days many of the Democrats who supported it reported incidents of vandalism and threats.
When he says "reported", he means Democrats issued press releases using these incidents as a broad brush with which to paint all the opponents of the new law. And the liberal media helped them by faithfully reporting these incidents as reported (quite unlike the media blackout that happens when liberals do something deplorable, including "hateful rhetorics").
Perhaps it is Mr. Frank's intention to be ironic—because if that wasn't his intent, I cannot comprehend the sheer stupidity of not just pot calling kettle black, but pot calling the rice black—and implying that "blackness of rice" is somehow wrong.
Well. He may have one point that is not covered in the glory of his idiocy/irony:
"Media," she said, addressing the villain by name, "you guys ginning up an issue like that, making it sound like it's a crowd like this of patriotic Americans who are inciting violence, it's a bunch of bunk, and we ask for some fair and some balanced reporting coming from you, please."
We conservatives do complain often about the liberal media. While I think complain is deserved—just simple counting of, e.g. favorable coverage of Democratic candidate vs. Republican candidate reveals that fact—our argument should not rely on that one wrongdoing alone (as, e.g. liberal agenda of wealth redistribution stands on nothing but a single-legged stool of victimhood of the supposed downtrodden). We would point out the media bias when it happens, as we do not shy away from or hide the truth, but we should then move on to better things.
After all, if we are victims of biased media coverage, then God is our avenger—many of those old, official media (e.g. NYT) are going bankrupt (or in any case find their influence diminishing), and in the new media (such as the blogosphere), I dare say we have at worst a parity.
Marriage, a basic civil right?
(via HotAir.com)
Mr. Orson argues that marriage is "one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution":
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life’s joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution’s protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community.
Unfortunately, I am not a constitutional scholar, so all I can try to find out exactly what he meant (because Mr. Olson does not cite actual court cases) is to Google "united states supreme court marriage", which yields an Wikipedia article for Loving v. Virginia, in which the unanimous decision says,
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
So, is marriage a fundamental right? One aspect of it, yes. The decision makes it clear that right to marriage comes from our right to freedom of association, in particular, our right to be with someone we love. But this is a question that we have settled several years ago (although the debate may be ongoing, it's not the main issue here).
Perhaps an analogy would make the issues at hand clear. From the Wikipedia page for Loving v. Virginia:
These activists maintain that miscegenation laws are to interracial marriage, as sodomy laws are to homosexual rights and that sodomy laws were enacted in order to maintain traditional sex roles that have become part of American society.
Well, I agree! Just as anti-miscegenation laws were grave infringement on an individual's right to freedom of association, so are anti-sodomy laws. No one here is advocating for anti-sodomy laws. They have been unconstitutional for many years, and the laws that still remain on books in many states will never be enforced—or be struck down immediately.
That's as far as direct, reasonable comparison goes. Given that anti-same-sex-marriage proposals and laws are generally and usually not anti-same-sex-union (which is sufficient to satisfy requirements of freedom of association, and through which same economic benefits given to traditional marriage by the government can be given), I can't see exactly which widely agreed-upon fundamental rights they infringe upon.
Of course, it depends on whom you ask which rights are fundamental—libertarians trace every right back to property rights, but others may do differently—but here's one general rule of thumb: fundamental rights are given by God (or Nature, if you prefer) and no one else; states cannot grant them nor revoke them—they can only protect them. If something hinges on some sort of state recognition, i.e. an active role by the state, not a passive role of non-infringement, then by that fact alone, it cannot be a right. After all, if a right is truly fundamental, it cannot be dependent upon any human institution.
But in any case, I think the date of the decision might be instructive. This decision was handed down in 1967. The relevant civil rights act (the one outlawing segregation) was passed in 1964. This is an evidence in support of the adage that lasting social changes do not come from the Supreme Court. They come from the people themselves. The court battles of Prop. 8 are, at the very least for the present (even if you are a social liberal), the wrong way to go.
Official media vs. Independent media
Bruce Walker at American Thinker summarizes leftist chokehold on intellectual institutions:
The grotesque bias of television network news and the national press media is an old story -- a very old story. Forty years ago, Spiro Agnew gave his Des Moines Speech in which he described how three powerful corporations -- CBS, NBC, and ABC -- through their television news division determined what the overwhelming majority of Americans got as "news." In the next few years, groups were formed like Accuracy in Media, which began to compile the powerful brief against leftist bias in the news media.
...
What was true in the media was true in education. The radical nature of college is also a very old story. This extreme leftism was not a student movement; it was a faculty movement. In 1975, Victor Hickem wrote:
Distinguished and conservative professors were forced to suffer indignities in silence. Sometimes ‘unperson' to their colleagues, they failed to match the promotions and salary increased of liberal and conforming colleagues...by 1968, academic liberalism reach the position that no applicant for a faculty job could be considered unless he or she possessed the standard precepts of liberal ideology.
As depressing as this might seem, I have hope in the free press.
All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
Media bias, especially the established, official media is nothing new. Sometimes they lean right, sometimes they lean left. In our lifetime, they happen to lean left.
The good thing about capitalism is when media outlets stop representing their audience's interest, they start going out of business. Independent media that represent the views of Americans (and yes, this is a center-right country; tea parties are the proof) will rise, both in power and prestige, and they will eventually replace the current leftist mainstream media. I have some hope that it'll happen in my lifetime, but even if it doesn't, I have faith that it will eventually happen.
All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
Time to dissolve the people and elect a new one?
Because that's the only thing that can be meant by "ungovernable America" (via HotAir.com):
The smarter elements in Washington DC are starting to pick up on the fact that it’s not tactical errors on the part of the president that make it hard to get things done, it’s the fact that the country has become ungovernable.
Why yes. It is time for the government to dissolve the people and elect another, preferably one that wouldn't hold tea parties or petition the representatives to represent them.
And as for,
We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking.
With Barack "I won" Obama in the office? The president refuses to recognize that the loyal opposition has legitimate concerns and workable alternatives. I don't see how the defeated minority can get a voice in this culture, except by using what may be called obstructionist tactics and making the majority hear them.
If you have a problem with that, get 60+ seats in the Senate. FDR did that, and even so he couldn't pass some of his most outrageous bills.
America is working fine. Our system has stood the test of time and there is no reason to change it (yet). Just because far left elements of the Democratic Party cannot stand the fact that they live in a center-right country doesn't mean we should dissolve the whole country for their sake.
Keep religion out of politics
At least that's what voters seem to be saying, according to this Rasmussen poll, and rightly so:
But only 14% of all voters believe it is appropriate for their local religious reader to suggest whom they should vote for. Seventy-eight percent (78%) say it is not right for their parish priest, minister, rabbi or imam to make such a suggestion. The latter figure is an eight-point jump from two years ago.
Christians (who account for a vast majority in this country) would do well to remember Jesus' own words: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is His. Many, many of the issues in our politics is entirely secular and religious leaders are better off not getting caught in the crossfire of secular politics. There are some matters of life and death where religion—more specifically, religious requirements—intersects politics, such as when Catholics are forced to pay for abortions by federal funding of abortion clinics, but those are, thankfully, far and few between.
Aside from those very few issues—and perhaps even on those few issues; if the pastor did his spiritual job correctly, he wouldn't have to worry about politics of his flock—religious leaders should stay out of politics, lest they become yoked with the wrong crowd.
If we are not in it to win it, then pull out
There are only two ways to fight a war. Either we put the full resources of the country behind the war effort with the explicit goal of total victory in the shortest time, or we don't fight it at all. It is immoral to fight a war any other way. It is morally wrong to ask young men and women to put their lives at risk knowing full well that if we had provided more resources and manpower, many of the casualties could have been avoided.
It might seem that Obama is quickly making doves out of hawks, and one could be excused from thinking that conservatives are simply opposing Obama for opposition's sake, but a simple thought experiment (since it doesn't seem likely to happen in real life) will dispel that: imagine Obama approved his general's request for 40,000 troops—or, heck, suppose he doubled it and approved for 80,000 troop increase. Can you imagine a single conservative who would oppose that?
We just want our president to stop dithering. We should either fight to win, or, especially since we have already achieved important milestones, stop putting our men in danger. Anything else is a disservice to our troops:
Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home.
If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home.
We have successfully rooted out Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Fewer than 100 Al-Qaeda operatives are operating in Afghanistan according to Retired General James L. Jones’ assessment of the situation. “I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban,” he said in an October 4 Associated Press report. Jones, who is President Obama’s National Security Advisor, continued: “Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling. The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”
Mr. President, we all recognize that we will still have to fight Al-Qaeda around the globe. So let’s bring home the tens of thousands who have fought so valiantly to protect America.
Let’s instead use the best human and electronic surveillance available to allow our special forces to target and kill those who actually threaten us.
One can make an argument for nation building. A strong, free democracy doesn't make a good training ground for terrorists and jihadists. But, we can make that argument only as long as we are committed to success, in the shortest amount of time possible—by commitment of whatever resources and manpower necessary that this nation can provide.
If we are not committed to success, then the single argument for nation building collapses. As it was once said, "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Update: This is comforting. By the general's own admission, the ball's in his court, and frankly, I have far more confidence in the men of our military than its current commander in chief, so it's very comforting to know that the future of this war is in the military's hand.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little minds
At least that might explain some of the positions of liberals:
For instance, she has supported the work of feminists all along. She, in her book, Greta, as you know, gives credit to Title IX, says if Title IX was not there, she would not have been able to go to college because she couldn't afford to do it. She gives full credit. Do you know how much aggravation and pressure went on trying to fight the conservatives in Congress and get that legislation passed when I was in Congress?
How does that matter that feminists had to fight conservatives in Congress to get Title IX legislation passed? Conservatives then are not conservatives now, for one, and even if we are talking about the same conservatives, are liberals saying that conservatives cannot (or shouldn't) change their minds on anything?
Conservatives are, rightfully, wary of sudden changes. We want any changes to be gradual. We want to be able to roll back the changes if the changes we make to our society turn out to be harmful. But that does not mean we don't see benefits of certain changes.
Even supposing that small-government conservatives were against, say, women's suffrage or emancipation of slaves (trust me, they were not; they just wanted federal government out of states' affairs), tell me if you can find any conservative today who actually wants to remove women's right to vote—or re-institute slavery (in fact, the only slavery-praising quotes I have seen come from a liberal making up and claiming that Rush Limbaugh said something that he didn't).
Liberals were good for something once. At one point, they did stand for liberty (which is why the label "liberal" stuck, even after the label was no longer true). But, in foolish pursuit of consistency, they are pushing even more power for women, minorities, and unions, because that's the direction they have been going in and they think they need to continue in that direction. The concept of equality and moderation (i.e. that once some major goals are accomplished, that's where you stop, or at least try to balance the power and "rights" of various groups) has no place in the liberal vocabulary.
Just like trade unions were good for something at some point, liberal ideology was good and honorable in the long, long times past. And, just like trade unions today, we are better off without liberal ideology than with it.
Why does U.S. need to keep troops ’round the world?
Twenty-six percent (26%) of Americans say the United States should remove all its military troops from Japan, a central issue in President Obama’s trip to that country Friday and Saturday.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% disagree and oppose the removal of all U.S. troops from Japan. Twenty-five percent (25%) are not sure.
I might have guessed such a result (after all, we still have troops there; it wouldn't stay that way for long if it was unpopular), but I did not expect such a wide gap. What drives people to think that U.S. military presence in Japan is beneficial for U.S. (or Japan, for that matter)?
I am guessing that the people answering that we need to keep some troops in Japan answer so because they think of it as supporting our ally:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say Japan is an ally of the United States. Only 10% view the country as an enemy, while 24% think of it as somewhere in between an ally and an enemy.
Forty-six percent (46%) believe America should help Japan militarily if it comes under attack, but 41% disagree.
And, sure, as a strong democracy with capitalistic economy in the region (albeit with a hint of mercantilism), Japan can be a valuable ally. But what does not follow is that U.S. needs to keep a troop presence there, using our own resources for day-to-day protection of the islands. We have had a special relationship with U.K. for more than a century now—but we do not keep a troop presence there to protect them.
The fact that these countries are our allies—and that if they are attacked, whoever attacked them will live to regret the day—is protection enough. There is no reason to overstretch our military. We should be pulling all our troops from Japan and Germany—and given how strong these nations are, it will not be seen as a sign of weakness by our old (Russia) and current (North Korea and Iran) enemies either, unlike the cancellation of missile shield program in Poland.