At one point or another, everyone in the liberty movement has had to discuss foreign policy with other people. I'm always amazed at how much the theme of bringing the troops home and withdrawing from the political/military affairs of other countries is such a hard sell. Ron Paul supporters in particular take a lot of heat for this. We're labeled largely as naive isolationists who have a simplified view of world politics. The prevailing wisdom is that there's no world problem so big or small that it doesn't deserve some sort of active response from the United States government.
I've come to realize that our government's foreign policy is a carbon copy of its domestic policy- the policy of threatening to do what they say, or face state violence (the guns in the hands of the cops who will take you to jail for committing any number victimless crimes are the same weapons our president threatens to use against foreigners for not giving in to his demands- only scaled down). As such, it will achieve no more of its objectives abroad than its domestic policies do here at home.
What strikes me as simplified is the idea that people (and governments) in other countries will do what our government wants, provided they're threatened with enough violence. Naive is believing that threatening Americans with jail time for smoking marijuana will keep people from smoking it. It's at least as naive to believe that, say, the Iranian government will abandon its nuclear program (or roll over in some other way) just because they're threatened with sanctions, or that bringing democracy to the Middle East is just a few military invasions away, or that we can kill terrorists without innocent casualties. Perhaps it's not naive at all. Perhaps it's lunacy.
Still, there are many ready-made excuses for our ever-growing military presence around the world, one of which I will address here. I'm unsure of the details, but it goes a little something like this: There are radical suicidal Muslim fanatics who will stop at nothing until we're all dead or the world has been turned into an Islamic theocracy. Therefore, we must continue to send troops around the world to contain this threat (details omitted).
Let's take it for granted that there are people on the other side of the world whose sole purpose in life is to destroy the United States. Let's assume further that they cannot be reasoned with or paid off or appeased in any. If there are such people (and I do believe there are), I don't think there's any practical thing we can do about it. Really. It's simple to say we should just hunt them down and kill them, but I've seen one too many SWAT raids at the wrong address to believe that that's in the cards. The precision with which such an operation would need to be carried out is FAR too great for government to handle. The mightiest military the world has ever seen is utterly powerless to do what I just described. They can throw all the money they want at the situation and wait as long as they like, but the truth is that government will not solve this problem (if a solution even exists). It's naive to expect that it can, let alone will.
Which brings us to the libertarian policy- free, unlimited trade and diplomacy with all nations, military and political alliances with none (including the European countries), coupled with an absolutely limited domestic government. It's not perfect, but far and away the best weapon we have against terror is, like so much else, liberty.
Why? Because everybody who hasn't already had his mind poisoned does want to live in freedom. The appeal of living under the oppression of a dictatorship is no match for the appeal of living in a free nation where people can work, trade, and behave as they wish. To live free is a natural, instinctive desire of all human beings- even the children of suicidal terrorists. Giving that instinct a place to develop is the only effective way to combat terrorism. We won't be able to to change the minds of jihadists, but by restoring strictly limited government, by seeking ways to minimize the use of force in society, and by adopting and showcasing the philosophy of liberty to the world, we can prevent new ones from appearing. The bad news is that there's no hope of penetrating the minds of the younger generations on the other side of the world unless we lead by example. Indeed, it will take far more than merely closing a few military posts in foreign countries. In short, it will take a revolution in the way we view government's role not only regarding foreigners, but ourselves.
That is the rationale behind the libertarian foreign policy. Call it simplistic, slander it as isolationist, tell me how naive I am, pretend that men like Obama and Gingrich and Romney and Santorum have the slightest clue as to what they're talking about, do whatever you have to do to condemn it, but it's still the only shot we have at a return to normalcy. It is also the only policy befitting to a nation that's referred to as the Land of the Free. The alternative is to just let government run with it- which will leave many people dead and property destroyed, sacrifice long-term goals for fleeting short term victories, and guarantee a more violent world for ourselves and our children.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
On SOPA, PIPA
You may have heard about two internet-related bills floating around Congress. One is the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the other is the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Proponents of the bills say that they're supposed to give the government the power to better guard against copyright infringement on websites with media content and file sharing capabilities. Those who oppose the bills, which include many internet users as well as Google, Wikipedia and Reddit, claim that the proposed legislation would allow the government to completely shut down websites for the most benign copyright infringements, acting more like hired muscle for the entertainment industry than the policemen for property rights.
If you want to learn more about the bills, you can watch a few videos about it here, here and, if you can take it, here. Or if you've got some Advil handy, you can check out the text of the bills themselves. But I wouldn't bother with any of that if I were you. All I needed to hear were the words 'Congress', 'bill', and 'internet' in the same context, and I was already an opponent of whatever it was- for it doesn't matter what the bills are called, how many people of whatever group favor them, or what they're supposed to do. They could both be called the Make the Internet a Lot Faster act (or simply MILF), and I'd still oppose them- because they would still be government programs, and government programs never deliver what they promise.
The outrage over SOPA and PIPA intrigue me though, because they're ostensibly supposed to do something that's good...right? I mean it's not like they're the Shut Down YouTube bills or the Harass Facebook Users bills or the Destroy Online Media bills. So what's the worst that could happen?
After all, don't forget how the government has done such a wonderful job with other noble undertakings as housing and feeding and employing the poor, promoting racial harmony, keeping the banking industry from scamming us, spreading democracy around the world, managing the economy, balancing its own budget, educating our children, providing affordable healthcare, keeping elections clean, protecting our rights, maintaining our infrastructure, stopping drug abuse, taking care of our veterans, making sure food is safe, keeping us out of war, curbing inflation, delivering the mail, cleaning up crime, protecting the environment and stopping terrorism. All things considered, it only makes sense to give it a freer hand in policing the internet.
From watching videos of people who oppose the legislation, I get the impression that they only oppose it because it could potentially take down sites like YouTube and internet radio. I don't want YouTube taken down any more than the next guy, but that's not the best reason to oppose the legislation. It should be opposed because once any such legislation is passed, eventually there will be more. Endlessly more. When the internet becomes the federal government's plaything just like everything else I listed in the previous paragraph, you can kiss it goodbye. It'll become a fable you can tell your grandkids about, like when my grandparents tell me how doctors used to make house calls.
Why will it be bad? John Bain explains:
He goes on to point out the obvious (I paraphrase): if SOPA or PIPA pass, it won't only eventually destroy the internet as we currently know it, but it will ruin the chances of future innovations taking place. While passage of the bills might not completely take down YouTube (which would cause a massive backlash), they will censor it heavily, and possibly preclude the "next YouTube" from ever materializing.
He's absolutely right- and the same reasoning applies to almost everything the government touches.
The reason that ideas like this are even considered by Congress is because we've turned so much over to the government as it is. And thanks to that, we should be aware that while we might be able to beat back SOPA and PIPA today, they, or something like them, will be back eventually. I promise.
Hopefully, this is one area that will resonate with people enough to get them to question the wisdom of asking the government to try to solve any kind of problem. Not only should we seek to stop SOPA and PIPA by participating in blackouts, spreading the message on social media and writing our elected officials, but we should also give similar scrutiny to the many other economic, medical, social, moral, etc., problems that Congress tries to solve with politics and guns. Hasn't it done enough already?
If you want to learn more about the bills, you can watch a few videos about it here, here and, if you can take it, here. Or if you've got some Advil handy, you can check out the text of the bills themselves. But I wouldn't bother with any of that if I were you. All I needed to hear were the words 'Congress', 'bill', and 'internet' in the same context, and I was already an opponent of whatever it was- for it doesn't matter what the bills are called, how many people of whatever group favor them, or what they're supposed to do. They could both be called the Make the Internet a Lot Faster act (or simply MILF), and I'd still oppose them- because they would still be government programs, and government programs never deliver what they promise.
The outrage over SOPA and PIPA intrigue me though, because they're ostensibly supposed to do something that's good...right? I mean it's not like they're the Shut Down YouTube bills or the Harass Facebook Users bills or the Destroy Online Media bills. So what's the worst that could happen?
After all, don't forget how the government has done such a wonderful job with other noble undertakings as housing and feeding and employing the poor, promoting racial harmony, keeping the banking industry from scamming us, spreading democracy around the world, managing the economy, balancing its own budget, educating our children, providing affordable healthcare, keeping elections clean, protecting our rights, maintaining our infrastructure, stopping drug abuse, taking care of our veterans, making sure food is safe, keeping us out of war, curbing inflation, delivering the mail, cleaning up crime, protecting the environment and stopping terrorism. All things considered, it only makes sense to give it a freer hand in policing the internet.
From watching videos of people who oppose the legislation, I get the impression that they only oppose it because it could potentially take down sites like YouTube and internet radio. I don't want YouTube taken down any more than the next guy, but that's not the best reason to oppose the legislation. It should be opposed because once any such legislation is passed, eventually there will be more. Endlessly more. When the internet becomes the federal government's plaything just like everything else I listed in the previous paragraph, you can kiss it goodbye. It'll become a fable you can tell your grandkids about, like when my grandparents tell me how doctors used to make house calls.
Why will it be bad? John Bain explains:
"You want to explain to me why we have a bunch of 50- to 70-somethings debating a bill that would affect the internet world wide- perhaps the greatest technological innovation that we've had for a very very long time? You want to tell me that these guys, who can barely use a keyboard, should be debating this and passing legislation of this magnitude? I'm gonna go with 'No'. It's like putting toddlers at the controls of a 747- but not just a 747; every 747, 777, Airbus A320, every aircraft in the world. Do you think that's a good idea?"
He goes on to point out the obvious (I paraphrase): if SOPA or PIPA pass, it won't only eventually destroy the internet as we currently know it, but it will ruin the chances of future innovations taking place. While passage of the bills might not completely take down YouTube (which would cause a massive backlash), they will censor it heavily, and possibly preclude the "next YouTube" from ever materializing.
He's absolutely right- and the same reasoning applies to almost everything the government touches.
The reason that ideas like this are even considered by Congress is because we've turned so much over to the government as it is. And thanks to that, we should be aware that while we might be able to beat back SOPA and PIPA today, they, or something like them, will be back eventually. I promise.
Hopefully, this is one area that will resonate with people enough to get them to question the wisdom of asking the government to try to solve any kind of problem. Not only should we seek to stop SOPA and PIPA by participating in blackouts, spreading the message on social media and writing our elected officials, but we should also give similar scrutiny to the many other economic, medical, social, moral, etc., problems that Congress tries to solve with politics and guns. Hasn't it done enough already?
Monday, January 2, 2012
The 2012 Liberty Victory
If I could put money on it, I would bet that Barack Obama will be a two-term president. When he takes to the podium at his victory speech, no matter what the numbers are, he will interpret his win as the American people's unwavering stamp of approval of everything he signed into law during his first term. And he will look forward to another four years of expanding government in ways he sees fit. When all is said and done, conservatives will probably blame it on Ron Paul's supporters for not coming around.
"I hope you're happy," they'll spit. "Because you Ron Paulians were too stubborn to vote for Newt Romney, you cost us the election. Thanks to you, we're stuck with Obama for another four years." Of course, this will come on the heels of months of angry muttering about how a vote for a 3rd party (be it Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whomever) is a vote for Obama.
Boo hoo. You can blame us if that's what makes you feel better. Personally I'd put most of the blame on the people who actually voted for Obama (even though, as an aside, I don't understand how anybody could still support him a since he did a 180 on basically all the important things he campaigned on), but I'd also say that the Republican establishment deserves a little blame, too. Because for all the conservative media, for all the millions of dollars at its disposal, for all its advantages over third parties in the electoral process, and the upper hand that come merely by having incumbents all over the country to trumpet its case, it still couldn't come up with a candidate who could successfully sell his story to enough Americans eligible to vote. In 2008, Obama won with less than a third of all voters casting their vote for him- more people than that chose to stay home.
In truth, we're against Obama just as much as any republican. The difference is that we understand that electing Romney isn't going to be any better. Whether or not you believe it's true doesn't matter to us. Save your crying and your whining about the Constitution and your Don't Tread On Me flags and pretending to want limited government and all the rest of it. If you're going to elect an establishment politician like Mitt Romney, you know you're not going to get any of that, so why even bother showing up?
So long as your primary goal is just to get the democrats out of office, we, the people who want real liberty, are not going to play ball. This, I believe, will be the bittersweet victory for liberty in 2012. It will be the year that those of us who want personal and economic freedom for all people; who want an end to war; who rail against centralized power; who hate politics and politicians; who want to keep every cent of what we earn, to give away, invest or spend as we please- will make ourselves known. And we're here to stay.
To be sure, the liberty movement is still in its infancy, but it's undeniably more popular right now than it ever was. Now, we actually have libertarian TV shows (Stossel and Freedom Watch), which virtually unheard of just five years ago. More to the point- we now have the numbers to hold one of the major political parties hostage. Dare I say, we would rather see the next 50 elections go to the democrats than vote for an establishment republican candidate in whom we do not believe. Because (and this is important) if we don't get the option of voting for a liberty candidate, then we honestly don't care who wins. Gone are the days of us settling for the lesser of two evils. We're over it. We've lived through enough elections to know that it doesn't even matter. If voting Republican means turning our backs on our principles, we won't do it. We know we have nothing to gain by it, we've already accepted that you'll blame us, and we just don't care.
Thus, I have two messages to deliver. The message to the republican establishment is this: you will lose elections unless you start putting candidates out there who have a genuine interest in reducing government. So long as you keep alienating us and calling us unelectable, we're going to see to it that your cookie cutter one-dimensional paid-for yes-man candidates are also unelectable. We'll cast our votes against them and we'll do it with a smile.
The message to the American public is this: Elections are not contests to see who's most popular. They've become contests to see who's less unpopular. So long as you agree to hold your nose to vote for incompetent lying people whom you don't actually want to win, those are the only kinds of candidates the establishments are going to put in front of you. This is true no matter your political affiliation. Know in advance that it's going to take more than one election cycle to properly communicate this. Hell, it might take a dozen. But if you don't take a stand at some point and start withhold your support from these parties that care nothing about your welfare, you may as well stay home and accept your fate- that your country will be governed by the worst among us and you didn't have the strength to try to stop it.
"I hope you're happy," they'll spit. "Because you Ron Paulians were too stubborn to vote for Newt Romney, you cost us the election. Thanks to you, we're stuck with Obama for another four years." Of course, this will come on the heels of months of angry muttering about how a vote for a 3rd party (be it Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whomever) is a vote for Obama.
Boo hoo. You can blame us if that's what makes you feel better. Personally I'd put most of the blame on the people who actually voted for Obama (even though, as an aside, I don't understand how anybody could still support him a since he did a 180 on basically all the important things he campaigned on), but I'd also say that the Republican establishment deserves a little blame, too. Because for all the conservative media, for all the millions of dollars at its disposal, for all its advantages over third parties in the electoral process, and the upper hand that come merely by having incumbents all over the country to trumpet its case, it still couldn't come up with a candidate who could successfully sell his story to enough Americans eligible to vote. In 2008, Obama won with less than a third of all voters casting their vote for him- more people than that chose to stay home.
In truth, we're against Obama just as much as any republican. The difference is that we understand that electing Romney isn't going to be any better. Whether or not you believe it's true doesn't matter to us. Save your crying and your whining about the Constitution and your Don't Tread On Me flags and pretending to want limited government and all the rest of it. If you're going to elect an establishment politician like Mitt Romney, you know you're not going to get any of that, so why even bother showing up?
So long as your primary goal is just to get the democrats out of office, we, the people who want real liberty, are not going to play ball. This, I believe, will be the bittersweet victory for liberty in 2012. It will be the year that those of us who want personal and economic freedom for all people; who want an end to war; who rail against centralized power; who hate politics and politicians; who want to keep every cent of what we earn, to give away, invest or spend as we please- will make ourselves known. And we're here to stay.
To be sure, the liberty movement is still in its infancy, but it's undeniably more popular right now than it ever was. Now, we actually have libertarian TV shows (Stossel and Freedom Watch), which virtually unheard of just five years ago. More to the point- we now have the numbers to hold one of the major political parties hostage. Dare I say, we would rather see the next 50 elections go to the democrats than vote for an establishment republican candidate in whom we do not believe. Because (and this is important) if we don't get the option of voting for a liberty candidate, then we honestly don't care who wins. Gone are the days of us settling for the lesser of two evils. We're over it. We've lived through enough elections to know that it doesn't even matter. If voting Republican means turning our backs on our principles, we won't do it. We know we have nothing to gain by it, we've already accepted that you'll blame us, and we just don't care.
Thus, I have two messages to deliver. The message to the republican establishment is this: you will lose elections unless you start putting candidates out there who have a genuine interest in reducing government. So long as you keep alienating us and calling us unelectable, we're going to see to it that your cookie cutter one-dimensional paid-for yes-man candidates are also unelectable. We'll cast our votes against them and we'll do it with a smile.
The message to the American public is this: Elections are not contests to see who's most popular. They've become contests to see who's less unpopular. So long as you agree to hold your nose to vote for incompetent lying people whom you don't actually want to win, those are the only kinds of candidates the establishments are going to put in front of you. This is true no matter your political affiliation. Know in advance that it's going to take more than one election cycle to properly communicate this. Hell, it might take a dozen. But if you don't take a stand at some point and start withhold your support from these parties that care nothing about your welfare, you may as well stay home and accept your fate- that your country will be governed by the worst among us and you didn't have the strength to try to stop it.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Passing Thoughts on The Debt Ceiling
Every time a school year draws to a close and I send another class away from the relative safety of a high school environment, I start to despair. I look at those kids with their graduation day smiles and their unending optimism, and I wonder how the hell they're going to survive in the world that they're going to inherit.
The hysteria over the debt ceiling is starting to disgust me. All I see on TV is finger-pointing and political theater as democrats and republicans try to paper over the government's financial problems, stick some future generation with paying for it, and look like heroes doing it. They will succeed on all three counts.
What burns me up the most is the talk about defaulting. The government will default on its debts if the ceiling isn't raised! Something must be done! I have news, folks. The government defaults on its obligations every day. It has defaulted on its centuries-old obligation to maintain our freedom. Freedoms promised us in the Bill of Rights; freedom to make a living how we want; freedom to travel; freedom to make our own choices in what to buy or sell, freedom to plan our own retirements; and freedom from crime, endless war, and rules that regulate nearly every human behavior.
Of course I understand that liberty doesn't mean squat to the average American. But the government does default on its pecuniary obligations as well. It defaults every time it devalues its currency, but it also assures default by making impossible promises which other people are expected to pay for. The tab for these promises grows by the minute, and at some point, that bag will be too big for some generation to be left holding.
Think this will never happen? Do you really believe we can continue like this for another fifty years? Whose problem do you think it will be when our government's creditors stop lending it money? It sure as hell won't matter to guys like Boehner and Obama; they'll be long gone when this happens. No, the rug's coming out from under our children in the form of either crushing taxation, runaway inflation, or promises that will never be kept. And then things are going to get ugly.
We're still at a stage where things can be fixed with a minimum of pain. They could refuse to raise the debt limit, forego their own paychecks, admit that most of the promises government has made are illegitimate, and start having a real transparent discussion about how to renege on those phony untenable promises in the least painful way possible. But that will never happen. Ever.
Instead, all I hear about is some vague talk about debt limit increases, tax cuts over ten years, and bipartisan compromise. It's the compromise that scares me, because all it means is that both political parties get what they want, and government continues to grow. The only thing that will be compromised will be our posterity's standard of living if we continue to elect the same people who've been squandering our resources and labor for decades.
Maybe the lesson to take away from this is that the importance of independence can't be overstated. Turn off the TV, stop taking every political promise at face value, and start looking for ways to be more independent. Let this and future debt ceiling "debates" remind you that the less your fate is in the hands of politicians, the better; and pass this message on to your children as I try to pass it to my students.
The hysteria over the debt ceiling is starting to disgust me. All I see on TV is finger-pointing and political theater as democrats and republicans try to paper over the government's financial problems, stick some future generation with paying for it, and look like heroes doing it. They will succeed on all three counts.
What burns me up the most is the talk about defaulting. The government will default on its debts if the ceiling isn't raised! Something must be done! I have news, folks. The government defaults on its obligations every day. It has defaulted on its centuries-old obligation to maintain our freedom. Freedoms promised us in the Bill of Rights; freedom to make a living how we want; freedom to travel; freedom to make our own choices in what to buy or sell, freedom to plan our own retirements; and freedom from crime, endless war, and rules that regulate nearly every human behavior.
Of course I understand that liberty doesn't mean squat to the average American. But the government does default on its pecuniary obligations as well. It defaults every time it devalues its currency, but it also assures default by making impossible promises which other people are expected to pay for. The tab for these promises grows by the minute, and at some point, that bag will be too big for some generation to be left holding.
Think this will never happen? Do you really believe we can continue like this for another fifty years? Whose problem do you think it will be when our government's creditors stop lending it money? It sure as hell won't matter to guys like Boehner and Obama; they'll be long gone when this happens. No, the rug's coming out from under our children in the form of either crushing taxation, runaway inflation, or promises that will never be kept. And then things are going to get ugly.
We're still at a stage where things can be fixed with a minimum of pain. They could refuse to raise the debt limit, forego their own paychecks, admit that most of the promises government has made are illegitimate, and start having a real transparent discussion about how to renege on those phony untenable promises in the least painful way possible. But that will never happen. Ever.
Instead, all I hear about is some vague talk about debt limit increases, tax cuts over ten years, and bipartisan compromise. It's the compromise that scares me, because all it means is that both political parties get what they want, and government continues to grow. The only thing that will be compromised will be our posterity's standard of living if we continue to elect the same people who've been squandering our resources and labor for decades.
Maybe the lesson to take away from this is that the importance of independence can't be overstated. Turn off the TV, stop taking every political promise at face value, and start looking for ways to be more independent. Let this and future debt ceiling "debates" remind you that the less your fate is in the hands of politicians, the better; and pass this message on to your children as I try to pass it to my students.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Casey Anthony Walks
Where this trial came from or how it turned into some cult news sensation, I have no idea. It's especially peculiar because while some people have been obsessing over it, others haven't even heard of Casey Anthony.
It was usually on TV where I live, so I caught bits and pieces of the trial over the last few weeks. It seemed to be a little ponzi scheme of hype- it was big news because HLN insisted it was big news. Evidently, a lot of people bit.
I don't think there was anything particularly spectacular about the trial itself, aside from the media frenzy (breaking into other programs for updates on this or that) and the media's pronouncing the defendant guilty of murder from the outset. If you watched the trial during one of its breaks or when they cut to the anchors, it was like a nonstop cheerleading session for the prosecution.
I started to wonder how many people even noticed it. I also wondered how much being constantly told someone is guilty might potentially sway someone's opinion. Some say the media has liberal slant, some say it has a conservative slant- I say the media has a pro-government slant, and the Casey Anthony trial is a good example.
The overwhelming consensus of the TV audience is that she was guilty. If you noticed that all of your friends suddenly turned into armchair lawyers in the hour or so following the verdict, it's because in the end, Mrs. Anthony was acquitted on all counts of murder.
I keep my eyes open, and I see more injustice than the average person ever gets to see (anyone who reads Reason Magazine generally does). I've read stories of men serving time for crimes they didn't commit. I've seen men serve out sentences that were exponentially harsher than what their crime warranted. I've read stories of people getting exonerated while sitting on death row (having rotted there for years, and sometimes decades)- and with no compensation after the fact. Name anything about the American justice system, and I guarantee it has its disgraceful elements- from how juries are selected to how laws are written to how evidence is gathered to how due process is afforded the accused, all the way up through how sentences are carried out- and beyond. I could go on for some time. The deck is clearly stacked against defendants when the plaintiff is government.
I don't know the details of the Casey Anthony trial, and I certainly can't say beyond a reasonable doubt whether she did what they said she did (I'm glad I didn't have to). For whatever reason, neither did her jury, and that's why they let her skate. The defense convinced them that the government hadn't met its burden of proof and the verdict made many people unhappy. I'll say this: If the only price we have to pay for sparing innocent people from the jaws of a prison/death sentence is saddling the government with a stiff burden of proof- even if it's the same burden which, this time, let a guilty woman go free- we're getting a bargain. I'd let Casey Anthony walk ten times over if I knew the same judicial process afforded ironclad protections for the innocent.
Note that I do hate the idea of letting the truly guilty go free. But I despise the notion that people could be convicted on a mere probability of guilt, because I understand that the Probable Guilt Standard would inevitably apply to the innocent as well. Better the system be imperfect in favor of the guilty than against the innocent. Let this one slide. Can't win em all, folks.
It was usually on TV where I live, so I caught bits and pieces of the trial over the last few weeks. It seemed to be a little ponzi scheme of hype- it was big news because HLN insisted it was big news. Evidently, a lot of people bit.
I don't think there was anything particularly spectacular about the trial itself, aside from the media frenzy (breaking into other programs for updates on this or that) and the media's pronouncing the defendant guilty of murder from the outset. If you watched the trial during one of its breaks or when they cut to the anchors, it was like a nonstop cheerleading session for the prosecution.
I started to wonder how many people even noticed it. I also wondered how much being constantly told someone is guilty might potentially sway someone's opinion. Some say the media has liberal slant, some say it has a conservative slant- I say the media has a pro-government slant, and the Casey Anthony trial is a good example.
The overwhelming consensus of the TV audience is that she was guilty. If you noticed that all of your friends suddenly turned into armchair lawyers in the hour or so following the verdict, it's because in the end, Mrs. Anthony was acquitted on all counts of murder.
I keep my eyes open, and I see more injustice than the average person ever gets to see (anyone who reads Reason Magazine generally does). I've read stories of men serving time for crimes they didn't commit. I've seen men serve out sentences that were exponentially harsher than what their crime warranted. I've read stories of people getting exonerated while sitting on death row (having rotted there for years, and sometimes decades)- and with no compensation after the fact. Name anything about the American justice system, and I guarantee it has its disgraceful elements- from how juries are selected to how laws are written to how evidence is gathered to how due process is afforded the accused, all the way up through how sentences are carried out- and beyond. I could go on for some time. The deck is clearly stacked against defendants when the plaintiff is government.
I don't know the details of the Casey Anthony trial, and I certainly can't say beyond a reasonable doubt whether she did what they said she did (I'm glad I didn't have to). For whatever reason, neither did her jury, and that's why they let her skate. The defense convinced them that the government hadn't met its burden of proof and the verdict made many people unhappy. I'll say this: If the only price we have to pay for sparing innocent people from the jaws of a prison/death sentence is saddling the government with a stiff burden of proof- even if it's the same burden which, this time, let a guilty woman go free- we're getting a bargain. I'd let Casey Anthony walk ten times over if I knew the same judicial process afforded ironclad protections for the innocent.
Note that I do hate the idea of letting the truly guilty go free. But I despise the notion that people could be convicted on a mere probability of guilt, because I understand that the Probable Guilt Standard would inevitably apply to the innocent as well. Better the system be imperfect in favor of the guilty than against the innocent. Let this one slide. Can't win em all, folks.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Gay Marriage: A Special Interest Victory
Yesterday, New York became the largest state to recognize marriages of gay and lesbian couples. Many people haven't thought the same-sex marriage issue through much further than "The government should let any couple get married." But same-sex couples aren't lobbying simply to be granted a marriage certificate or to be allowed to love- they're fighting for special treatment from the government.
Wanting to see what that special treatment was, I came across a New York Times article that summed it up (appropriately in the Business section). It begins:
Note: what same-sex couples are gaining are privileges granted by the state; not rights. I guess without the financial benefits and the extra "rights", same-sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue. I find it pretty funny that what's usually held up as some kind of issue of civil equality is really in large part about tax breaks to the special interest group known as married couples.
The article mentions benefits in the realms of: income taxes, estate and gift taxes, health insurance, inheritance rights, state employee benefits, and parentage. These probably aren't the first words that leap to mind when you think of what constitutes a marriage. But they're what count, and it really goes to show how much presence government has in our personal lives.
Of course, I would say that allowing same-sex couples to marry only makes this situation worse. Why? Because instead of questioning the role of government in these matters and having a debate over what gives it the right to dole out such benefits in the first place, we went ahead and gave it more legitimacy in sticking its hand into our private lives. It should treat all its employees the same, and has no business conferring special legal/financial status on couples. And while creating new rules for a specific class of people seems like a step forward, in some respects it is a step back.
But then again, I'm of those crazy people who think the government should treat us as individuals, no matter what the circumstances. If you disagree, not to worry! Mine is a vanishing minority.
Wanting to see what that special treatment was, I came across a New York Times article that summed it up (appropriately in the Business section). It begins:
Couples may marry for love, but the partnership is also an economic one. And now that New York has become the sixth state to perform same-sex marriage, couples who tie the knot here will gain a variety of financial benefits and legal rights.
Note: what same-sex couples are gaining are privileges granted by the state; not rights. I guess without the financial benefits and the extra "rights", same-sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue. I find it pretty funny that what's usually held up as some kind of issue of civil equality is really in large part about tax breaks to the special interest group known as married couples.
The article mentions benefits in the realms of: income taxes, estate and gift taxes, health insurance, inheritance rights, state employee benefits, and parentage. These probably aren't the first words that leap to mind when you think of what constitutes a marriage. But they're what count, and it really goes to show how much presence government has in our personal lives.
Of course, I would say that allowing same-sex couples to marry only makes this situation worse. Why? Because instead of questioning the role of government in these matters and having a debate over what gives it the right to dole out such benefits in the first place, we went ahead and gave it more legitimacy in sticking its hand into our private lives. It should treat all its employees the same, and has no business conferring special legal/financial status on couples. And while creating new rules for a specific class of people seems like a step forward, in some respects it is a step back.
But then again, I'm of those crazy people who think the government should treat us as individuals, no matter what the circumstances. If you disagree, not to worry! Mine is a vanishing minority.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The CNN Republican Primary Debate
If you missed the Republican primary debate last night, you didn't much. It was basically a gameshow where everybody lost- including the audience. Some of the questions were very stupid (Elvis or Johnny Cash?), and the moderator did little to cut off the candidates' rambling answers.
The establishment candidates (Santorum, Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich) used the platform to substitute boilerplate for specific answers, regale the crowd with their past legislative achievements, and to take cheap shots at the President. Everything about them screamed 'politician'. They embodied all the things the average person doesn't like about politicians by coming off as disingenuous self-seeking replicas of their political ancestors.
The non-establishment had their own problems. I've heard some people talking favorably about Herman Cain, but he lost my interest when he spoke of himself as a man who solves problems. The last thing I want to hear about is a politician who wants to solve problems. Indeed, the state of the nation is the result of politicians trying to save us with their solutions.
Ron Paul was the main reason I tuned in to the debate. I do like Ron Paul, and I wonder whether that's the reason I'm so quick to distinguish him from the other candidates. While people might disagree with him, he at least doesn't come off like a slimy politician who's only trying to aggrandize his own power. What sets Ron Paul apart from the pack is that he sounds sincere and comes with a touch of humility- two qualities rare among people running for office.
I wish Dr. Paul had a better way of making his platform palatable to the average Joe Nobody who just wants a job and to make sure the financial rug's not ripped out from under him when he goes to retire. While I agree with his message, talking about Keynes and fiat currency isn't going to resonate with anyone but the people who already strongly support him. He also needs to keep his answers concise. That alone would be enough.
I would have a comment here about Gary Johnson (the only other guy in the whole bunch with his head screwed on straight), but he wasn't even invited to the debate. I guess CNN thought their lineup was already diverse enough- even with five basically interchangeable candidates making the list.
So on the whole, the debate was an embarrassment. It was a reminder of why people don't trust politicians and a lot of people don't trust the Republican party. It's anybody's guess as to whom will ultimately be selected to run against Obama, but I don't think anyone has a chance to beat him except Ron Paul (from last night's group, anyway). In short, last night was a showcase of why the Republican party is a self destructive combination of hubris and incompetence. It looks like Obama has his second term in the bag.
The establishment candidates (Santorum, Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich) used the platform to substitute boilerplate for specific answers, regale the crowd with their past legislative achievements, and to take cheap shots at the President. Everything about them screamed 'politician'. They embodied all the things the average person doesn't like about politicians by coming off as disingenuous self-seeking replicas of their political ancestors.
The non-establishment had their own problems. I've heard some people talking favorably about Herman Cain, but he lost my interest when he spoke of himself as a man who solves problems. The last thing I want to hear about is a politician who wants to solve problems. Indeed, the state of the nation is the result of politicians trying to save us with their solutions.
Ron Paul was the main reason I tuned in to the debate. I do like Ron Paul, and I wonder whether that's the reason I'm so quick to distinguish him from the other candidates. While people might disagree with him, he at least doesn't come off like a slimy politician who's only trying to aggrandize his own power. What sets Ron Paul apart from the pack is that he sounds sincere and comes with a touch of humility- two qualities rare among people running for office.
I wish Dr. Paul had a better way of making his platform palatable to the average Joe Nobody who just wants a job and to make sure the financial rug's not ripped out from under him when he goes to retire. While I agree with his message, talking about Keynes and fiat currency isn't going to resonate with anyone but the people who already strongly support him. He also needs to keep his answers concise. That alone would be enough.
I would have a comment here about Gary Johnson (the only other guy in the whole bunch with his head screwed on straight), but he wasn't even invited to the debate. I guess CNN thought their lineup was already diverse enough- even with five basically interchangeable candidates making the list.
So on the whole, the debate was an embarrassment. It was a reminder of why people don't trust politicians and a lot of people don't trust the Republican party. It's anybody's guess as to whom will ultimately be selected to run against Obama, but I don't think anyone has a chance to beat him except Ron Paul (from last night's group, anyway). In short, last night was a showcase of why the Republican party is a self destructive combination of hubris and incompetence. It looks like Obama has his second term in the bag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)