Libertarian – Page 3 – Rolling Doughnut

This May or May Not Be How the Drug War Ends

Many people are talking about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s high-level proposal from his 2012 State of the State address to shift the governmental approach to drug use/abuse among the citizens of New Jersey.

The transcript (video excerpt in bold):

At the same time, let us reclaim the lives of those drug offenders who have not committed a violent crime. By investing time and money in drug treatment – in an in-house, secure facility – rather than putting them in prison.

Experience has shown that treating non-violent drug offenders is two-thirds less expensive than housing them in prison. And more importantly – as long as they have not violently victimized society – everyone deserves a second chance, because no life is disposable.

I am not satisfied to have this as merely a pilot project; I am calling for a transformation of the way we deal with drug abuse and incarceration in every corner of New Jersey.

So today I ask this Legislature and the Chief Justice to join me in this commitment that no life is disposable.

I propose mandatory treatment for every non-violent offender with a drug abuse problem in New Jersey, not just a select few. It will send a clear message to those who have fallen victim to the disease of drug abuse – we want to help you, not throw you away. We will require you to get treatment. Your life has value. Every one of God’s creations can be redeemed. Everyone deserves a second chance.

It’s being applauded. In an important way, it should be. He’s proposing a shift from prison to treatment. We’re long past the point at which society can pretend the War on Drugs has been or can be successful. Experience has consistently shown it will not work. Now, the War on Drugs is just an excuse to provide ever-increasing power to the government. Good riddance to any part of that we can dismantle.

But therein lies the problem with Gov. Christie’s proposal. While a move in the right direction, he’s not proposing the removal of the state’s police power from the discussion. He proposed mandatory treatment for every non-violent offender with a drug abuse problem. That leaves the state police power involved. His speech was too high-level to establish that this will be terrible or that it can’t be good if the details are specified. But who defines “offender”? Would buying drugs still be an offense? And who defines “problem”? Would mere use of a drug be considered evidence of abuse? That’s a considerable amount of discretion when discussing mandatory (i.e. compelled with force) treatment.

There is a flaw in the term “non-violent offender”. And he said “…God’s creatures can be redeemed” rather than something about having freedom to ingest whatever one wants or the irrational economics of putting a “non-violent offender” in jail. Gov. Christie needs to elaborate before I’ll assume this is a push for liberty rather than the 2012 version of compassionate conservatism.

Via Elias Isquith at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen and Andrew Sullivan.

I know the video doesn’t fit. At some point I’ll update my blog theme to something newer than 2005.

Lifting the Venn of Ignorance

This Mother Jones blog post – “The Venn of Ron Paul and Other Mysteries of Libertarianism Explained” – is ostensibly a rebuke of libertarianism by dumping on its (alleged) chosen vessel, Ron Paul. Unsurprisingly, the author, Josh Harkinson, does not understand libertarianism. The diagram:

I know, ha ha. Especially with the additions of the accompanying “Libertarian Theology” glossary and the “Rand of the Free” poll. It’s so powerful.

If only it were true. To quote David Boaz:

… Libertarians are not against all government. We are precisely “advocates of limited government.” Perhaps to the man who wrote the speeches in which a Republican president advocated a trillion dollars of new spending, the largest expansion of entitlements in 40 years, federal takeovers of education and marriage, presidential power to arrest and incarcerate American citizens without access to a lawyer or a judge, and two endless “nation-building” enterprises, the distinction between “limited government” and “anti-government” is hard to see. But it is real and important.

And:

A government is a set of institutions through which we adjudicate our disputes, defend our rights, and provide for certain common needs. It derives its authority, at some level and in some way, from the consent of the governed… What we want is a limited government that attends to its necessary and proper functions… Thus libertarians are not “anti-government.” Libertarians support limited, constitutional government — limited not just in size but, of far greater importance, in the scope of its powers.

Admittedly, in the comfortable mindset of someone who likes ignorant gotchas, I probably violated my libertarian principle of individualism because I let someone else speak for me. I just stole his words. Nevermind that I cited Mr. Boaz and provided the necessary links. As a libertarian, I’m required to live without assistance from anyone for anything, forever. Hell, I drive on government roads every day. Eventually I’m going to figure out that this makes me not a libertarian.

To show that anyone can have fun with drawing, I’ve attempted my own Ha Ha.

To finish the point, I have an entire blog category in which I explain why more state action is warranted and necessary. So, yeah, “anti-government”? Not so much.

Link via Boing Boing. (Note: Original venn diagram re-sized to fit my out-of-date blog template.)

All Government Is Force. Even Regulation.

Back to the Occupy movement…

I have some sympathy for Occupy Wall Street and its offspring around the country. There is enough broken in the way our economy works that only a fool would advise inaction. Where I quickly part ways is with the obvious implication that our government can fix crony capitalism (i.e. corporatism). Our government is complicit in this problem. It serves the needs of politicians. Where power exists to grab, it will be grabbed. If this involves buying access to or the use of that power, it will happen. The solution is to limit power, not to pretend that human nature can be changed.

This interesting post from writer Lauren McLaughlin addresses an approach for going forward. She’s right that the movement needs to stop protesting and Do Something. I don’t think she’s right on what should be done.

For example, she suggests:

Early complaints about the movement’s lack of specific demands is also falling away as an increasingly focused platform centering on economic justice comes into focus. Poll the former residents of Zuccotti Park or any of the other occupation sites and you’ll hear a variety of ideas, but the most common seem to be the following:

– Regulate banks in a way that disincentivizes the reckless gambling that puts all of us at risk.

– Tax investment returns at the same rate as income.

– Reform campaign finance laws so that we’re no longer being governed by Goldman Sachs.

On the first item, banks were regulated before the financial crisis hit. That we still had a financial crisis may indicate that crimes took place, although I’m doubtful the evidence is strong. But it also demonstrates how difficult it is to get the correct regulation. Unintended consequences will occur. If we radically alter and/or increase regulation, what happens?

It’s also worth noting that capitalists, rather than corporatists, advocate letting banks fail. The fear of failing, including bankruptcy, is a motivator. It’s unlikely to be the exclusive answer, but we haven’t tried it in conjunction with anything yet.

I’d flip the second to suggest taxing income at the same rate as investment returns. Power is the problem, not inadequate revenue. The point of reducing the government is not mere animosity to government (or worse insinuations). As long as power exists, it will be abused.

On the third, I’m not clear enough on the implication of the item to comment extensively. If it’s a response to Citizens United, then I disagree. Corporations are not people in the literal sense, but in the legal sense they are, and for good reason. Corporations (and other forms of organization) are made up of people. Those people do not lose rights because they’ve chosen to work together. If they do, it’s not a large leap to discredit democracy. But, again, reduce the scope and amount of power available within government and the incentive to buy it will reduce.

Ms. McLaughlin’s next paragraph is revealing from my perspective:

Of course, there are other ideas, like making banks finance their own future bailouts through a financial transaction tax, but I think it’s fairly easy to see the big idea at the heart of the movement: American capitalism and democracy are broken. The big difference between Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party is that the latter sees the government as the big evil, whereas the former fingers a reckless and under-regulated banking industry that has captured our government and bent it to its will.

I’m not a Tea Party guy, so I’m not so concerned about the difference. But the two have similarities and should recognize that the root causes are very similar. Why does the Tea Party see the government as evil? I think there’s some truth to the assertion, but I don’t know the answer. I also know many Tea Party members have taken the initial, singular focus on government spending and turned to other causes in which they want more government, not less. I’m not sure the analysis that it thinks government is evil is accurate.

Either way, if that’s true, the only way “a reckless and under-regulated” – both subjective terms, with the latter being much less defensible – banking industry could capture our government and bend it to its will is with the full participation of our government. Corporatism is a sinister cooperative effort, not a sinister takeover. Trusting the same government that’s been captured so readily and thoroughly to provide a solution is bizarre. As long as there is power to abuse, this will continue, even if it takes a different form. Any action that is to be a solution rather than a perpetuation of chasing new problems must account for this. I haven’t seen evidence that the Occupy movement understands this. It may yet win, but I fear the outcome if it does.

In related news, the government that will somehow help is the same government that sees no problem with pepper-spraying peaceful, if disruptive, protesters with a callous disregard for the necessity or safety of the force. This is the state in action. This is what Occupy requests when it calls for more government regulation. All government is force. Why is it wrong to use against you, but okay to use against me?

The Explanation May Not Fit on a Placard

Continuing with the Occupy Wall Street theme, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee released an “Open Letter of Support for the Occupy Movement”. It’s predictably full of pointless nonsense which I think underlies the larger problem with the Occupy protests. To be clear I do not assume that UUSC speaks for the movement. I’m only aiming at it because it states ideas that appear to be generally applicable to Occupy Wall Street.

From the beginning:

I stand with people around the country and the world who are calling for economic justice.

“Economic justice” doesn’t say anything. What’s meant by the term? Equality of process? Equality of outcome? There are different possible meanings. Some are legitimate and principled. Others are naive. Which is it here?

My values affirm that each person has inherent worth and dignity; that justice, equity, and compassion should be the guiding principles for human relationships; and that all people deserve access to the democratic process.

More ideals without evidence to demonstrate we do not have them in some form. In the abstract, sure, these are great. But what does it mean in reality? Who doesn’t have access to the democratic process? What are the intended consequences? What might be the unintended consequences? Can “the democratic process” create valid outcomes that you don’t like?

My recognition of the inherent worth of every person compels me to speak out against policies that privilege the demands of corporations over the human rights of people. I support the Occupy movement in its affirmation that protecting workers’ rights and ensuring that basic human needs are met must take precedence. All people have a fundamental right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and their families.

Please provide examples of where the demands of corporations are privileged over the human rights of people. Government requires a balancing of rights. It’s primary task is protecting the rights of individuals. Corporations are individuals, which is to say a collection of individuals. If individuals have a human right to free association, the form of that association shouldn’t matter, right? Is the Occupy movement free association? Are the human rights of people the rights of individuals or the abstract of a right, like “free speech”? Are “workers’ rights” a subset of human rights or separate and applicable to everyone?

If someone believes my last paragraph, how does free association and an individual’s inherent worth and dignity matter only to the extent that their “fundamental right” to a standard of living is met? If the solution is to tax the rich (more), and that seems to be the Occupy movement’s demand, then there’s an implied point at which an individual becomes a valid target for the rest of society. Justice and equity require both a floor and a ceiling?

I also join the Occupy movement in decrying the wealth disparity that leaves millions struggling for economic security. Policies and legislation that promote economic marginalization are morally unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a government that recognizes and promotes basic economic rights. Justice, equity, and compassion should be foremost in our government’s decision making.

Is this alleged wealth disparity the cause, or merely a coincidental fact? Wealth and prosperity is only fixed in the moment. But we don’t live in a moment. There is tomorrow, and if we create and produce, there will be more tomorrow. Some will get rich, some will not. This isn’t necessarily problematic or unfair. Stating that everyone should have some minimum is not the same argument as assuming that no one should have above some maximum. Is Occupy interested in creating and producing, and is it interested in consent in achieving economic security, which is not well-defined here?

I agree that policies and legislation that promote economic marginalization are morally unacceptable. However, the solution includes limiting government power, not relying on the right mix of benevolent politicians. The latter don’t exist in sufficient numbers to make a technocratic democracy work without horrible, rights-violating offenses.

Economic oppression is not only a violation of fundamental human rights, it is also a blow to democracy. When economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few and when corporations are awarded the same status as actual human beings, the democratic process is fundamentally compromised. Basic fairness requires that all people have equal opportunity to participate in political debate and to be represented in government.

Define “economic oppression”. Provide examples. Explain how the Occupy movement’s undefined solution resolves the problem. What are the intended economic consequences of democracy? What might be the unintended consequences? Can “the democratic process” create valid outcomes that you don’t like?

Economic power is concentrated for many reasons, including cooperation from politicians. Politicians will be involved in democracy. Democratic tyranny is possible. This is why equality of process is superior to equality of outcome. Democracy does not guarantee equality of process. How would the Occupy movement address this?

Have corporations been awarded the same status as actual human beings? Who will Apple vote for next week? In 2012? What about Starbucks? Again, corporations are a collection of people exercising their natural right to free association. Do they lose certain rights because they join collectively rather than act alone? What would be the consequences – good and bad – of altering the current corporate structures?

I envision a powerful and radically inclusive movement for economic justice. I recognize economic justice as a right that is due to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, immigration status, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status or distinction.

Is economic justice a right due to “rich” people who are to be taxed? What does this right look like for anyone classified as rich?

I sign this letter as an expression of gratitude to all who are working for economic justice in the United States and around the world, as an affirmation of my hope for fair and compassionate economic reforms, and as a renewal of my commitment to help make it so.

Are we listening to those working for economic justice who know nothing more than the slogans and solutions, those who haven’t attempted an understanding of the complex problem?

Link via Ethics Alarms.

Krugman says, “I’m Rubber, You’re Glue…”

It’s been a decent chunk of time since I last posted, but I have things to say again. (And Google removed shared items from Google Reader.) We’ll see how long it lasts.

What better (i.e. easier) way to jump back in than to comment on Paul Krugman saying something stupid and lacking in self-awareness. As always it’s “you shouldn’t do that, but ignore that I’m doing it.” Consider this, from last week:

Over the last couple of days, I’ve been getting mail accusing me of consorting with Nazis. My immediate reaction was, what the heck? Then it clicked: the right wing is mounting a full-court press to portray Occupy Wall Street as an anti-Semitic movement, based, as far as I can tell, on one guy with a sign.

I have a lot of sympathy for this complaint, given one of my major interests. It’s a pathetic generalization and an embarrassing reflection on the person willing to dabble in stereotypes without individual evidence. It’s a dishonest tactic, which suggests fear dominates rather than confidence. Any large-ish movement is going to attract its share of crazies who value conspiracy theories over logic. Unless the movement is based on the conspiracy theory itself or a plainly evil belief, the extreme views are probably not widely held within the group and many group members are likely fighting the nonsense out of public view. Generalizing in this way is flawed and stupid, as any case of being uninterested or unwilling to think is.

So, one paragraph in, Krugman has my sympathy. If this had been the issue Krugman intended to pursue, fine. He didn’t.

My first thought was that OWS must have the right really rattled. And there’s probably something to that. But actually, this is the way the right goes after everyone who stands in their way: accuse them of everything, no matter how implausible or contradictory the accusations are. Progressives are atheistic socialists who want to impose Sharia law. Class warfare is evil; also, John Kerry is too rich. And so on.

Krugman makes no distinction between those making accusations and those who share (some) similar, conservative views. It’s “the right”, without specificity. That stroke is too broad.

The key to understanding this, I’d suggest, is that movement conservatism has become a closed, inward-looking universe in which you get points not by sounding reasonable to uncommitted outsiders — although there are a few designated pundits who play that role professionally — but by outdoing your fellow movement members in zeal.

He’s closer here, since it’s clear that “movement conservatism” implies “professional”. But his aside is not enough to excuse what he’s doing. Most people see the distinction between Rush Limbaugh and a neighbor, perhaps even when the neighbor praises Limbaugh. I hope the same is true of anyone tempted to make a professional pundit like Bill Maher the spokesperson for every ~~liberal~~ progressive everywhere. It’s a silly, immature way to view the world (and a key reason I hate partisanship).

Krugman continues:

It’s sort of reminiscent of Stalinists going after Trotskyites in the old days: the Trotskyites were left deviationists, and also saboteurs working for the Nazis. Didn’t propagandists feel silly saying all that? Not at all: in their universe, extremism in defense of the larger truth was no vice, and you literally couldn’t go too far.

Many members of the commentariat don’t want to face up to the fact that this is what American politics has become; they cling to the notion that there are gentlemanly elder statesmen on the right who would come to the fore if only Obama said the right words. But the fact is that nobody on that side of the political spectrum wants to or can make deals with the Islamic atheist anti-military warmonger in the White House.

The last line says it all. (It’s not the last line in the post; just the last important line.) Is it only “that side” engaging in heated, sweeping accusations? “That side.” Krugman is in pot-meet-kettle territory. Everyone who believes anything and shares that belief is a propagandist, literally. In the pejorative, as Krugman implies here, he’s claiming that only the right propagandizes. It wouldn’t take long to find instances of the left engaging in the same tactics against the right, considering I read Krugman’s post.

Congressman Brad Sherman Is Wrong On Circumcision

This is why I don’t like the political process for ending non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors.

Congressman Brad Sherman announced today that he will be introducing the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, a bill to prevent San Francisco and other municipalities from banning the circumcision of males under the age of 18.

Sherman’s new bill is in reaction to a measure that has qualified for the November 2011 ballot in San Francisco that would make the performance of circumcisions on males under 18 a misdemeanor—with a possible $1,000 fine and one-year prison term.

He’s framing the problem incorrectly, which allows him to protect a “right” that doesn’t exist and ignore a right that does. The proposed bill in San Francisco would prohibit non-therapeutic circumcisions on males under 18. Healthy children do not need surgery, even if the parents’ god says so. California law already restricts the rights of parents to cut the healthy genitals of their daughters for any reason, including religious claims. Is that an infringement? Of course not. Likewise, there is no First Amendment right to inflict permanent harm on one’s ~~children~~ sons (only).

Sherman expressed concern over the motivation of the provision. “To infringe the religious rights of so many Americans, San Francisco should have some compelling medical reason; however, the medical literature actually shows clear benefits of male circumcision.”

The provision, shown by its generally-applicable wording, would protect the right of all healthy males to keep their normal body intact and free from the objective harm of non-therapeutic surgery to which they do not consent. It’s the same right U.S. and California law protects for their sisters. That right is being violated. It must stop. This is a way to achieve that, even if it may not be the best way.

But if we incorrectly assume this infringes a legitimate religious right, San Francisco (and every other locality) has a compelling medical reason to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision: it’s non-therapeutic genital cutting imposed on a non-consenting individual. The healthy child does not need circumcision any more than he needs an appendectomy. If he has an appendectomy, he will never get appendicitis. That is a potential benefit. Should we therefore allow parents to have a surgeon cut their healthy ~~children~~ sons (only) to remove his potentially harm-producing appendix? In the name of parental rights? No, because that would be stupid. The ability to chase some possible benefit can’t be an ethical justification to perform an invasive, unnecessary surgical intervention on a healthy child.

Congressman Sherman added:

“Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that a practice that appears to reduce disease and health care costs remains available to parents,” Sherman said. “And, nothing in my bill prohibits statewide law ensuring that male circumcision occurs in a hygienic manner.”

To the extent that Congress has a legitimate interest¹ here, it’s in protecting the individual rights of every citizen, including male children. It already protected female children with the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996. That prohibits non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting female minors for any reason, including religious claims by the parents. Does that infringe on parental religious rights? Are we illegitimately denying religious rights by not permitting other acts by parents sanctioned by various religious texts? Are the healthy genitals of male minors beneath the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment?

“Congress has historically legislated to protect the free exercise of religious rights from state and local intrusions,” Sherman said. “In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, designed to protect religious institutions from unduly burdensome local zoning laws.”

The logic of the law Congressman Sherman cites favorably requires the conclusion that his proposed bill is flawed. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act establishes that the government may not impose a burden

…unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution–
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(A) Protecting children from unnecessary, objective harm is a compelling governmental interest. Circumcision, as surgery, inflicts objective harm in every instance. When there is no offsetting medical need, the harm is the only guaranteed result. Preventing that is the premise behind prohibiting all female genital cutting on healthy female minors, even genital cutting that is less severe, damaging, or permanent than a typical male circumcision. The government recognizes that girls are individuals with rights that deserve to be protected. Infringing on a non-existent parental right to cut the healthy genitals of their ~~daughters~~ children is a legitimate state action.

(B) The least restrictive means would be for parents to understand that non-therapeutic genital cutting on healthy children is ethically and medically wrong and, thus, refrain from imposing it on their sons. Yet, religious and non-religious parents alike cut the healthy genitals of their sons. How else is the state supposed to stop it without exercising its legitimate police power?

Congressman Sherman should withdraw the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 immediately. He should also introduce a bill to remove the gender bias from the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 to create the Anti-Genital Mutilation Act of 2011, if he’s serious about using the powers of Congress correctly to protect the rights of all American citizens.

Update: More from Congressman Sherman:

Sherman said he did not consult the text of the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 in composing the bill he will put forth in Congress.

“I think people who make that analogy are so wrong that their thinking does not color my thinking,” Sherman said.

Since he’s working with a closed mind, I’ll simplify: non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting person is wrong. The extent of the damage is irrelevant. The reason cited is irrelevant. The gender of the victim is irrelevant. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong.

¹ I want to be proved wrong on this, but Sherman’s statement is further evidence of my prediction that ceding power to the government on health care would lead to arguments that child circumcision provided fiscal benefits to the nation. It wouldn’t change the ethical violation involved, but Congressman Sherman doesn’t provide a cost-benefit analysis for his claim. Only in Congress can spending money always mean saving money.

Teaching Compliance, One Traveler At A Time

On Thursday I experienced the new TSA screening procedures for the first time. The security line I went through had both a metal detector and a backscatter X-ray scanner. (Two lines fed to these machines.) A TSA employee “randomly” directed citizens to one of the machines. My informal count suggested that approximately two-thirds of the lines were directed to the backscatter X-ray scanner. The randomness seemed to be more about time. Observationally, as the line for the backscatter filled, overflow was directed to the metal detector.

I got the backscatter X-ray machine. I opted out. After confirming that I wished to opt out, the TSA employee directed me to the individual screening area. As I stood on the mat, I told him that I wanted to let him know upfront that I would cooperate with his search but did not consent to having my genitals touched, and that if he touched my genitals, I would file a complaint. He stared at me dumbly for a moment before going to get his supervisor.

I repeated to the supervisor what I’d told the first agent. I told him I’ve had skin cancer and do not wish to be exposed to more radiation than necessary. That’s true, though incomplete. I’d rant about the 4th Amendment, but that wouldn’t be any more productive than the implication of my statements already.

He seemed mildly surprised but remained focused. He asked me to clarify, telling me what they would be doing. After I repeated my position, he asked if I was refusing to be screened. I told him that, as I said before, I would cooperate but do not consent to having my genitals touched and would file a complaint if anyone did so. I also stated that I understood he did not set the policy.

The supervisor opted to perform the pat-down. He asked if I’d like to have the screening performed in private. I declined because I wanted everyone to see my objection. Once underway, he informed me of each step he was going to take before he proceeded. He ran his hands over my clothing but did not press into my body. When he finished the pat-down, he asked if I wished to file a complaint. I declined because, as I told him, he behaved reasonably within an unreasonable policy. He showed a level of professionalism that I have not encountered in any other encounter with TSA (c.f. August 2008).

I will engage future TSA experiences the same way, even in the inevitable likelihood that someone will be unreasonable and deny me access to my flight. I would have filed a complaint if he’d touched my genitals, regardless of his professionalism. He did not touch my genitals. I did not believe a complaint would be a useful means of protest in the context. I want more people to object, as I explained to the woman receiving a pat-down next to me. But dumping on the TSA employee wouldn’t convince him I’m right that he’s wrong to continue violating other’s rights by following unreasonable policy. Our representatives are the ones we should be blatantly and repeatedly antagonizing.

The kicker is what demonstrates the stupidity of this: to get to the individual screening area, I had to walk through the metal detector. It didn’t buzz.

Bob Barr Is Anti-Liberty

I voted for Bob Barr as the Libertarian (rather than libertarian) candidate in 2008. My vote was symbolic, since I couldn’t support either major party candidate. I knew it was a “waste” then, since it wouldn’t amount to anything. I didn’t know I was the idiot. Today, I am ashamed of that vote.

From Barr’s blog at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, here’s his post on the San Francisco ballot initiative that would prohibit non-therapeutic genital cutting on male minors in the city:

San Francisco, a city that has long been a safe-haven for the liberal elite, …

At least he declares upfront that he wishes to engage in ad hominem rather than logical debate.

… has been on a ban-happy kick of late. But the City by the Bay may have gone a bridge too far with its latest proposed ban . . . on circumcisions!

Don’t think, be OUTRAGED!

After a silly bit about the Happy Meal ban, because banning a food product is somehow no more appalling than banning an unnecessary surgical procedure forced on children, he picks up his mockery:

Now the city may be moving toward an agenda of “genital justice.”

Regardless of whether the city’s Grand Pooh Bahs can defend with a straight face the proposed ban on clipping a baby boy’s foreskin, San Franciscans do appear to be serious about the matter.

San Francisco’s “Grand Pooh Bahs” had nothing to do with this, as his next paragraph demonstrates. It was a ballot initiative led by a private citizen. If it had been proposed to the city council, it would’ve been tossed in the trash can with the same unthinking concern Barr shows here.

The Associated Press reports that local activists have gathered enough valid signatures to place an anti-circumcision referendum on the November ballot. What these activists call “genital mutilation,” would be banned for male children, absent meeting the almost-impossible, “medical necessity” exemption provided for in the referendum. There is no religious exemption. Anyone violating the ban would be charged with a “misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail.”

The fact that the exemption is “almost-impossible” to meet demonstrates why Barr is wrong on this. It is permanent, body-altering surgery on a healthy person who can’t consent to the modification’s harms or risks involved. California law already prohibits non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors. What do the Grand Pooh Bahs of California think of that? What does Bob Barr think of that? Is that “genital mutilation,” or is it genital mutilation? Can only female genitals be “cut up or alter[ed] radically so as to make imperfect”? Barr offers no explanation for why male circumcision is Teh Awesome, just that those liberal elites – center square on the Conservative Bullshit Argument Bingo board – support it. Obviously Barr called every one of those who signed the petition to confirm that they’re liberals and couldn’t possibly argue from any defensible or logical position against non-therapeutic male child circumcision.

Barr concludes:

San Francisco clearly has jumped the shark with this proposal. Even some residents who normally would likely shrug off extreme left-wing campaigns mounted by various activist groups, probably are wondering if things are going a bit too far with this one. They are right to question this proposal. It is about as far off the “Bizarro Scale” as you can get; at least, that is, until we see what San Franciscans come up with next year.

That’s it. He doesn’t include a single word about why parents should be able to continue forcing genital cutting on their healthy sons. There is no argument here. This so-called libertarian doesn’t even attempt the flawed argument in favor of parental “liberty”. The only conclusion is that Bob Barr is not motivated by liberty.

Update: I’ve rethought the title to this post. It was originally “Bob Barr is Unethical and Anti-Liberty.” His mockery within his blog post demonstrates that he does not understand, but it’s something different to state that he is unethical. Hence, my revision.

Gun Violence: Method versus Reason

The murders and attempted murders in Arizona yesterday at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ constituent gathering doesn’t need any specific comment from me. Nor am I much interested in the partisan nonsense that predictably followed. My only response was to wield a clumsy, permanent “Unfollow” hammer on Twitter on anyone who blamed someone other than the (alleged) murderer for his crimes. Productive for nothing other than my sanity, but that’s something for me.

I am, however, interested in one inevitable angle of the aftermath that I think is worth discussing. Two comments that crossed my Twitter feed. First:

It is unacceptable to defend the legality of firearms. It is both irresponsible and horrifically misinformed. Guns kill. Fuck guns. End of.

Second:

“England, where no one has guns: 14 deaths. United States…23,000 deaths from handguns. But–there’s no connection…” ~Bill Hicks

To be fair to both persons, they are Brits, so an American perspective has a way of slanting away from their understandable sentiments. But, both are still flawed, regardless of the cultural difference.

The obvious reason is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As long as that is still valid, guns will be legal in the United States. Simply pretending that it’s not would fight chaos and lawlessness with chaos and lawlessness. Neither of the comments above implies that America should ignore the Second Amendment. We still need to explicitly accept its existence.

Details on why the murderer felt this was justifiable are still unclear. (Mostly, but I’m not going to speculate.) Lost on too many is the idea that guns aren’t the only way to kill people. Sure, it’s a simple process, but plowing a car through a crowd would have similar results. We recognize how stupid it would be to outlaw cars, so it’s reasonable to me to expect that level of thinking applied to guns, as well. Whatever the underlying motivation, the cliche is true: guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

The second Tweet above is slightly off, since the U.S. has approximately five times the population of the U.K. The difference between 14 and 70 is trivial when compared to 23,000, but it raises the question of adequately comparing countries. (I’m ignoring the context of the 23,000 figure and its validity because it’s tangential to my point.) Too many cultural differences exist to compare directly. What are the underlying issues? Why do people shoot/kill other people? And so on.

For example, whatever the percentage, I’m sure much of that number is related to the drug war in the U.S. Other countries are fighting the same war, but the consequences are influenced by culture. The U.S. tried the same war with alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century. We’re now recreating the same results. To mangle another cliche, you can’t legislate for the country you wish you had. You must legislate with the country you have. The human response to prohibition is predictable. But the U.K. and its gun prohibition isn’t the U.S. and its Constitution. What to do isn’t as simple as the seductive “no guns, no murder” mantra.

**********

I have a final point, which I’m separating to hopefully avoid the perception that I’m engaging in a logical fallacy. Understand that this informs nothing other than my personal experience and is not meant to prove me any more an authority or voice in the discussion.

My father died of a gunshot wound when I was three-years-old. He and a friend were playing a game of quick-draw in the front seat of his friend’s car. My father’s friend apparently didn’t realize his gun was loaded. Upon pulling it out, it discharged a fatal blast into my father’s chest.

If guns were illegal, it’s unlikely they would’ve been playing quick-draw knife throw. But there’s also no way to know that they wouldn’t have been playing quick-draw with guns. Life happens. There are legitimate reasons to detest guns and legitimate reasons to value them. There’s a large measure of subjectivity in each of these. It adds nothing to simplify the discussion into a belief that 300,000,000 Americans should fit one mold of thinking, or that an opinion in favor of gun ownership implies a desire, preference or acceptance of gun violence.

Republican ≠ libertarian

I wrote this when it was topical but forgot to post it.

It seems that Eugene Robinson doesn’t know the difference between a Republican and a libertarian. In this two-weeks-old column discussing the self-inflicted political wounds of Rand Paul, Mr. Robinson lumps these in as a part of Paul’s “Libertarian La-La Land.” This would be a useful approach if a) Rand Paul happened to be a libertarian (or Libertarian) or b) Robinson understood liberty. Regarding Paul’s comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Actually, there are quite a few direct questions that Paul will be asked. Does he still believe it ought to be permissible to deny Americans access to housing because of the color of their skin, as he argued a few years ago? I have a personal stake in this one, since I live in a neighborhood where a legal covenant once kept African Americans out. Is this sort of thing cool with him?

Inherent in the way Mr. Robinson asked these two questions, he believes they’re related closely enough that Paul’s answer must be the same for both. It’s a “gotcha” question. Say that private-sphere discrimination should be legal and you’re a racist, no thinking necessary. But saying you believe someone has the right to be an asshole doesn’t require you to believe that person should be an asshole, or that such a person shouldn’t be criticized and excluded from polite society. Am I a racist for saying you can be a racist, as much as I despise it?

From the end of his column:

Now that he is running for the Senate as a card-carrying Republican, Paul is going to have to abandon, or pretend to abandon, many of his loopy beliefs. This won’t be easy, as illustrated by the hemming and hawing he did before finally endorsing the Civil Rights Act. Even then, he suggested that the law was justified only by the prevailing situation in the South. As soon as Paul is allowed out of his cave, someone should ask him whether the landmark legislation properly applies to the rest of the country.

As an exercise in critical thinking, did Paul say the Civil Rights Act should only be applied to the South? If he did, he’s an idiot and Robinson should say so directly. If Paul didn’t say that, stating only that the South was the problem that justified a federal (i.e. national) response, is Robinson’s tactic here legitimate?

Next, Robinson highlights Paul’s response to the BP oil spill (emphasis added):

And while we’re at it, what about Paul’s recent analysis of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? The Obama administration faces growing criticism for not being tough enough on BP for its failure to stop the gushing flow of crude that is fouling Louisiana’s ecologically sensitive coastal marshes. Paul, however, sees things differently. “What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’ ” Paul said. “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”

The “un-American” part is consistent with the campaign by Republican cynics and Tea Party wing nuts to delegitimize Obama’s presidency. But the general idea — that it’s wrong to hold private firms strictly accountable for disasters such as the gulf spill — appears to be something that Paul really believes, since he also dismisses the recent West Virginia mine explosion in which 29 miners were killed.

“We had a mining accident that was very tragic,” he said. “Then we come in, and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.”

But maybe accidents are less likely to happen when appropriate safety standards are established and enforced. This kind of cause-and-effect reasoning is meaningful only to those who live in the real world, however. From all evidence, Paul lives in Libertarian La-La Land, where a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.

I’ll speak to general libertarian philosophy, not Rand Paul’s ideas. It’s not wrong to hold private firms strictly accountable for disasters for which they are responsible. That’s what society should do. And to the extent government regulation is justified, a response according to pre-existing rules and procedures is appropriate.

That’s not what happens now. We have public outrage and figurative spankings from our President-as-father. (This is not exclusive to President Obama.) The financial crisis of 2008 shows this, as Obama has repeatedly demonized everyone associated with Wall Street while Congress funneled public money to them and configured new regulations to entrench their businesses against competition. It’s naked populism, not enlightened principle in the face of depraved “Libertarian La-La Land” philosophy.

As for established and enforced safety standards, only the government can be trusted to do that?

I want none of what I’ve written to suggest that I support or seek to defend Rand Paul and his comments. There’s more complexity to the Civil Rights Act and libertarianism, as evidenced by what’s missing from Mr. Robinson’s column and much of most reporting on the story. Anyway, Paul strikes me as a politican at his core, like his father, who is also not a libertarian. No one should act as though he discredits libertarianism.

For example, from Robinson’s column:

I’d also like to know whether Paul really believes in a conspiracy among the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments to turn North America into a “borderless, mass continent” bisected by a 10-lane superhighway. Because that’s what he said in 2008.

“It’s a real thing,” he said of the imaginary threat to U.S. sovereignty, “and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that if you talk about it like it’s a conspiracy, they’ll paint you as a nut.”

Very little paint is needed.

Fair enough that Paul is a nut, but libertarians won’t view “borderless” countries with fear and disdain. Lumping the two together is silly to the point of ignorance (or dishonesty).