A Quote About Homeland Security

"Liberty is our best homeland security" (A quote from the governer of South Carolina, Mark Sanford)

It was stated in the context of pressure from the federal government for states to enforce the REAL ID act.

So far Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Maine, and Utah have registered some sort of official opposition to this act.

Slim Tyranny

I can't believe I'm actually writing this. I can't find words to describe a bill recently introduced into the Mississippi legislature. It was introduced by Republican Ted Mayhall Jr and it has got to be one of the most absurd things I've ever read. Its known as House Bill 282.

"AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES."

and

"A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person."

Am I just weird, or is this spooky? It is proposed to take effect in July 1, 2008 and establishments that would violate this could have their permit revoked. Probably it will be struck down, I hope!

This is a prime example of the INSANITY of having a government that thinks that it is our nanny.

You Can't Defeat Tyranny with Tyranny

"The march of communism or other forms of slavery can never be checked by suppression of freedom of speech." - J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View of Man, 1937

Now, if only this wise insight was digested by those who were carrying out the various forms of the "Red Scare" inquisitions back in the day, such as the HUAC-hearings, etc.

The true way to fight the Reds was to offer a viable alternative of genuine liberty for the people, NOT to use their tactics on local citizens.

To apply this to our modern day, Islamic terrorism can not be defeated by installing an alternate Westernized authoritarianism. Anyone who seriously suggests that we need accept tyranny to be safe from terrorism is simply asking us to exchange one tyranny for another. Its sort of like inviting a coyote into the pen to protect the sheep from wolves--when really the coyote will neither fend off the wolves nor leave the sheep alone. A wolf may theoretically be more of a threat than the coyote, but a coyote in the pen is more of a direct threat to the sheep than the news that a wolf is SOMEWHERE out there.

And Ben Franklin's words also ring true here: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

A Libertarian View of Property Rights

"The officials of government, wishing to increase their power, and finding an increase of wealth an effective way to bring this about, seize some or all of what a person has earned--and since government has a monopoly of physical force within the geographical area of the nation, it has the power (but not the right) to do so. When this happens, of course, every citizen of that country is insecure: he knows that no matter how hard he works the government can swoop down on him at any time and confiscate his earnings and possessions. A person sees his life savings wiped out in a moment when the tax-collectors descend to deprive him of the fruits of his work; or, an industry which has been fifty years in the making and cost millions of dollars and millions of hours of time and planning, is nationalized overnight. Or the government, via inflation, cheapens the currency, so that hard-won dollars aren't worth anything any more. The effect of such actions, of course is that people lose hope and incentive: if no matter how hard they work the government agents can take it all away, why bother to work at all, for more than today's needs? Depriving people of property is depriving them of the means by which they live--the freedom of the individual to do what he wishes with his own life and to plan for the future. Indeed, only if property rights are respected is there any point to planning for the future and working to achieve one's goals." - John Hospers in "Libertarianism".

This quote does a pretty good job of showing one facet of the libertarian view of property rights. I think it makes a lot of sense. Property rights are an extremely basic foundational liberty. In a free society, the right to property even proceeds the right to free speech in importance. Without a proper emphasis on property rights, a society looses its vitality and ability to survive.

Liberty or Death Revised

(HT: Doug Wilson's Blog)

The U.S. Policies On Cuba

Here's a brief summary of key reasons why I don't agree with the U.S. sanctions / embargoes / travel ban against Cuba:

1. Three liberties fundamental to a free society are being violated by the policies: economic freedom, freedom of association, and the freedom for law abiding citizens to travel. If one wants to "export" freedom, the way to start is by allowing these fundamental liberties to their own citizens first.

2. Capitalism and freedom can only work through open lines of communication and association. By closing that door, Castro's government and ideologies are made more (not less) viable.

3. Cuba is no longer is the tactical and strategical threat that it was during the Cold War.

4. The policies have (and will continue to) provide a strong platform for future radical non-capitalist leaders in Cuba.

5. The policies have (and will continue to) provide local leaders with a good excuse to point their finger at external sources to their problems.

6. The policies are horribly inconsistent, and Cuba is singled out, perhaps because it is not as lucrative a market as other countries. I don't believe I've seen a shred of evidence that Cuba's human rights record is anything but better than that of China or Saudi Arabia. Commercial interests seem to have made way for special treatment towards those other countries.

7. If the policies were intended to starve Castro's government out of existence or cause revolt: NEWS FLASH, it has been over 40 years and it hasn't worked. I understand that the policies are not monolithic and some aspects of them haven't been around for 40 years, but it is clear that they still haven't worked.

I agree with the U.S. over and against Canada on a number of things. In fact, I identify myself with the U.S. political philosophy (at least in regard to its original intentions) more-so than I do with the Canadian one. But on the issue of the Cuban embargo, I side with Canada. The U.S. needs to overhaul their policy in regard to Cuba. I've been to Cuba twice and am glad I have had that opportunity (and would visit again if I have a chance). It is a beautiful country with many extremely friendly people that have been through a lot of hard times (and it isn't just Atheists that live there, I've come across Presbyterians and Church of God members there). And I say that as a non-communist non-liberal freedom-loving Christian.

John Gilmor on the ACLU

It is easy to see that the "Christian right" in general doesn't like the ACLU. I love liberty, but I don't necessarily like the ACLU. Perhaps I'm not as settled on it being "the beast" that many Christians see it as, but I still feel it has done much harm. And my Christian worldview causes me to see a lot of damage that it has done through various lawsuits and selective attacks on religion in the public square. On the other hand, though, I don't want to say that the ACLU has done nothing good. It has done good. The fact that it is on the other side of the "culture war" doesn't mean that we should label everything it does as bad. I think we can identify the general agenda of the group without making sweeping statements about EVERYTHING they do.

But... Even if I were to ignore the way some of the ACLU's actions rub my worldview the wrong way, I think its safe to say that the ACLU is NOT the "vanguard of liberty" that some people think it is. And John Gilmor recently made some critical public statements about the ACLU that illustrate this.

Regarding Gilmor.. I disagree with him on a number of issues--actually quite a few. But in some way I have a certain amount of respect for him. He's a sort of non-conformist who isn't afraid to speak his mind. He's the sort of hardcore Libertarian geek millionare type. He was the fifth employee of Sun Microsystems and also helped to found the EFF and Cygnus.

I wouldn't do many of the things he does and when it comes down to it we may be on the opposing side of a number of issues, but still there's something about him that makes me want to tip my hat to him. I wonder if I'll ever have 1/20th of the intestinal fortitude that he has--for issues that *I* feel strongly about. One issue which Gilmor is very vocal on is the issue of privacy/constitutional violations that occur in the name of the "war on terror" and the way the emotional topic of terrorism seems to make people more prone to accept fundamental violations of their constitutional rights, even where there are no probable grounds of suspicion. He very dramatically illustrated this when he got kicked off a flight for wearing an "I'm a suspected terrorist" badge.

Well, getting back to the topic, John Gilmor has posted to the "Politech" list with his comments on the ACLU. He levies a few criticisms regarding the ACLU, mainly directed at people who see the ACLU as perfect crusaders for liberty. He makes some good points. I particularly like the way that he shows that the ACLU is not wholeheartedly committed to liberty.

- "Anyone who thinks the ACLU is an unbiased defender of freedom should look into the school choice movement. ACLU always ends up on the wrong side of those lawsuits, seeking to overturn laws that allow parents to choose what school their child will go to. It's apparently because they have a strong political tie to teachers' labor unions, which oppose parental and student choice about who'll teach them."

- Gilmor also points out that the ACLU is very discriminatory when it comes to which cases they pick. In the words of Gilmor, "it hurt to find that I'm too white to have my freedom of speech violated". Gilmor is not bringing this up because of xenophobia, but rather because he has a good example of this sort of discrimination in action. The ACLU refused to carry out a freedom of speech case on behalf of Gilmor when he got thrown off a plane for a badge he wore, but on the other hand they were very eager to take up the case of an Arabic man who similarily got thrown of f a plane for words on a shirt he wore.

- Gilmor also speaks of the the ACLU's "bizarre meme there that involves not giving credit to any 'competing' civil rights organization". Here he's pointing out that the ACLU has a sort of elitism, in effect.

- Gilmor also cites the ACLU's active opposition to the 2nd Ammendment as another one of their blind spots. Its a place where they pursue traditional leftism rather than civil liberty.

- Gilmor also states that "censorship to enforce political correctness is epidemic in colleges, frequently to shut down 'conservative' or 'religious' speakers". Kudos to Gilmor for seeing something that ACLU doesn't.. "free speech" means that "religious nuts" can speak too!

Contrasting the ACLU and Gilmor, we see that Gilmor is moreso consistent for civil liberties. The ACLU is highly politicalized. They are not totally ideologically for liberty. They are for a certain ideology and they sing the song of liberty when liberty seems to fall in line with their ideology. I don't agree with Gilmor on many things, but I admire the fact that he stands the line of his ideology for better or for worse. He doesn't care if the speaker is what many would call a "right wing religious nutcase". He's for their free speech. The ACLU is not so principled.

So, apart from Christian worldview related critiques of the ACLU, I think there is a good strong case to make that even an agnostic libertarian, such as I presume John Gilmor is (my apologies if I got that wrong..), can see that the ACLU is by no means some sort of hero in the struggle for civil liberties. Whether or not they want to admit it, they are for liberty and freedom when it fits into their agenda. If the ACLU were consistently for liberty, I think I (and other Christians) could have a whole lot more respect for them. In my view, to be consistently for liberty, they must prove that they are willing to allow Christian thoughts to be uttered in public. Otherwise, they are merely big brother with Christian thoughts as the new "thought crime".

This is Absolutely Creepy

I'm all for conservation of the environment and thinking/acting intelligently about the real problems that face this sphere we call "the world".

I also realize that human crowding is a problem. Perhaps not so much in Montana, Texas, or Australia..but nevertheless, there is no shortage of places in the world that have an unhealthy amount of population density.

However, it just drives me nuts to think what sort of whacked-out solutions people come up with to these problems. People who are probably very descent, productive, innovative, and intelligent, when faced with the question of population related problems suddenly start slinging solutions which sound more like something Pol-Pot, Hitler, or Stalin would devise. I'm not saying that they have the same intentions, just that what they say seems only a few steps away from mass-extermination.

Take Paul Watson, I don't know to much about him, but besides the fact that he is perhaps controversial and radical, I don't imagine him to be a brutal guy. I don't suppose he is a necessarily unreasonable individual. However, with what he says in The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?, I begin to wonder. Here is an exerpt: "We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings...We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us....Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans."

I don't want to say that everything Paul says in that article is non-sense, because not all of it is. But there are clearly some very creepy things in the article. Especially when we consider that not everyone will pursue these Orwellian ideals with a grain of cautionary balance. Oh to think how these "environmental protection measures" could be exploited by a power hungry totalitarian!

There are some very serious environmental issues which must be addressed. Totalitarianism is not the answer, and quite frankly I find some of the solutions that Mr. Watson proposes scary. First, I find they way Watson proposes them to be a bit creepy. Second, I find the ways they could be further ABUSED even more creepy.
I say this not because I don't care about the environment or am a selfish "human chauvinist", but rather because I love liberty and I feel that human well-being must also coexist with the global ecological well-being. When humans are enslaved to tyranny, the environment doesn't do too well either.