“Because I am a Libertarian…”?????

We find, at Bleeding Heart Libertarians: Free Markets & Social Justice (try to wrap your mind around that combination), a critique of the bill to replace Obamacare.

Don’t get your hopes up.

I propose that the federal government establish a national health care budget in the amount of seven percent of GDP (based on the preceding year’s economic statistics), the sum to be expended in accord with the priorities of a governmental agency – let’s call it the National Health Commission (NHC) – whose sole task is to decide which services will be covered and which excluded.

The National Health Commission?  Pray you never have a bleeding heart!

Why seven percent?  That amount actually is close to the proportion of GDP devoted to health care by the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom, both devotees of single payer delivery systems offering very high standards of care. 

Certainly a libertarian can come up with a better reason than this.

Of course the seven percent stipulation is somewhat arbitrary.  Because I am a libertarian I would prefer a ceiling of five percent, the remainder to be consigned to private arrangements. 

Conclusion

 

Liberté sans Fraternité?

Prologue

Liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control; freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Fraternity: a group of persons associated by or as if by ties of brotherhood; any group or class of persons having common purposes, interests, etc.

While fraternity is certainly possible without liberty, is liberty possible without fraternity?  Not merely a fraternity of NAP adherents – that’s an easy (and irrelevant) question; a fraternity “as if by ties of brotherhood.”  Common culture, common custom, common language, common religion.

It is a question ignored by many who call themselves “libertarian” and “hope” for a libertarian world.  Further, it is a question answered affirmatively by some such as these – liberty can be had in a land of any culture or no common culture.  Is this true?  Or is this claimed out of ignorance, or worse, out of preference for a leftist, socialist (even communist) world? 

Christopher Caldwell has written a review of a book by Christophe Guilluy: Le crépuscule de la France d’en haut (roughly: “The Twilight of the French Elite”).  The analysis and review are applicable to the situations behind the political realities of the west today; it is also applicable to the question of the possibility of liberty without fraternity – liberty without nation.

Caldwell describes the several books by Guilluy:

…they give the best ground-level look available at the economic, residential, and democratic consequences of globalization in France. They also give an explanation for the rise of the National Front that goes beyond the usual imputation of stupidity or bigotry to its voters.

Wow!  Someone employing a few brain cells when analyzing what is happening throughout the west in reaction to “globalization” (a term broadly and sloppily applied, as it is, instead, a reaction to unworkable and even enemy political institutions); the reaction is not due to “stupidity or bigotry.”

His analysis is applicable to several situations currently playing out in the west: Brexit; Alternative für Deutschland, AfD; Norbert Hofer, Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ; Geert Wilders, Partij voor de Vrijheid – PVV; Marine Le Pen, Front national; Donald Trump, etc.

Introduction

Beginning with globalization – it is not denied that this has brought economic benefits to many…

But it has also brought inequalities unseen for a century, demographic upheaval, and cultural disruption.

This isn’t a matter of economic calculation or GDP; people are far more than economic adding machines; people value much that cannot be quantified.  The question is one of liberty and fraternity – nation; people find value in the familiar, common, constant.  They find value – of a type not found on a balance sheet – in “nation.” 

Can liberty exist when fraternity – nation – is threatened or destroyed?

The author describes a France that is divided in two – not left and right, not even rich and poor, but in a manner very familiar to reasoned analysts regarding the recent US election: on the one hand, those who benefit from globalization as has been forced upon the west (to include the wealthy, immigrants, and various members of the “acceptables”); on the other, those who have been harmed by the same.

These urban areas are home to all the country’s educational and financial institutions, as well as almost all its corporations and the many well-paying jobs that go with them.

It’s a place for millionaires, immigrants, tourists, and the young, with no room for the median Frenchman.

The native and multi-generational Frenchman who is married, the father of two, and a high school graduate – he need not apply.  The one constituency offered no protection; the one constituency against whom it is legal to discriminate: the native patriarch of a traditional family.

Guilluy doubts that anyplace exists in France’s new economy for working people as we’ve traditionally understood them.

One need not agree with the feeling of such people; one merely could accept that they feel a certain way due to being put out. They are put out due to government action; they will demand government action in return.

Doesn’t sound like freedom.

They Have Learned Nothing and Forgotten Nothing

Obama has endorsed Macron in the French election:

“I'm not planning to get involved in many elections now that I don't have to run for office, but the French election is very important to the future of France and the values that we care so much about, because the success of France matters to the entire world", Obama said in the clip.

“He appeals to people’s hopes and not their fears,” he said. “And he is committed to a better future for the French people. He has stood up for liberal values. He put forward a vision for the important role that France plays in Europe and around the world.”

“I am supporting Emmanuel Macron to lead you forward.”

Let’s remember how well all of the “respectable” endorsements worked regarding Brexit and Trump.  With every “respectable” endorsement, the outsider gained a few more votes.

You go, Barack!  Can you get Hillary to speak up?

The Devil’s Pope

It’s been a while since I have commented on anything regarding the current pope.  That ends today!

Those Rotten Libertarians

The pope recently offered a critique, based on numerous strawmen, of libertarianism.  Several people have rightly offered a response.  The few that I have read have been respectful, attempting a rational and reasoned dialogue with the pope on this topic.

Well, this will not be of that type.  I will not bother with a point by point rebuttal; others have done that all too well.  My approach will be different – as you might have surmised, given the title of this post.

Libertarianism = The Non-aggression Principal

The pope condemns libertarianism; libertarianism has at its root the non-aggression principle.

So, what is the non-aggression principle?  From Ayn Rand, we read: “So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate — do you hear me? No man may start — the use of physical force against others.”

From Murray Rothbard: “The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.”

It is safe to say, this statement is about as Christian as it gets; it certainly belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of words for a Christian to live by.

The Pope’s Creed

Taken from an excerpt from George Neumayr’s book, The Political Pope: How Pope Francis Is Delighting the Liberal Left and Abandoning Conservatives.

The pope read many books given to him by his boss at Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory in Buenos Aires, where he worked.

The “boss” to whom Pope Francis referred is Esther Ballestrino de Careaga. He has described her as a “Paraguayan woman” and a “fervent communist.” He considers her one of his most important mentors. “I owe a huge amount to that great woman,” he has said, saying that she “taught me so much about politics.”

Learning about communism, he said, “through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized a few things, an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church.”

The social aspect of communism = the social doctrine of the Church.  Let that sink in.

The pope has stated:  “The Marxist ideology is wrong.”  Yet he frequently exhorts action through government and political leaders toward redistributive ends.  If this isn’t Marxism, it is a close cousin.  Call it democratic communism.  Yes, some will find that repetitive.

It is safe to say – especially considering its short time on earth – that communism has been the most destructive political philosophy that the world has ever known; the devil’s Mt. Rushmore is still waiting for three other nominees.

Judgement Day

Let’s test these two political theories – libertarianism and (democratic) communism – out against the Bible.  Let’s look at the relevant commandments of the well-known ten…well, before we get to the ten, consider how God introduces himself:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Communism = slavery = contrary to God’s work; the NAP = pretty much the opposite of slavery.

You shall not murder.

Communism = good for at least 100 million deaths in the one century it was tried; the NAP = pretty much the opposite of murder.

You shall not steal.

Communism = a political philosophy based in its entirety on theft – from each according to his ability, to each according to his need; the NAP = pretty much the opposite of stealing.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Communism = coveting everything of anyone who has something more than you have; the NAP = pretty much the opposite.

But That was Old Testament Stuff

Well…yeah.  But God is unchanging, and a sin remains a sin.  So can good come from breaking God’s commandments?  What does Paul say about this?

Romans 3: 5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

Nowhere did Jesus teach to initiate force or in any way use the Roman government to do good – to do evil in order to “bring out God’s righteousness more clearly….”  To do good is the work of the Church, the body of Christ.  It is a calling; it isn’t to be achieved at the end of a gun.

The pope should do his job and lead Catholic Christians toward this calling.  He should do it as Christ did it, without introducing the initiation of force.

Conclusion

No pope of Christ = the devil’s pope.

The Basket of Acceptables

I had two reasons to hold a rooting interest in Trump’s campaign to become president: first, virtually every position he took in the campaign was a poke in the eye of the establishment, neocon, culture-destroying elite.  Second, he said he would make nice with Russia.

On the first, the point was not what Trump would or wouldn’t do; the point was that people voted for what he offered.  It is impossible for one man in one election to turn the tide of over 100 years of progressive Marxist / Gramsci-ist philosophy; but with tens of millions of voters behind this, and if they have some staying power over time (along with the fact that the business model of those who control us is unsustainable), anything is possible.

On the second, I felt that if there was one area where the president could make a difference, it would be on foreign policy and on the edges of foreign policy.  Obama proved this: he negotiated a deal with Iran, he opened the door to Cuba, he did not go all-in in Syria, and he did not push Russia past the brink on Ukraine.  Whatever other nonsense he did do (Libya, further fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq), these others were clearly contrary to what many of the neocons would have chosen.

Of these two, the first remains a reality; the second, well, let’s say the burden of proof now falls entirely on Trump’s actions.

There was one aspect of his run – and certainly possible to witness only if / since he won the office – that I did not consider: his victory would almost daily give us the gift of witnessing riots, marches and protests – regular reminders offered by witnessing the basket of acceptables in action. 

Before considering the value of this, a review is in order.

Perhaps most important to understand, yet most difficult for many to internalize, are the lines drawn in the political order.  Trump’s election makes clear – as has no other previous presidential election in my lifetime – that there is no such thing as democrat vs. republican, left vs. right. 

All sixteen other republican candidates were initially unified on one item – and only one item: anyone but Trump.  Many prominent republicans and prominent (supposedly) conservative thinkers and think tanks went all-in for Clinton.  McCain and Graham were launching daily daggers and certainly would have convicted if impeachment articles ever came to the senate – well, until Trump deep-sixed Flynn and then lobbed a few in Syria.

Trump ran against virtually every sacred cow progressive / neocon principle and objective – and won.  Trump ran against the elite.  This was the dividing line that his run – and victory – fully exposed. 

And with this came the riots and protests – the basket of acceptables.

Here is a listing of the dozens of protests and riots against Trump – both before and after his inauguration.  An example of the mixed-bag of participants:

MoveOn.org, People for Bernie, the Muslim Students' Association, Assata's Daughters, the Black Student Union, Fearless Undocumented Alliance and Black Lives Matter were among the organizations who sponsored or promoted the protests at the March 11 Chicago Trump rally.

There have been women’s marches, airport protests, a day without immigrants, a day without women.  Most spectacular, perhaps, has been the events in Berkeley, California.

We can lump into one bucket the several Berkeley protests against Milo Yiannopoulos, various pro-Trump supporters, the Oath Keepers and (the reluctant) Ann Coulter.  Property damage and assault were captured on video – proudly displayed by the criminals, watched in disgust by many Trump supporters (and those of goodwill who were not supporters of Trump but will soon turn to support the next guy who speaks out even more forcefully against such destructive action).

The entire cornucopia was on display over the weekend; the “People’s Climate Movement” held their march in Washington DC.  It was this march and this movement that brought into sharp focus the reality that I did not see during the campaign or even after Trump’s victory; call it the gift that keeps on giving.

What is this “People’s Climate Movement”?

On Sept. 21, 2014 the Peoples Climate Movement organized the historic Peoples Climate March on the eve of the UN Climate Summit.

Fair enough.  Climate protests, mother earth, back to nature.  I get it.  Well, I mean I don’t get it, but I get it.

That march laid the foundation for the growth of the Peoples Climate Movement. The work of the PCM is grounded in a set of core principles:

Prioritize leadership of front-line communities, communities of color, low-income communities, workers and others impacted by climate, economic and racial inequity.

Economic and racial inequality causes climate change?  Can I see the science on that?

In any case, to say that the organization is after something more than climate change would be an understatement.  We can see this in the list of intended participants in their April 29 march in Washington DC. 

Let’s just say that the list of participants offers a window into the “science” behind climate change – it isn’t about the climate; it is about putting the final nail into the coffin of decentralized political power, traditional western culture, and market-driven economies:

Consider the intended participants, in marching order: