United Liberty

Recently, Jason posted about Paul Ryan and Objectivism.  It’s a good post, and you should go read it.  I wanted to take a moment and comment myself.

First, understand that I have read Atlas Shrugged four times so far and understand Objectivism in a lot of ways.  I am also a libertarian, something that Rand was not particularly fond of.  Libertarians look at Rand as an intellectual parent of our movement, though Objectivists will not be thrilled with this description one bit.

Jason points out how many people who agree with much of what Rand wrote reject Objectivism for one reason above many others. Atheism.

I am, unlike many libertarians, a man of faith.  I wasn’t always a Christian, though I always believed that there was some kind of higher power.  Objectivism, a philosophy I agree with in many ways, would never fully be my own because of that one point.  From my time with Objectivists, there was no room for the idea of faith, even if you understood that it wasn’t a rational decision based on empirical data.

So what does this have to do with Jason’s post about Paul Ryan? Simple.  I have been heavily influenced by Rand.  Atlas Shrugged changed my life in ways that I never thought it would.  While I leaned libertarian beforehand, it pushed me over the edge and made me more of an activist for libertarian values.

Just as easily, it can push someone to embrace free markets and similar ideas while that person also clings to their faith like Paul Ryan.  It’s not a “gotcha” moment as Jason believes the press sees it.  Instead, it’s a lack of understanding that many people take parts of Atlas Shrugged and throw out other parts of John Galt’s famous speech.

After all, I did.  So why couldn’t Paul Ryan?

I was sitting at home Saturday night and Stossel was on Fox Business Channel.  I watched.  What a shock!  A libertarian watched Stossel!

However, I witnessed something I never would have thought I would see, and that was honesty from a pro-regulation lobbyist.

The segment in question was about a proposal which would require taxis in Washington D.C. to have a medallion system like New York.  For the record, per Stossel’s segment, a NYC medallion costs around $1 million per pop. A lobbyist in favor of medallions in D.C. said on Stossel’s show that it was in fact about squeezing out the little guy.

Many of us who are anti-regulation cite how more regulations make it more difficult for the small operator to function.  As a small business owner myself, I can tell you that more and more government regulations only make life more difficult.  I am currently seeking two full time employees, but only because of a profound need.  I would seek out four or five employees if it weren’t for the spectre of ObamaCare - to say nothing of other regulations out there - that could make my life even more difficult and thereby override the benefit of more employees.

The lobbyist’s candor, that the measure he proposed and that a D.C. councilman actually introduced was really about squeezing out the small businessman was unique.  However, it’s not really a shock for many of the pro-liberty movement.  It was a shock for me though.

While I will often cite the problems of regulations and how they impact the small businessman, I never really thought there was as much of a concerted effort to break the small businessman as there apparently is.  Oh sure, I figured Walmart supported an employer mandate because it would hurt Target, but I didn’t really think they gave a damn about the mom and pop store.

Now, I have to step back and rethink that.

This isn’t new ground for libertarian blogs, but apparently there is still a large disconnect between reality and perception.  I don’t happen to have any illusions about this post actually changing that either, but I figured I needed to do something that didn’t involve a bell tower in an effort to curb the insanity.

Ron Paul, and most who describe themselves as libertarian, are non-interventionist.  The perception by many is that we are isolationist.  We are not, and there are very key differences.

First, isolationists are also the kind of people who want to block importation of goods.  Most libertarians oppose efforts to limit imports.  We believe in a free market, and part of that means we must compete with goods from outside of our shores.  The truth is, Japanese cars made American cars better.  Ford, GM, and Chrysler had to compete with the high quality and low cost, and American manufacturers produced better cars than they had in years.  This is a good thing, and an example of why libertarians want goods imported.

Next, let’s look at the dreaded “outsourcing” of American jobs.  Now, I hate calling up a tech support line and hearing a thick foreign accent saying, “Thank you for calling technical support.  My name is ‘Bob’.  How may I help you?”  We all know his name probably isn’t Bob, but they somehow think they’re fooling us or something.  So be it.  However, American companies get better rates from call centers located outside of the United States, which lets them grow in other areas.  That growth can lead to new jobs that pay better than the outsourced jobs that are now gone.

Earlier this week, there was a relatively obscure case that the Supreme Court handed down a ruling on.  The case was Rehberg v. Paulk.

Here’s the synopsis on what happened.  Charles Rehberg, working with other folks, began to send out anonymous faxes all over Albany, Georgia.  These faxes were critical of the business practices of Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital.  The faxes went to a number of people, including hospital management.

The management contacted Dougherty County District Attorney Ken Hodges for his assistance.  Hodges, working with his chief investigator James Paulk, allegedly fabricated subpoenas for Rehbergs phone and internet records.

What began is a series of unusual circumstances that culminated in multiple indictments for Rehberg.  The crimes ranged from harassment (reportedly because of the faxes), to breaking and entering a home where there was no evidence a crime had even happened.  Paulk, apparently by his own admission, lied to the Grand Jury to get the indictments.

Rehberg sued both Paulk and Hodges.  The case against Hodges was thrown out due to something called absolute immunity.  The case against Paulk went to the Court because there was questions about whether he would enjoy something similarly.

The ruling this week was that he does.

So what does this mean?  Well, for starters, this means that law enforcement apparently doesn’t have to be held responsible for their actions.  Paulk lied to the Grand Jury, got the indictment, and will suffer no ramifications for anything he did.  Neither will Ken Hodges (who thankfully lost his race to be Attorney General of Georgia).

Like many libertarians, I’m a huge fan of science fiction.  In particular, I love reading about dystopian futures.  I don’t know why, I just always have.

I’magine a story where the President of the United States can not be criticized to his face.  You are no longer allowed to voice your opinions within earshot of the president because the Secret Service can designate any area as being off limits for your First Amendment rights.  Let’s say the main character of the story does it anyways, in an act of civil disobedience, along with many of his friends.  They tell the sitting president that if he doesn’t start doing right, they will spend every waking minute to get him booted out of office.

The group is arrested for a felony because they violated the Secret Service’s orders, but because they used “intimidation” in the process, they’re called terrorists and packed off without due process and held indefinitely.

At the turn of the century, this would have sounded so far fetched that no one would have believed the story, and it would have failed. Good stories have to be believable after all, so a story on this kind of premise would be called “unsellable”.

Today, we call it “current events”.

Libertarianism is becoming more and more popular.  Ron Paul’s relative success compared to four years ago is evidence that folks are starting to get turned onto the idea of liberty not being a dirty word.  However, as evidenced by Paul’s inability to win a single state thus far, there’s still a long, long way to go.

A couple of days ago, Jeremy Kolassa wrote a piece about some of the problems found in libertarian circles.  Honestly, he’s dead on correct on pretty much everything he said.  There’s more coming, and I’m not about to steal his thunder.  Frankly, I’m looking forward to the rest of the series.

No, instead I want to talk about something related, but slightly different and that is actually winning elections.

Libertarians don’t really win them. Oh sure, they score victories in local government - which admittedly does have a significant impact on people’s lives - but not at the higher levels.  There aren’t really any in Congress besides Paul and his son Rand (who only leans libertarian on some issues…not so much on others).  If we are going to have a prayer of accomplishing much of anything, we have got to figure out how to win elections.

Part of the problem with libertarianism is really just difficulty in communicating the essence of what we are talking about.  For some, they have boiled it down to property rights, the idea that “you own you.”  Of course, that’s very accurate.  However, many people just don’t grasp that concept.  For some reason, “property rights” makes them think of the Monopoly guy with his feet on his desk, looking at his financial empire…including all the property he owns.

Instead, I’m going to break it down into one word: choice.

Freedom ultimately boils down into the ability to make a choice.  If you ban guns, you no longer have a choice whether you own one or not.  If you ban certain kinds of speech, you no longer have the choice to say certain things.

Now, this assumes a law-abiding nature.  There will always be those who will do whatever regardless of legalities, but it’s not about them.  It’s about the law-abiding who are impacted by things like laws.

When governments pass laws, they are generally seeking to limit someone’s choices.  That’s just the simple nature of government.  Some choices should be removed, like you being able to choose to punch someone for no reason, since that choice impacts someone else’s choice to not be punched.  Other choices, not so much.

When the United States entered prohibition, the idea was to eliminate the choice for adults to consume alcohol.  Drug laws took away people’s ability to choose to use drugs, an act that in and of itself impacts no one else’s choices.  Laws banning prostitution limit individuals’ choice to sell sex for money.

However, choice has one significant advantage.  People like choice.  Just look at the variety of products available that, at least to many, have little appreciable difference.  People like the choice of being able to select product A over product B.  So how does that help in politics?

Rick Santorum’s supporters seem to enjoy telling libertarians that we need to support Santorum should he become the GOP nominee.  I’m not exactly sure he’ll beat Romney, but that’s not exactly germane to the point.  The reason his supporters claim we should back Santorum is that if we don’t, Obama will win the White House again.

If it comes down to Obama or Santorum, I’m not sure that Santorum is the lesser of the two evils.

First, let’s look at his record.  It’s all over the internet and been pretty well documented here (Just one of several examples) at United Liberty, so I’m not going to rehash it.  Even the subject of this post isn’t all that different than some of the others on this site.

Instead, I’ll simply point it out, and then say, “see?”

Santorum isn’t a small government conservative.  He’s just not.  Anyone trying to say otherwise has either deluded themselves, or allowed Santorum to do that for them.  It’s a shame too, because they’re not necessarily stupid people…but they’ve been taken in by the guy.  How can I say that?  See his record for Pete’s sake!

This is a man who has sworn to battle the “libertarian influence” in the Republican party.  You know, that influence that still believes this is the land of the free and should be governed as such?  If he opposes libertarianism so badly, I’m left to question why?  Obama opposes libertarianism to an extent because he believes in the state’s authority to make people take care of one another through welfare programs.  Santorum, on the other hand thinks that the pursuit of happiness is somehow a bad thing.  He honestly seems to believe that government exists to force morality down people’s throats.