Posts in "Philosophy"

What It Means to Be Pro-Life (Part 3 of 3)

zachfoster — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:14:48 +0000

Continued from Part II: How the Right Justifies Killing

Part III: How the Liberty Movement Resolves the Deadly Contradiction

Enter the liberty movement—the libertarian school of thought which resolves the great and deadly contradiction between the left and the right. Libertarianism is classically liberal and traditionally conservative, upholding alike the rights of unborn babies whose existence is viewed as inconvenient and foreigners with a language and a faith unpopular in the West. Unlike most of the leftists and rightists in America, libertarians hold the view that all human life is sacred, regardless of whether the party in question is a fetus, a prisoner of war, an unrepentant White Russian counter-revolutionary, or a Muslim who holds Israel in low esteem.

While they do oppose abortion on most counts, they will typically concede the choice to a woman if the pregnancy threatens her life and there is little chance of her surviving childbirth.** There is no sense in both baby and mother dying. This, however, is far from a common circumstance. Most abortions performed in the United States are done so on young women who, either by their own choice or under coercion of their male partners or other influential figures, are refusing to take responsibility for their actions, that being sexual activity that resulted in the creation of a new human life.

"Sh*t People Say" Contest -- Liberty Themed!

Megan Duffield — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:29:57 +0000

There’s this meme floating around on YouTube. There’s these videos satirizing the ridiculous things people say, usually broken down by demographic. Sh*t white people say. Sh*t black people say. Sh*t rich people say. Sh*t hipsters say. Sh*t zombies say. Just a whole lot of shit. I found a lot of them pretty racist, or at least collectivist by design. I don’t usually go for that sort of humor, but then I found one that tickled my prejudices right where I like it:

Just brilliant! Best of all, completely true. Will Potter, who created the video, says it’s all based on statements the FBI has actually made in court, in the press, or to activists themselves. Being married to a civil rights attorney, I’ve heard most of these before. Green Is The New Red looks mostly liberal, but they’ve chosen a rallying cry everyone can get behind: Activism is not Terrorism. Americans allegedly have the Constitutional right to political activism, but activists on both sides of the aisle (or no aisle at all) are being targeted by the programs created to surveil terrorists.

Click here to participate in the contest!

What It Means to Be Pro-Life (Part 2)

zachfoster — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:26:27 +0000

Continued from Part I: How the Left Justifies Killing

Part II: How the Right Justifies Killing

Rightists love to award themselves the moral high ground for opposing abortion while simultaneously supporting wars of aggression with high civilian casualties. Indeed, on the economic front, conservatives who ironically subscribe to Keynesian economic theory are convinced that America’s entry into World War II is what restored economic prosperity -- that war is a good cure for economic depression. What a pro-life sentiment: War is good for the economy! Who cares about the loss of innocent life war always entails -- any time the country falls into economic recession, all Americans need to do is go to war and all will be well! </sarcasm>

Currently many Republicans are incredibly nervous about Iran developing nuclear weapons. Many of these unrepentant warhawks are crying out for the U.S. to “stop Iran from getting the bomb!” Yet they fail to think through what this means in practice.

How does one country stop a hostile country from doing something? Should the United States throw sanctions on Iran? That has already been done! Should the U.S. throw more sanctions at the rogue republic? Such an effort would be useless! Sanctions are a waste of time and also an agent of death when used against third world dictatorships. After all, cutting off food, trade, and other needed commodities will not change the plans of the Ahmadinejad regime; the regime is not representative of the Iranian people and no matter what, both Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah will still eat gourmet meals while the poorest of the poor in Iran will die of starvation from the sanctions.

A New Generation

KTSontag — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:26:24 +0000

When I converse with my peers about current events, I tend to get one of two responses: that of ignorance, or that of despair. The ignorant aren't the ones that I would like to reach in this article; they still have a lot to learn and a lot of waking up to do. Instead, I want to reach those who no longer have hope -- those who see the police state forming and feel that if their candidate of choice doesn't win the presidency, well then, there is no more use trying. I have news for you, friends: You have a lot more power than you realize.

Each upcoming generation has a great, underrated power over older generations: inevitability. There is no way to get around it; we will be the leaders of the world, and as such, we are the ones responsible for the world we live in. We cannot be like the political leaders we despise and blame it on generations passed.

We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country. -- Thomas Jefferson

Have we already forgotten the lessons of the 60's, or did we simply learn the wrong ones? I contend it's the latter, another failure of our abysmal education system. But I digress. The real lesson to be learned is that the people have the power, especially the youth. The youth overwhelmingly participated in the civil rights protests -- the sit-ins, the marches, and the boycotts. In fact, Martin Luther King, Jr. himself was born in 1929, making him a relatively youthful leader.

What It Means to Be Pro-Life (Part 1)

zachfoster — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:17:06 +0000

Many Americans with some political consciousness tend to group themselves in one or two political categories: the left and the right, the former are usually associated with the Democrat Party and the latter with the Republican Party. Whenever people assign themselves to one of these two positions, they usually subscribe to the majority of that position’s pre-set policies and beliefs.

Both the left and the right have their own views on the sanctity of life, yet their contradictory views -- the left being against war and the death penalty but all for the choice of abortion and the right being against abortion but for the death penalty and war -- become a paradox. Wherever they stand on the issue of life, both the left and the right are in full favor of death to some extent, and any stance they take on preserving life -- whether in the fetal stage or in the electric chair -- is based on fallacious logic and dishonest euphemisms. Both sides are willing to kill in order to bring about their ideal conditions in society.

Part I: How the Left Justifies Killing

Leftists love to attack war but most of them are hypocrites for doing so, since they also often favor war but simply for different reasons than the right. Socialists favor labor violence and outright civil wars which they refer to as “wars of liberation.” If they subscribe to Lenin’s teachings, violence and outright terror in the name of proletarian revolution are justified (see The Black Book of Communism, Chapter 4: The Red Terror). More moderate leftists, from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama, campaign on peace but instead lead the country into wars for various political and economic purposes. With Wilson it was the First World War and with Obama it was continuation of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as intervention in the Libyan Civil War as well as those in Somalia, South Sudan, and Central Africa. Both social democrats enjoyed wide support from their allegedly pacific Democrat Party.

The 7 Best Libertarian Songs You've Never Heard of

aducknamedjoe — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:56:49 +0000

Sick of hearing Green Day bash capitalism and U2 calling for more and more government intervention? Need some music that doesn't unthinkingly accept the default leftist, collectivist worldview?

Look no further!

Below are the top 7 best pro-liberty, pro-economic freedom songs that you've (probably) never heard of (no Lee Greenwood or Rush here!) in no particular order. Feast your ear holes:

1. “Sons of Liberty” by Frank Turner

Remember when I said this list was in “no particular order?” (Yes I did, right up there, like, three lines ago). Well, I lied. This first one is easily my favorite song of the bunch. That's why it's first.

Frank Turner, a former anarchist who now describes himself as a “classical liberal/libertarian,” combines an excellent folk/punk guitar sound with defiant lyrics informed by a very British sense of liberty.

To wit:

But a sorry cloud of tyranny has fallen across the land/
Brought on by hollow men, who did not understand/
That for centuries our forefathers have fought and often died/
To keep themselves unto themselves, to fight the rising tide/
That if in the smallest battles we surrender to the State/
We enter in a darkness whence we never shall escape./

Where did you get your shoes?

mvwindsor — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:01:59 +0000

It's a common question I used to ask Occupy activists while being present at some of their rallies during the peak of the movement in autumn 2011.

Caught off guard by a perfectly normal question, the anti-corporate activist would inevitably drop his head down towards the ground in guilty contemplation of whatever shoes he was wearing during the protest, with his "corporations are evil" sign suddenly beginning to waver uncertainly in his hand. As if contemplating the issue for the first time, his mind races for a quick response to a disarmingly simple question. He flounders around awkwardly for a few minutes, thinking out loud with an "um, well... ah" mumble, fidgeting nervously with the wounded and confused look setting deeper and deeper into his well-meaning yet misguided face.

If there's any one question I've found that silences an Occupier who decries the evils of corporate greed which puts profit before people, it's "So where did you get your (fill in the blank) from?"

The Unintended Consequences of Government Policy

maske1ka — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:11:11 +0000

The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people -- and especially of government -- always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.

Consider the following short list of legislation and packages of bills:

Federal Reserve Act of 1913
The New Deal
The Great Society
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Dodd-Frank Act
Department of Education Organization Act
Reorganization Plan Number 3 (Environmental Protection
Agency)
Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Food and Drug Administration)

It seems that most people take these pieces of legislation at face value and defend them based on what they were taught in school or what they see and hear on television. Popular opinion is quick to point out the sincere intentions of these pieces of legislation and the importance they play in our lives. Popular opinion is also as quick to shy away from talking about the reality of these pieces of legislation in what is commonly referred to as the unintended consequences.

America, past and present

cityoflight — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:59:20 +0000

It’s easy to pick out the most unsavory aspects of our history and claim that if not for the benevolent efforts of the state, we would still be mired in our own version of the Dark Ages. This strategy, however, conveniently ignores the fact that there is much more to American history than slavery, corruption, and sixteen-hour workdays.

The next time you hear someone fuming about conservatives and libertarians who “want to set us back 100 years,” consider whether it would be so horrible to live in a United States where – for example – there was no federal income tax, wars had to be explicitly declared by Congress, and the government could not just print up and lend out as much money as it desired.

Or for a different perspective, consider whether Americans 100 years ago would want to live in a country where:

The government can secretly assassinate American citizens.
The national debt exceeds the gross national product.
A handful of undeclared wars are ongoing at any time.
Federal agents can search their mail and tap their phones without a warrant.

In other words, the United States we live in today. Which America sounds better now?

Such a snapshot is obviously an incomplete portrait of life as we know it, and it would be unfair to condemn the 2012 United States on the basis of a few (substantial) shortcomings while ignoring its many accomplishments. It is likewise incorrect to judge the United States of years past based only on its faults.

The Supremacy of Logos

BrianMUGA — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:47:42 +0000

It's tempting when debating those with statist ideologies to just throw your hands in the air and shout, "Well how would you feel if someone wanted to tell you how to live your life?" It's tempting, but dangerous.

Why? Because emotions are not logical, i.e., they are not argumentative primaries. When responding that way, you play into the hands of the statists and allow them to respond with things like, "I don't mind -- we live in a democracy. Majority rules," or, "It doesn't bother me. The government can use my money to give to others and I'm completely fine with it."

A Reason to Be Optimistic

BenLevine16 — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:36:20 +0000

A Reason/Rupe Poll (yes, that is why I choose the title for this article -- pun intended) last September showed some very encouraging data about our generation (18-29 year-olds). The highlights:

About 86% favor a "spending cap that prevents it from spending more than it takes in during a given year"
Roughly 74% favor a "constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget"
38% favor a decrease in spending with no tax increases as the "best way to reduce the national debt," which is the larger than any group supporting tax increases
These young people "overwhelmingly support allowing workers to opt out of Social Security and Medicare at 64 percent and 65 percent, respectively"
38% do not believe they will receive any Social Security benefits when they retire and 44% believe the same is true for Medicare benefits, which "may in part explain their openness to reforming the programs"
62% are open to supporting an independent or third party candidate in 2012

Constitutional Intent Perverted

DMorris — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:55:29 +0000

In 1823 John Taylor wrote a book titled “New Views of the Constitution of the United States.” A strange title for a book written so close to the ratification of the US Constitution, I had originally thought -- however, after reading the book the title is very appropriate and it should be mandatory reading for anyone with a desire to learn the true nature of our government. The secret journals of the Constitutional Convention were not published until 1821 and it was these journals that spurred John Taylor into writing this book:

Had the journal of the convention which framed the constitution of the United States, though obscure and incomplete, been published immediately after its ratification, it would have furnished lights towards a true construction, sufficiently clear to have prevented several trespasses upon its principles, and tendencies towards its subversion. Perhaps it may not be yet too late to lay before the publick the important evidence it furnishes.

It was the opinion of John Taylor that the same men who promoted and argued for a consolidated national government during the convention were the same men who, after the ratification, were attempting to interpret and “construct” meanings from the document that were never intended.

The Robinson Crusoe Fallacy

BrianMUGA — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:36:04 +0000

I'm sure you've all heard it -- the idea that man automatically gives up his rights by choosing to live with other men. That if we really wanted to be "left alone," we should go "live on a desert island by ourselves."

Though most of us are tempted to simply shrug our shoulders and say, "You can't fix stupid," that certainly doesn't mean that it can't be critiqued. This entire argument is unsound, as is the "social contract theory" from which it is derived.

In this essay, I examine this fallacy as offered to me by one of my former professors and reject, in entirety, the idea of the social contract theory:

As they are, man’s rights are not the product of societal invention. Instead, they are the product of reality – moral absolutes based on each man’s own life as his ultimate value and on the protection of those things which are universally necessary for all men if they are to pursue that value. Man does not get his rights from being in a society. Man gets his rights by being man. It is true that man would have absolute liberty if he lived alone a desert island – no one would be there to violate that liberty – but he is at no greater degree of individual liberty on a desert island than he would be (or morally should be) in a society. Does man become less of a man when he moves from a desert island into a society? No, and so too does the liberty to which he is entitled not diminish.

Non-intervention: Liberal or conservative?

cityoflight — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:01:22 +0000

Is opposition to war and support for a non-interventionist foreign policy a liberal position, or a conservative one?

Look at the historical record and the answer is clear.

The majority of the major conflicts -- both declared and undeclared wars -- of the 20th century have been started by Democratic presidents. Indeed, President Obama has continued that tradition quite effectively, with undeclared military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Libya during his first term. Granted, he did not originate all of these engagements, but to imply that Obama has been a dovish president is odd, to say the least.

And some remarks from historical conservative figures:

I do not believe any policy which has behind it the threat of military force is justified as part of the basic foreign policy of the United States except to defend the liberty of our own people. – Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican”

A Conservative's Perspective on Why the GOP Is Unpopular

BenLevine16 — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:09:09 +0000

Before I interpret anything, consider the following:

In January of 2010, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that an overwhelming 58% of respondents prefer "smaller government" whereas only 38% favor "larger government and more services."
In September of 2011, a Washington Post/Pew Reasearch poll found that 65% of respondents think that cutting the budget to "reduce the federal deficit" would help either a lot or a little to create jobs, 70% favor cutting taxes on businesses for the same purpose, and finally 60% support cutting personal income taxes to stimulate job growth (only 35% think it would not help at all).
In April of 2011, another Washington Post/Pew Research poll found that 81% of respondents believe that our federal budget deficit is a "major problem to address now" but only 31% of respondents believe that in 5 years we will have "made significant progress" in diminishing our deficit.
In one of the latest Reason-Rupe polls, it was found that 88% of Americans have a favorable impression of their local grocery store while only 33% have a favorable impression of the federal government. This can be attributed to many things but explicitly shows Americans' disgust with our growing government.
In December of 2011, another Reason-Rupe poll found that 44% of respondents said that they were definitely not going to vote for President Obama in 2012 (only 29% said they were definitely going to vote for him).

So, what do these numbers mean? First, quite obviously, Americans still do not favor big government. Although the classic "I don't want bigger government but don't cut the programs that I like" sentiment will always be present, polls consistently show that Americans fear bigger government the most.