A basic tenet of Libertarianism is that “The Individual is Sovereign”.
People are not bees in a hive or ants on a hill – interchangeable, insignificant beings whose purpose is to blindly serve, even die for, the colony. Our value is in being individuals, not mere pieces of the whole. You are important because you are a separate, individual human being, not because you are part of 300 million Americans.
By necessity, we individuals – we citizens – form governments to handle those tasks we cannot reasonably handle on our own or in voluntary cooperation with others. What and how numerous those tasks should be is a matter of separate debate, but the point is that with humans, the colony – the nation, society and its leaders – should exist to serve the citizens and not the other way around.
And so, for war to be valid, it must stem from a direct physical threat to the citizenry, and not because of a leader’s whim or a supposed affront to “the nation’s honor”. There must be an identifiable enemy threatening those citizens, and not a nebulous boogey-man like “international terrorism”. There must be an effective, rational plan in place to neutralize that enemy along with a pre-determined definition of victory, not an open-ended mission which can be continually modified to prolong and expand the conflict.
If these parameters are not solidly identified, a nation should never ask its soldiers – valuable, individual human beings all – to go in harm’s way. They are not ants to be sacrificed for the supposed good of the colony; they are honorable men and women who have volunteered to defend their families, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens. They are in uniform to protect our people and our borders, not to occupy foreign lands like Iraq and Afghanistan based on misinformation and outright lies from the political überclass.
Honoring these soldiers’ service and bravery by bringing them home alive and well will be my Job #1 in Congress.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Edmond Sun Takes the 5th
The Edmond Sun Editorial Board took a look at the 5th District Congressional race and in an editorial in the Edmond Sun on Saturday, July 24, 2010, it made no endorsement. Why? Read on.
After commenting that the voters will have a tough choice to make in the primaries, the paper stated that “The good news is that the majority of the candidates trying to nab Rep. Mary Fallin’s seat are truly high-caliber candidates.”
Neither Democrat received a nod or even a mention by name, so I guess they aren’t in that majority of “high-caliber candidates”.
That leaves 9 candidates, but as Independents, Dave White and I aren’t in the primaries, so we’re off the list – for now, anyway.
That leaves the 7 Republicans, a majority of whom would be 4 or more. And the Board did mention 4 names: Calvey, Jett, Lankford and Thompson. But even though the Board was sure that any 1 of these 4 would provide “good representation in Congress”, the editorial also stated that after questioning these men in 8 areas and looking at their agendas, none of them earned “nods of confidence” in a “majority of those areas.”
In other words, by the Board’s own admission and using its own ranking system, neither Calvey, Jett, Lankford nor Thompson scored over 50% approval rating.
No wonder the Editorial Board didn’t end up pick anyone to endorse: These “high-caliber candidates” are all received F’s!
After commenting that the voters will have a tough choice to make in the primaries, the paper stated that “The good news is that the majority of the candidates trying to nab Rep. Mary Fallin’s seat are truly high-caliber candidates.”
Neither Democrat received a nod or even a mention by name, so I guess they aren’t in that majority of “high-caliber candidates”.
That leaves 9 candidates, but as Independents, Dave White and I aren’t in the primaries, so we’re off the list – for now, anyway.
That leaves the 7 Republicans, a majority of whom would be 4 or more. And the Board did mention 4 names: Calvey, Jett, Lankford and Thompson. But even though the Board was sure that any 1 of these 4 would provide “good representation in Congress”, the editorial also stated that after questioning these men in 8 areas and looking at their agendas, none of them earned “nods of confidence” in a “majority of those areas.”
In other words, by the Board’s own admission and using its own ranking system, neither Calvey, Jett, Lankford nor Thompson scored over 50% approval rating.
No wonder the Editorial Board didn’t end up pick anyone to endorse: These “high-caliber candidates” are all received F’s!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Vilshack, Sharrod, Honor
In 1963, John Profumo, Britain’s Secretary of State for War, was caught having an affair with Christine Keeler, who was also the supposed mistress of a Russian spy. Mr. Profumo lied about it in the House of Commons, but was soon shown to be guilty. In contrition, he resigned his position and spent the rest of his life doing good works, starting by cleaning toilets at Toynbee House, a London charity.
The point – which isn’t original to me – is that Mr. Profumo understood “honor”, and how to atone for his sins. He truly felt remorse for his actions and, even though no real damage was done except to his own reputation, in order to redeem himself in the eyes of man and God he worked diligently at helping others. For the final 43 years of his life.
Today, politicians and government officials and make the most egregious errors and tell the most outrageous lies, yet expect to be fully forgiven after a tepid, “sorry”. If they even do that.
Just the latest example is Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilshack. He hastily fired Shirley Sharrod based on an internet video of her supposedly racist remarks, then within 24 hours had to apologize for dragging her reputation through a muddy rut. And yet, despite the flagrancy and offensiveness of his actions, nothing will really change in Vilshack’s life. He won’t resign; he won’t be punished; his career will remain intact. After all, he said he was sorry, and isn’t that enough?
I’d send him a toilet brush, but I doubt he’d have a clue.
The point – which isn’t original to me – is that Mr. Profumo understood “honor”, and how to atone for his sins. He truly felt remorse for his actions and, even though no real damage was done except to his own reputation, in order to redeem himself in the eyes of man and God he worked diligently at helping others. For the final 43 years of his life.
Today, politicians and government officials and make the most egregious errors and tell the most outrageous lies, yet expect to be fully forgiven after a tepid, “sorry”. If they even do that.
Just the latest example is Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilshack. He hastily fired Shirley Sharrod based on an internet video of her supposedly racist remarks, then within 24 hours had to apologize for dragging her reputation through a muddy rut. And yet, despite the flagrancy and offensiveness of his actions, nothing will really change in Vilshack’s life. He won’t resign; he won’t be punished; his career will remain intact. After all, he said he was sorry, and isn’t that enough?
I’d send him a toilet brush, but I doubt he’d have a clue.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Illegal Immigration
What to do about illegal immigration?
Secure the borders, of course, but then what? What do we do with the 12 to 15 million illegals – Hispanics, yes, but also Europeans, Africans, Asians and even Canadians – already in the country. (And no, they won’t just go back home on their own if we cut off their employment. Being in the U.S. without jobs is still a lot better than being back there without jobs.)
Despite the bare-knuckle conservative bravura of some 5th District candidates, the fact is that we cannot feasibly deport all these people. Not without becoming a police state.
How else could we possibly round up and hold them en masse except by using the military, and by violating civil rights of innocent Americans – immigrants and otherwise – left and right? Once we have them herded into containment camps, what then? Send them back in cattle cars? In the holds of cargo ships? Or just march them along at bayonet point?
And what makes us think their countries of origin would even take them back? Mightn’t they end up like the women, children and elderly of ancient Alesia, who were thrown out of their own fortified city by the Gallic leader Vercingetorix, then refused escape through Caesar’s siege walls and left to hopelessly wander and starve in the no-man’s land between two powers?
Amnesty for current illegal aliens is necessary; decades of the problem being ignored by Republican and Democratic legislatures and administrations have made it so. Call it a necessary evil if it makes you feel better, but it is necessary.
Certainly, let them start their path towards citizenship at the back of the pack, from the day they first register as legal resident aliens and not when they first got here. Or, if they prefer, allow them guest worker status with the ability to leave and return as they wish. These are procedural details which can be worked out.
But the idea that we can deport 5% of our population without irreparably damaging our nation and our Constitution is ludicrous.
Secure the borders, of course, but then what? What do we do with the 12 to 15 million illegals – Hispanics, yes, but also Europeans, Africans, Asians and even Canadians – already in the country. (And no, they won’t just go back home on their own if we cut off their employment. Being in the U.S. without jobs is still a lot better than being back there without jobs.)
Despite the bare-knuckle conservative bravura of some 5th District candidates, the fact is that we cannot feasibly deport all these people. Not without becoming a police state.
How else could we possibly round up and hold them en masse except by using the military, and by violating civil rights of innocent Americans – immigrants and otherwise – left and right? Once we have them herded into containment camps, what then? Send them back in cattle cars? In the holds of cargo ships? Or just march them along at bayonet point?
And what makes us think their countries of origin would even take them back? Mightn’t they end up like the women, children and elderly of ancient Alesia, who were thrown out of their own fortified city by the Gallic leader Vercingetorix, then refused escape through Caesar’s siege walls and left to hopelessly wander and starve in the no-man’s land between two powers?
Amnesty for current illegal aliens is necessary; decades of the problem being ignored by Republican and Democratic legislatures and administrations have made it so. Call it a necessary evil if it makes you feel better, but it is necessary.
Certainly, let them start their path towards citizenship at the back of the pack, from the day they first register as legal resident aliens and not when they first got here. Or, if they prefer, allow them guest worker status with the ability to leave and return as they wish. These are procedural details which can be worked out.
But the idea that we can deport 5% of our population without irreparably damaging our nation and our Constitution is ludicrous.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Don't Trust; Always Verify
“Trust, but verify” is a phrase with no meaning. President Reagan used it a lot, mostly referring to dealings with the Soviets. It was a sound-bite, nothing more.
The fact is, if you trust, you don’t have to verify. That’s what trust means. I trust my wife, so I don’t have to call to see if she is where she says she’ll be. I don’t really even have ask her where she’s going because I trust her. I’d just like to know about when she plans to be back so I’ll know when to start worrying.
When it comes to the government, however, the word "trust” should never enter into it. Always, always, always, always verify. Demand hard facts to back up whatever you’re told by the government.
Whether it’s the president, a congressman, a general, a police officer, an IRS agent or a tour guide – never take their word for it. They lie. They lie because they know that 99% of people will take their word for whatever they say. And that if they get caught in a lie, they know that most of the time nobody will do anything about it.
Weapons of mass destruction, intern sex, no new taxes, “we’re not torturing anybody”, “I didn’t taser that guy who was already in handcuffs on the ground”; if comes out of the mouth of a government representative, verify.
And that goes double for political candidates.
The fact is, if you trust, you don’t have to verify. That’s what trust means. I trust my wife, so I don’t have to call to see if she is where she says she’ll be. I don’t really even have ask her where she’s going because I trust her. I’d just like to know about when she plans to be back so I’ll know when to start worrying.
When it comes to the government, however, the word "trust” should never enter into it. Always, always, always, always verify. Demand hard facts to back up whatever you’re told by the government.
Whether it’s the president, a congressman, a general, a police officer, an IRS agent or a tour guide – never take their word for it. They lie. They lie because they know that 99% of people will take their word for whatever they say. And that if they get caught in a lie, they know that most of the time nobody will do anything about it.
Weapons of mass destruction, intern sex, no new taxes, “we’re not torturing anybody”, “I didn’t taser that guy who was already in handcuffs on the ground”; if comes out of the mouth of a government representative, verify.
And that goes double for political candidates.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Political Spectrum in 1 Lesson
Let’s straighten out some terms. Libertarians do not have some conservative views and some liberal views. It’s the other way around.
To explain:
The political spectrum is not left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican. The political spectrum runs from complete government control on one end to total individual freedom on the other. So it’s: Control……….Freedom.
On the far Control end are the hard-core totalitarians. The really nasty guys who would cut out your tongue if you criticize the government at all. A bit in from there are the fascists, socialists and communists, who might allow you some freedoms just because it’s too hard to control everything.
On the far Freedom end are the radical anarchists who don’t want any government and believe in a dog-eat-dog world where you can do anything you can get away with. A nudge towards the middle from there are the Libertarians, who do believe in the need for some order in society, but basically think you should be able to do what you want as long as you aren’t hurting anyone against their will.
Mixed around in the middle are the liberals and conservatives who can’t figure out quite which freedoms should be okay and which things should be controlled, so they kind of bounce back and forth without a really rational, coherent, cohesive philosophy. Basically, personal opinion of what should and shouldn’t be allowed holds sway with both groups.
Therefore, it’s not that Libertarians have some liberal and some conservative views; it’s that liberals and conservatives have some Libertarian and some Totalitarian views.
I hope we won’t have any more confusion on the matter.
To explain:
The political spectrum is not left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican. The political spectrum runs from complete government control on one end to total individual freedom on the other. So it’s: Control……….Freedom.
On the far Control end are the hard-core totalitarians. The really nasty guys who would cut out your tongue if you criticize the government at all. A bit in from there are the fascists, socialists and communists, who might allow you some freedoms just because it’s too hard to control everything.
On the far Freedom end are the radical anarchists who don’t want any government and believe in a dog-eat-dog world where you can do anything you can get away with. A nudge towards the middle from there are the Libertarians, who do believe in the need for some order in society, but basically think you should be able to do what you want as long as you aren’t hurting anyone against their will.
Mixed around in the middle are the liberals and conservatives who can’t figure out quite which freedoms should be okay and which things should be controlled, so they kind of bounce back and forth without a really rational, coherent, cohesive philosophy. Basically, personal opinion of what should and shouldn’t be allowed holds sway with both groups.
Therefore, it’s not that Libertarians have some liberal and some conservative views; it’s that liberals and conservatives have some Libertarian and some Totalitarian views.
I hope we won’t have any more confusion on the matter.
Endorsements
A quick list of candidates I support.
U.S. Representative, District 1: Angelia O’Dell, Independent, Tulsa.
U.S. Representative, District 5: Me.
Lieutenant Governor: Richard Prawdzienski, Independent, Edmond.
Oklahoma House, District 44: Robert T. Murphy, Democrat, Norman.
Oklahoma House, District 61: Stephen Skacall, Independent, Goodwell.
Oklahoma House, District 88: Dominique DaMon Block, Sr., Oklahoma City.
Friday, July 9, 2010
I, the Apostle
Michael McNutt starts his Daily Oklahoman article on yesterday’s candidate forum at OCU in Edmond like this:
“The setting for Thursday’s forum for the 5th Congressional District candidates resembled a painting of the Last Supper after Judas Iscariot split.
“Twelve men – 11 candidates with a moderator in the middle – sat behind a long table with a white tablecloth looking out at a crowd of about 125 who attended the event at Oklahoma Christian University .”
This being the case – and assuming Mr. McNutt is referring to the famous Leonardo Da Vinci version of the scene – that puts me (2nd from right as you look at the painting and the accompanying photo in the Oklahoman) in the same seat as Jude the Apostle, variously called Jude Thaddeus, Judas Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus, or Jude of James. He’s sometimes referred to as Jude, brother of Jesus, but that connection is pretty tenuous.
Obviously, any connection between me and Jude the Apostle is pretty tenuous, too. Except that, in the Roman Catholic Church, Jude is the patron saint of desperate cases and lost causes.
Ouch..
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Candidate Forum in Edmond
The Edmond Chamber of Commerce’s 5th District Congressional Candidate Forum was today. Seven Republicans, 2 Democrats, a Republo-Independent, and me, your humble Independent / Libertarian.
It was interesting to hear Democrat Tom Guild actually talk like a Democrat amid the sea of Republicans. But mostly it was a lot of people saying a lot of the same stuff, trying to claim the conservative high ground.
My biggest contribution was to draw attention to the copies of the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” (www.TheAdvocates.org) that fellow Libertarian and Lieutenant Governor candidate Richard Prawdzienski had passed out. So people could see for themselves where they are on the political spectrum.
There were 3 questions for each of us. My answer to the one about the economy rambled and was pretty much just Libertarian boilerplate. Gave myself a “C” on that.
My answer about immigration was better, but I didn’t remember to emphasize that as a practical matter, rounding up 12 to 15 million illegals and sending them back was out of the questions. Not unless we are prepared to become a police state.
The third question was about how would I interact with Edmond public and private leaders if elected. So I demonstrated how, by going down into the audience and asking our mayor, Patrice Douglas, what her concerns were. Then asking a private citizen about his concerns. Then asking a state representative – also running for Congress – the same question.
Republican Rick Flanigan – a good guy – jokingly called it a “skit”. I had to correct him later; it wasn’t a “skit”, it was a “shameless stunt” designed to help people remember me.
All in all, it was worth the time spent. I’m looking forward to after the primaries and/or run-offs, thought, when there will be just 4 of us on the stage and we can do a little more eye-to-eye debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)