Tired of Being Told You "Blame America" ?

In a foreign policy discussion with some supposed Tea Party members where I engaged with lots of historical facts, information and philosophy I got one of those Hannity told them to say this responses like, "you just hate and want to blame America" and your only purpose is to "...tear down America."

I've written before on America's interventionist foreign policy missteps and ensuing blowback with "A Message For Pro-Interventionist Conservatives and Liberals" and at the beginning of "Ron Paul, CPAC and Loathing by the Ideologically Unprincipled and Intellectually Dishonest"

But, that "blame America" retort is just smarmy and usually thrown out by someone working their hardest to either be willfully ignorant of the facts or to ignore them in favor of endorsing the idea of being the world's bully. Of course, the people who argue these points will always be the first to tell you that government ruins nearly everything it touches (it does), can't do anything right, can't do anything cost effectively, etc. But, they somehow always exclude foreign policy or military activity from their laundry list. It is somehow, magically immune?

So, the next time this comes up with a so-called Conservative ... ask some simple questions. Maybe like this.

You suggest I blame (the) America(n government) for a lot of our trouble with overseas nations and people. So, let me ask you ...

Do you "blame America" for high taxes?

Do you "blame America" for high regulation?

Do you "blame America" for ignoring its own Constitution?

Do you "blame America" for our sour economy?

Do you "blame America" for our jobs going overseas?

Do you "blame America" for theft to bailout corporations like banks and auto companies?

Do you "blame America" for its $15 trillion debt?

Do you "blame America" for threatening your right to self-defense?

Do you "blame America" for crony capitalism?

Do you "blame America" for screwing up the healthcare system?

Do you "blame America" for dishonesty in government?

Do you "blame America" for electing idiots, socialists or worse?

Do you "blame America" for insecure borders?

Do you "blame America" for not drilling for oil?

Do you "blame America" for the welfare state?

Do you "blame America" for lots of other of things?

Do you "blame America" for Fannie and Freddie?

Do you "blame America" for ignoring state's rights?

So, let me get this right ... you are upset with me and call me anti-American because I "blame America" for just one more thing than you do?

The Root Of The Issue - Government Smoking Bans On Private Property

Every year this item rears its ugly head. Some lunatic, anti-property rights, nanny-state authoritarians come around trying to tell private business and property owners what they must or must not allow on their property when it comes to smoking. This is despite there already being a ban in place on most everything but bars, private clubs and casinos.

I wrote about this back in 2009 when some Republicans on the Indianapolis City Council were threatening to push through this kind nanny-state, anti-freedom garbage. And now, IMMEDIATELY after the elections where, as usual, Republicans spill rhetoric about the "free market", "property rights" and "small government" they turn right around and spit on those very ideals.

This time, the person spearheading this nonsense is council president Ryan Vaughn (R). This is the same guy who helped push through legislation against individuals selling their own extra or unneeded event tickets. The line of the day which highlighted either his willful ignorance of private businesses leveraging the machinery of government OR his own naivety (you pick) was when he said that the ticket brokerages (paraphrased), "...want to be regulated." Well, DUH, they want me and anyone else to be forced to sell them our excess tickets at their low-ball prices and to not have to compete with us when they sell them. Amazing that so-called small government Republicans (as if) would allow this kind of obvious interference in the free market.

Since people voluntarily work at places that allow or don't allow smoking and individual consumers patronize places, voluntarily, that do or not allow smoking than this is the smoking ban issue, in a nutshell and it is arrogant and selfish. It is one group of people trying to use the government to force THEIR OPINION on everyone else.

They are basically saying, "I may want to come to your establishment, despite there being smoke-free options already in the marketplace, so I demand that the government threaten you with violence if my personal opinion on such smoke is not adopted by you. I am either not informed about or too lazy to seek out smoke free alternatives. I don't care if it violates your property rights or the wishes of your existing clientele."

That's it. People do not care who owns the place or what clients that owner may or may not want to serve. As with so many liberal, nanny-state causes, they want YOU TO DO WHAT THEY WANT rather than just take their business elsewhere or themselves create alternatives in the market.

And, once again, it seems we have those that the typical Conservative elects to protect us from this kind of authoritarian, anti-rights garbage helping make it happen. Apparently, they're afraid they'll be embarrassed if out-of-towners come to Indy for the 2012 Superbowl and see anyone smoking. And, don't think for a minute, that ticket scalping legislation wasn't also about trying to polish up the city in advance of the Superbowl. And one even wonders about the panhandler ordinance of a couple of years ago that made it illegal to even hold a political sign on a street corner.

I shudder to think that the elected city overlords are really willing to trade away freedom, rights and free market principles in exchange for a football game. And people wonder why the Libertarian brand is increasingly popular. Of course, it is because of consistent principles and ideology.

The Conservative Intellectual Dilemma Over Who Has Rights

In an all too frequent political discussion on Facebook, this time with Brian Gaddie, one of my unashamed far left liberal friends, he kindly pointed out that he appreciated Congressman Ron Paul's opposition to torture. This prompted a quick thought I've had about rights. And, really, a lot of this discussion must ultimately rest on the nature of our rights as sentient, self-aware beings who value life with each of us being the legitimate owners of our own who take positive action to support or enhance that life.

There is an excellent write up at The Objective Standard regarding the nature of rights that I highly recommend reading, especially since it offers up a theory that does not depend on the existence of God. This is important, because if God cannot be proven than your rights cannot be proven if you solely rest the existence of them on its existence.

But, back to the point. Certainly, nobody in the United States would support kidnapping someone off the street, failing to give them due process, failing to find them guilty in any kind of trial but instead just sticking them in a secret room and torturing them just in case they might know something useful. This would be such a vast violation of rights and the character of who are SUPPOSED to be as a nation.

But, it did prompt me to post my comment from Brian's thread on a broader topic of the nature of our rights and why I think the typical Conservative has an intellectual dilemma that they either must resolve by becoming more authoritarian and deciding that we only have the rights our respective governments grant to us OR that all human beings have rights that come about by way of our existence as sentient, self-aware beings.

Brian - regarding torture. Conservatives have an intellectual dilemma that they must resolve.

Most Conservatives would argue that our rights come from our creator (God, the creative force of the universe or whatever mechanism by which we are sentient, self-aware beings). This is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence as a founding principle of our country. That we have rights (life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness) that nobody, not even government - except as compensation for a harm done to another - can take away.

BUT THEN, in the same breath, they would suggest that immigrants, accused terrorists or other people not born here don't have the same rights.

This is intellectually inconsistent. Either our rights come from the creator OR they come from government by nature of which borders we are unlucky enough to be born between.

They must decide. And I appreciate Ron Paul consistently showing intellectual honesty in all matters, including torture as I very much appreciate you pointing out.

Two Down.

After Rick Perry's horrendous debate performance tonight, that should be about the last we hear from him. And I'm pretty sure Santorum and Bachmann can give it up now too.