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 ... 

for high taxes?

for high regulation?

for ignoring its own Constitution?

for our sour economy?

for our jobs going overseas?

for stealing form taxpayers to bail out corporations like banks and auto companies?

for its $15 trillion debt? [January, 2013 update: Now $16.5 trillion]

for threatening your right to self-defense?

for crony capitalism?

for screwing up the healthcare system?

for dishonesty in government?

for electing idiots, socialists or worse?

for insecure borders?

for not drilling for oil?

for the welfare state?

for Fannie and Freddie?

for ignoring state's rights?

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

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

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 selves 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.

Self Defense in City Parks, Washington State Validates Right to Carry and Gun Free Zones Continue to Be Violence Magnets

A female Superior Court judge in King County, Washington has ruled in favor of individuals who sought to end a ban on carrying firearms in city parks.

Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.

“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.

The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”

As some people are aware, Indianapolis Councilor Ed Coleman (Libertarian - At Large) has introduced legislation which would eliminate the unconstitutional city ban on individuals, who have gotten permission from the government by way of a permit to exercise their rights (sarcasm intended), carrying their personal firearms onto city park property. In other words, he has introduced a proposal to restore an individuals right to defend themselves in a way that would align city code with both state and federal law where such restrictions either don't exist or are expiring this month.

Now before the anti-gun folks have a fit, let's consider the following.

You walk up and down city streets and drive all over public roads every day with countless other people who are licensed to carry their firearms and have them on their person or in their vehicles either openly or concealed. The streets are not running red with law abiding citizens shooting each other are they? Do you feel unsafe walking around Monument Circle at lunch time because some of those folks have guns on them? Of course not. Interestingly enough, in some states (like New Hampshire) one can legally "open carry" into the State House (although bureaucrats are trying to play games with it now [see this link and associated video] )!

Where should you feel unsafe? So-called "gun free" zones maybe?

This past week we saw a faculty member at the University of Alabama kill three people and wound others when she was denied tenure. We also saw this month where an elementary school teacher shot other faculty members when he was told he would not have a job next year. We all remember what happened at Columbine or at Virginia Tech. All "gun free zones". Yet, that didn't stop crazy people with criminal intent from taking a gun into those areas and attacking people who were legally (but unconstitutionally perhaps?) denied the choice of defending themselves.

It was great to see the Fraternal Order of Police speak publicly in favor of Mr. Coleman's proposal. Unfortunately, the proposal caught Mayor Greg Ballard (R) off guard and he probably spoke too quickly when suggesting he would veto the proposal if it landed on his desk. There is never a wrong time to restore rights or liberty to the people.

Most conservatives and libertarians would expect Republican officials to fully support this kind of thing if they truly believe in protecting people's natural rights. One can only hope that the Mayor doesn't feel backed into a corner as after careful consideration there would be no reason not to support this except to play silly political games.

There was a rumor that councilor Mike Speedy, who is running for State House this year, has been interested in this kind of proposal in the past but never thought it would get enough support. Now that with the Heller and the Seattle decisions showing courts will support individual rights, there should be no reason other councilors shouldn't jump on as co-sponsors. But, again, political games could trump actually doing the right thing. We'll see.

The important thing to remember is that "gun bans" are "massacre enabling" restrictions and do not protect anyone. You can't protect the sheep from the wolf by making all of the sheep weaker.

Health Care Reform IS Important

In the current debate over health care reform I believe both of the typical sides (left/right, liberal/conservative, statist/statist-lite) are completely missing the mark.

Wednesday night, at the Indianapolis North Side Libertarian MeetUp, I heard the story of a young man who said that repair of his broken arm cost around $4,500. He said when he went to the emergency room they couldn't tell him what treatment would cost. Interestingly, I also was recently looking at a procedure and the surgeon had no idea what the total cost would be, he couldn't tell me. Huh?

Anyway, broken arm guy ended up at a med check place and after some questioning indicated that, including getting a couple of different casts over the healing cycle, he spent no more than 3 or 4 hours with an actual physician and did not require anesthesia.

Let's put this in perspective of other vocations.

A well paid Telecommunications or IT Consultant might make $120 to $220 an hour depending on what they are doing and whether it is 'after hours' work. It would not be unusual for a lawyer to charge $200, $230 or for an experienced partner or specialist (but perhaps not Johnny Cochran or Mark Garagos) up in the $300 or $400 an hour range. So, let's just use $250 an hour as a fair figure.

Four hours of time = $1,000 + materials (orthopedic cast, an x-ray).

So, maybe, worst case this should have cost less than $1,500 and maybe very close to $1,000 even ... CERTAINLY not $4,500.

Now, we know that since Medicare/Medicaid underpay physicians for services so much that it drives up costs on the rest of us by at least fifteen percent and potentially up to one third and that over reliance on "prepaid healthcare" separates consumers from the actual cost of each unit use of services. We also know that a high default rate on (far too high) medical expenses shifts the burden of those bills to those who do not default. We also know that the AMA has leveraged a lot of government protectionism of physician services into the marketplace which limits supply, specialization, innovation and other things that could drive changes in the industry or increase the supply of doctors.

So, when we talk about health care "reform" can we please talk about it outside the scope of just having somebody else (like the government) pay for everything and instead focus on why it costs $7,000 to lay in a hospital bed for two days with a kidney stone (arguably not a good use of the bed) or $4,000 to put a cast on a broken arm? How about $6,000 for an out patient procedure to fix an umbilical hernia? I'll bet, physicians or hospitals who declined to accept insurance or government payments for services could easily drop their costs down to $2,000 or $3,000 for the stone (including the MRI and the IV bags of fluid) and $1,000 or less for the arm.

The point is, libertarians and conservatives are not opposed to health care "reform". But, as is typical in arguments with more left leaning big government folks we just have a much better grasp of the root of the problem and the economics of it rather than just not caring and begging for our woefully inept government to come sweep the problem under the rug.

The cost problem in health care must get resolved before any kind of dialog on how to cover the 8.6 to 12.5 million chronically uninsured people is addressed.

The "UnFairness" Doctrine

There is considerable chatter right now suggesting that the Democrats plan to reintroduce what is tragically referred to as "The Fairness Doctrine". The idea is that they can use the force of government to restrict, mold, guide or punish media outlets that do not offer programming that espouses opinions counter to those of, what the market has determined represents, mainstream America.

Think of the following example.

You decide to open a store. You incorporate, file for a retail sales certificate, rent retail space and start hiring people, buying products and stocking your shelves. Things are going really well and you continue to put products on the shelf that people like to buy. Then, one day, a government representative shows up and tells you that you have hired too many people who 'think the wrong way'. They make you throw away half of the stuff on your shelves and replace it with products that don't sell well, some of them you may have even tried to sell in the past but lost money on. They tell you that if you put the wrong products back on your shelves they will fine you a lot of money or even use the massive power of government to put you out of business.

This is what the Democrats want to do to media outlets because those outlets, and their listeners, have determined that they really want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, Bill O'Reilly, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham and others.

Famously, the more socialist / fascist elements of the media attempted to start their own talk radio empire called "Air America" and it failed almost immediately despite having minor celebrity Al Franken (because he's good enough, smart enough and doggone it... people like him - NOT) involved. These people supposedly got some big money backing but couldn't make a go of it. Nobody wanted to listen!

In an attempt to intervene in the free market and the freedom of people to choose what to listen to, or perhaps more nefariously, to try and manipulate public opinion and thought the Democrats are seeking to destroy talk radio by forcing stations to carry products that far fewer people would listen to, making it hard to sell advertising and destroying the business model. We are a nation that has as its most important founding principal the freedom of speech. To have a whole political movement aligned with the idea of using the power of government to shut people up if there is disagreement is anathema to our way of thinking.

Here is a topic that I think is worthy of discussion. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the people who actually pay attention to their government, want to know what is really going on, have an appreciation for staying informed or even involved just happen to be more conservative, or even libertarian, people who will turn off the latest pop music channel; self-promoting, mind numbing and juvenile 'shock jocks'; sports radio or morning shows in exchange for something intelligent to listen to? A lot of these same people are avid readers too as near as I can tell.

I just don't know that I believe nearly as many on what is traditionally, but not necessarily accurately, described as "the left" are really following logic and paying attention to the nuance in our policy. I believe they are indeed far more likely to want to shut someone up at gunpoint or shout them down instead of having to make reasoned arguments and find their own audience. This is always the case with "the left". They don't want to earn it on the merits, they want to use the guns of government to FORCE IT upon people. Doesn't matter if it's charity programs, retirement savings, restricting educational choices, having your newborns DNA stolen and filed in a national database, taking care of your own health care decisions - they know what is best for you and will decide for you.

Well, if they are so damn smart why can't they figure out to assemble, market and advertise successful radio programs instead of having to use government force to coerce us into listening to what THEY want us to? Maybe, just maybe, it's because they really don't know everything after all. Good luck convincing them of that.

------
Note: Don't forget to keep up to date on news that impacts the economy and your freedoms at The Liberty File.