Friday, February 28, 2014

Ron Swanson: Libertarian Hero or Wacky Fool?

by Gerard Emershaw


Television is not the home of many libertarian characters. Given that the anti-authoritarian nature of libertarians makes them an excellent choice for rebellious heroes and anti-heroes, this is surprising. One of the most publicly visible libertarian television characters in recent years was Gale Boetticher of “Breaking Bad.” This eclectic chemist and meth manufacturer famously endorsed Ron Paul for president in his notebook—the notebook which played such a prominent role in bringing about the final conflicts of the show. While Boetticher was an interesting, complex, well written character, he was after all, a “cooker” of illegal drugs. Even a libertarian who opposes drug prohibition could have issues with a person who works for a violent drug lord such as Gustavo Fring. Furthermore, Boetticher [SPOILER WARNING] dies an ignoble death, shot by Jesse Pinkman as he begs for his life.



Two other arguably libertarian characters on television are Stan Marsh and Kyle Broflovski of “South Park.” In many ways, these two boys have bashed statist ideology on the right and left and defended freedom and common sense against tyranny and political correctness for more than 15 years. However, they are, after all, cartoon characters. Nevertheless, they are portrayed by show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone as voices of reason—especially compared with their portly and bigoted right-wing pal Eric Cartman. This has made animated libertarians more mainstream. Another animated libertarian—Dale Gribble of the long running Fox animated comedy “King of the Hill”—was presented as more of a caricature. He was a lovable yet paranoid and buffoonish conspiracy theorist. He was also presented as a fool and as the only one oblivious to the fact that his wife was not so subtly cheating on him.



The undeniable symbol of libertarianism on television today is Ron Swanson from NBC’s “Parks and Recreation.” Played to comic perfection by actor Nick Offerman, Ron Swanson is the comedic spark which makes an otherwise run of the mill single camera workplace comedy into an entertaining show. Swanson works as the director of the parks and recreation department of fictional small-town Pawnee, Indiana. As a libertarian, his goal is to bring down government from the inside by seeing to it that it does no harm—which is to say that it does little or nothing. Swanson’s attitude on government can be summarized in his own words: “Once a year, every branch of government meets in a room and announces what they intend to waste taxpayer money on. For a libertarian such as myself, it’s philosophically horrifying.” He loathes government as at best a necessary evil that inevitably becomes parasitic on the people: “It’s never too early to learn that the government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer’s teat until they have sore, chapped nipples.” Swanson wishes to see government severely limited: “My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk, and the only thing he’s allowed to decide is who to nuke.” He wants to see most of the machinery of government brought “crumbling to the ground.” Ultimately, Ron Swanson believes in freedom from government coercion: “This is America. This is not China. You can’t make her whip herself. You can’t make her wear a hair shirt.” He does not believe in paternalism even when the Nanny State has good intentions: “The whole point of this country is that if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds, and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so. To me, that’s beautiful.” Many anti-authoritarian characters wind up not actually being libertarians because of economics. Many rebellious heroes and anti-heroes on the small screen wind up being more Keynes than Hayek. Not so with Ron Swanson. He is an uber-libertarian economically: “My dream is to have the whole park system privatized and run entirely for profit by corporations like Chuck E. Cheese.” In addition to holding justified political views, Ron Swanson also married a character played by TV’s Xena Warrior Princess—Lucy Lawless. Nothing wrong with that!

Nick Offerman’s Ron Swanson is so colorful and three-dimensional that he jumps right off the screen. He rivals Abed Nadir of “Community,” Barney Stinson of “How I Met Your Mother,” and Sheldon Cooper of “The Big Bang Theory” as the most unique and entertaining personality on a current network sitcom. He is that rare supporting character that winds up overshadowing the main characters. There is no doubt that many viewers love Ron Swanson, agree with him, and identify with him. However, the question is whether “Parks and Recreation” portrays Swanson and his libertarianism in a positive light or if they just intend him to be an eccentric character with extreme and wacky views.

Despite the fact that any rational viewer would have to conclude that Ron Swanson’s cynical views of government are confirmed by the inept way that the government of Pawnee is run on the show. However, Leslie Knope—the well meaning protagonist of the show—is portrayed as a tireless worker with good intentions. She has also been “winning” in the sense that her presence has inspired the inefficient do nothings that Swanson staffed the parks and recreation department with to actually work hard and accomplish statist goals. Furthermore, those without libertarian sympathies might view Swanson’s goals as inappropriate and obstructionist. Others may wonder why Ron Swanson has not become more of an entrepreneur. He has excellent woodworking skills. Why is he not working in the private sector and creating jobs rather than wasting his time unsuccessfully trying to sabotage a minor and relatively meaningless local government agency from the inside? At the end of the day, is Ron Swanson essentially just a “wacky” character not to be taken seriously? Is he just a new version of Cosmo Kramer? Is Swanson more Stan and Kyle or more Dale Gribble? Is he a character that the audience likes because of his qualities or despite them?

Federal Court Rules That American Flag Is In Same Category as Child Pornography

by Gerard Emershaw
The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” However, it has been acknowledged that “the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.” As a result, there are many categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment—i.e. fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, imminent incitement of illegal activity, threats, solicitations or offers to engage in illegal activity, and libel.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Live Oak High School, in the San Jose suburb of Morgan Hill, acted appropriately when it banned students from wearing T-shirts featuring the American flag during a Cinco de Mayo celebration with the alleged purpose of preventing violence. According to school officials, there was a history of violence between white and Hispanic students on that day in the past.

In essence, the Court has placed the American flag in the same category as child pornography. It has transformed Old Glory into fighting words. The Stars and Stripes are apparently no different than yelling at someone: “Hey MFer, your mother is a @#*%$!” The very symbol of the Republic has no more value and is no more deserving of First Amendment protection than verbally threatening to murder someone.

By allowing the American flag to be banned on May 5, the Court has sanctioned the idea that a threat of violence can shut down free speech. In the future all that a group will have to do in public schools is to threaten violence against others if it wishes to shut down that group’s free speech. If a high school Young Republicans club wishes to shut down the speech of a Young Democrats club—or vice versa—all it must do is threaten violence. The Court is allowing Live Oak High School to attempt to prevent violence by endorsing violence as a legitimate means to bring about change. This is perverse.

It is impossible to view a T-shirt with the American flag on it as a form of fighting words in this context. The United States was not involved in the Battle of Puebla that is celebrated in the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo. It was Napoleon III’s French army. But what if a student wished to wear a shirt with a French flag on that day? What if students wished to wear a T-shirt with an American flag on a day celebrating German heritage, Japanese heritage, Vietnamese heritage, or some other culture whose home nation the United States has waged war upon? The threat of violence will now be used as a way to shut down any and all speech, and court precedent will now allow it. A far better solution to the violence would be to punish any Cinco de Mayo violence so severely as to seriously deter it. Or perhaps the school could make May 5 into a school holiday. It would not be difficult to add another school day somewhere in the calendar to replace that school day.

When fear, politics, or political correctness allow the very symbol of the Republic—a banner under which so many brave men and women have died while defending freedom—to be banned like it’s child pornography, then something is wrong. The First Amendment no longer has any value. Even worse, this is being done in a school. This is teaching young adults that free speech has no value and that patriotism is something about which they should be ashamed.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

A Half Trillion Dollar Military Budget Is Not Enough?

by Gerard Emershaw



The United States is prepared to wave the white flag and surrender to its enemies. Well, according to neoconservatives at least. Retired General Wesley Clark has cautioned: “We cannot go back to a pre-World War II Army with a bunch of people marching around with broomsticks on their shoulders doing right face and right shoulder arms.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney—who like most neoconservative RINOs believes that deficits do not matter—scoffed: “I can guarantee you there's never going to be a call from a future secretary of defense to Obama to thank him for what he's done to the military.” What has President Obama done to the United States? According to Cheney, “enormous long-term damage.” Of course, American soldiers are going to be marching around with broomsticks instead of guns.

Wait, what? American soldiers are not going to be marching around with broomsticks on their shoulders? What Cheney is talking about is the announcement that the Obama administration is going to be spending a mere $496 billion in FY 2015 on the military. According to Newsmax:

For the five years ending in 2019, the Defense Department's budget forecast includes $115 billion more in spending than currently authorized in congressionally mandated levels under the budget cuts called sequestration.
The plan calls for requesting $535 billion in 2016, or $35 billion more than the sequestration level; $544 billion for 2017, or $31 billion over the cap; $551 billion in 2018, or $27 billion over the cap; and $559 billion in 2019, or $22 billion over the cap.

One would think that a half trillion dollars a year could buy a lot of broomsticks. Maybe even a lot of modern weaponry. Nations like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea manage to constitute alleged threats to the United States while spending only a fraction of what the United States does on military. How are these nations able to afford to equip their soldiers with more than broomsticks?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s plan will cut the size of the military:

Hagel's plan would reduce the Army by 6 percent to about 490,000 personnel by 2015 from about 522,000 today, accelerating by two years the Army's plan to reach that total by 2017. Hagel’s proposal also calls for reductions to about 450,000 by 2019—30,000 fewer than the active-duty force in September 2001 before the terrorist attacks on the U.S.

These cuts would make the United States military smaller than it has been since 1940. Of course, the United States is not fighting total war against rival superpowers across the globe. The U.S. military also possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons along with Stealth fighters, drones, etc. which makes a large standing army unnecessary.


The only reason that large standing armies are necessary is if it is going to be misused. Corporatist wars of aggression overseas require large armies with bottomless budgets. However, such wars stand in stark opposition to the advice and practice of the Founders. Such wars are expensive and produce blowback. If one believes that military cuts are off the table, then one is not truly fiscally conservative. The purpose of the military is to defend the Republic and not to protect foreign despots, multinational corporations, or the bottom line of the Military-Industrial Complex. Deficits do matter, Vice President Cheney. The national debt—and not the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, or North Koreans—is the greatest threat to national security. The military budget simply cannot be treated like a sacred cow or one day soon there may not be a Republic left for the military to defend.





Saturday, February 22, 2014

Individualism, Collectivism, and News


by Gerard Emershaw


Bill Maher, host of HBO's “Real Time,” recently ranted about how the individualized nature of the internet and of modern culture in general has caused Americans to lose their sense of commonality. According to Maher, “as a culture, we don't have enough in common anymore.” Maher explains:

And that's because the Internet, which was supposed to unite the world, has become too adept at serving us personalized content. Do you know what I saw on Yahoo's front page this morning? No, you don't, because mine isn't the same as yours. People get news feed now that just spit back customized stories based on what we've clicked on in the past. So I for example, might see a lot of stories about -- pot, American history and, of course, Christian mingle. Whereas Ted Nugent just gets ads for Prozac and bullets.

Maher goes on to attack a new Facebook app called 'Paper,' which is a personalized online paper:

And boy, does it make you stupider. 'Paper' tracks the news you're interested in and gives you more of that and less of everything else, never burdening you with contradictory information or telling you anything new. That's what makes it 'news.' But only seeing the stuff that already confirms the opinions you already have isn't newsit's Fox News. The reason so many Americans, for example, think climate change is a hoax is that their only source for science news is Glenn Beck, Fox and Matt Drudge, the cracker trifecta.

Newspapers may be old-fashioned, but here's what we're losing if you never see one; they are trying to tell you what's actually important, not just what's important to you. You may not read the whole paper but you at least see headlines, making you aware that something's going on outside of your micro-targeted world of fashion or music or wiccans or zombies or whatever you're in to.
Maher, the progressive firebrand, demonstrates the typical collectivist notion that human beings are not capable of making important decisions on their own. Not the masses at least. Elites like Bill Maher are perfectly capable of determining on their own what is important. Presumably Bill Maher believes that he is capable of deciding what news stories are important to cover on “Real Time.” What makes him so special? Why can he decide yet the vast majority of his fellow Americans are stupid and need a newspaper owned by some mainstream corporatist entity—presumably a progressive newspaper such as The New York Times.
It is obvious that Maher believes that the stupid American masses—especially stupid Americans who dare think for themselves rather than accept progressive dogmas—must be spoon-fed what he perceives to be “the truth.” His climate change example is instructive here. Despite evidence that climate change is debatable at best and dubious at worst, Maher insists that all Americans should be indoctrinated with climate change hysteria.
If the individual is not capable of deciding how he or she wishes to have news content customized, then who should decide? What makes Maher qualified to decide instead of Beck, Drudge, or Fox? But really, what makes any of them qualified to make such a decision?
The individual is the best judge of what news content he or she wishes to read. In some cases this may lead to a biased diet of news content and opinion that narrowly fits one's political leanings. However, human beings possess a natural right to liberty, and this means that there is a right to be narrow-minded.
The loss of commonality in American culture is not due to the internet providing the opportunity for individualized news or entertainment. Such customization should lead to a greater richness in which individuals have a greater diversity to share with others. The true division in contemporary American society is due to the elites who control special interests—political parties, corporations, unions, PACs, etc.—attempting to divide and conquer the American public. Such entities can only gain power over the people if the people are brainwashed into believing their preferred dogmas. Rival collectivist entities set the American people against each other, creating division. The mainstream collectivist powers that be would prefer that they were the only players in the news arena. Alternative news sources threaten the typical collectivist right-left paradigm and threaten to break the stranglehold that these mainstream sources and their corporatist puppet masters have over what is perceived as “reality.”



Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Cass Sunstein on “Paranoid Libertarianism”

by Gerard Emershaw


President Obama’s former Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein has recently penned a derisive statist column entitled “How to Spot a Paranoid Libertarian.” In the column, Sunstein attacks all those on the right who sound the alarm against gun control, progressive taxation, environmental protection, and health care reform as well as those on the left who sound the alarm against violations of the separation of church and state and overzealous privacy violating anti-terrorism efforts.

While Sunstein quotes novelist Joseph Heller’s truism: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you” and acknowledges that “paranoid libertarians” might sometimes “draw attention to genuine risks,” he claims that “paranoia isn’t a good foundation for public policy, even if it operates in freedom’s name.” In other words, pay no attention to all the dangerous unconstitutional abuses that civil libertarians have warned about in the past. A broken clock is right twice a day, and just because those crazy persons are sometimes right, it does not mean that they are not crazy. It also does not mean that anyone should really pay attention to what they have to say.

So confident is Sunstein of himself that he does not bother to even attempt to present well reasoned arguments against “paranoid libertarianism.” Instead, he merely lists five characteristics. Apparently, he must believe that these characteristics are so dubious that it goes without saying that behind them lies paranoia and not reason. Despite claiming to distinguish “paranoid libertarianism” from libertarianism in general, if one removes the allegedly paranoid characteristics of “paranoid libertarianism,” whatever view remains can hardly be called libertarianism.

1.Wildy exaggerated sense or risks

According to Sunstein, “paranoid libertarians” wildly exaggerate the risks of government activity such as gun control or surveillance. “Paranoid libertarians” believe—whether they have evidence or not—that the government “will inevitably use its authority so as to jeopardize civil liberties and perhaps democracy itself.”

For a legal scholar and former law school professor, Sunstein is shockingly naïve when it comes to the state. Even more surprising is that he does not seem to understand that the entire basis for and structure of the American Constitutional Republicanism is the truism that the state is dangerous. The reason that the Founders decided that they had to chain down government with Constitutional limitations, checks, and balances and with the Bill of Rights was that they understood the inevitability that governments tend to abuse their powers and that this abuse invariably violated the natural rights of the people.

History is nothing if not the chronicle of authoritarian governments violating natural rights. From ancient tyrannical kings to the totalitarian governments of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, human beings have historically had much to fear from their rulers. The state has been such an enemy of individualism and freedom that suspicion concerning government power is clearly the rational default position to hold. This is true even concerning the United States government. The government has used its authority to defend the institution of slavery, attempt to commit genocide against American Indians, imprison Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during World War II, spy on American citizens almost ceaselessly without probable cause for decades, etc.

2. Presumption of bad faith on the part of government officials

Sunstein also criticizes “paranoid libertarians” for holding the belief that the motivations of government officials cannot be trusted. For example, he claims that they believe that the “real” motivations for any restrictions on gun ownership must be that the government officials behind such regulations seek to disarm the American public.

The truth of the matter is that government officials often do have motivations that cannot be trusted. In a democratic system, elected officials often have to mask their true intentions in order to win elections. It is by now a truism that politicians lie, therefore, it becomes rational to mistrust the intentions of politicians. While it is not always possible to ascertain the true motivations of government officials, there is a strong enough correlation between zealous government officials and harms to civil liberties that it is reasonable to always be wary of those wielding state power. Even when the intentions are not specifically malicious, these intentions are often characterized by indifference motivated ultimately by greed. In exchange for campaign contributions—which often function as nothing more than bribes—many elected officials simply do what their patrons—corporations, unions, PACs, etc.—demand. And when the motivations of government officials are honorable, this often produces the worst tyranny. The humanitarian paternalism of the Progressive Era laid down ample blacktop on the way to Hell.

3. A sense of past, present or future victimization  

Sunstein says of “paranoid libertarians” that they “tend to believe that as individuals or as members of specified groups, they are being targeted by the government, or will be targeted imminently, or will be targeted as soon as officials have the opportunity to target them.”

Very little needs to be said about this claim. Following the Snowden revelations, the government has openly admitted that the NSA is targeting everyone. The federal government has long since given up on worrying about the Fourth Amendment and probable cause, and as a result, the NSA’s dragnet collection of metadata means that every American citizen is a target of the government.

4. An indifference to trade-offs

What Sunstein really means is that the belief that natural rights are inalienable is unreasonable. He attempts to stigmatize the view that liberty is “the overriding if not the only value” and criticizes those who do believe this tenet of American government as being inflexible and narrow-minded by believing that “it is unreasonable and weak to see relevant considerations on both sides.”

Sunstein believes that everything is negotiable, and therefore, those who are unwilling to compromise on everything are extremists and possibly even mentally imbalanced. There are clearly matters on which it is reasonable to compromise. If I want to buy a used paperback novel from you at a flea market for $1 and you want $2 for it, it’s not unreasonable for us to “meet halfway” and make a deal to exchange $1.50 for the book. However, there is nothing unreasonable about being unwilling to compromise on one’s natural rights. If you wish to kill me, and I wish to keep living, it is not rational for me to accept a trade-off by which you merely beat me half to death. If you wish to enslave me, but I would prefer to remain free, it is not rational for me to accept a trade-off by which I will become your slave for only 12 hours a day. If you wish to steal from me, and I wish to keep my possessions, it is not rational for me to accept a trade-off by which you only steal half of all that I own.

Sunstein laments that “paranoid libertarians tend to dismiss the benefits of other measures that they despise, including gun control and environmental regulation.” However, this is to make the assumption that such measures actually have benefits. If gun regulations had value, then one would expect cities with strong gun control laws such as Chicago to have little or no gun violence. This, as has been shown ad nauseum, is not the case. If, by “environmental regulation,” Sunstein means carbon taxes or other draconian measures aimed at ending “climate change,” then there is also no benefit to be expected by such a trade-off because evidence is mounting that “climate change” is simply not a genuine phenomenon. In essence, Sunstein seems to mean that one is mentally imbalanced if one is unwilling to allow his or her inalienable rights to be at least partially alienated and that one is equally imbalanced if he or she is unwilling to make serious concessions to government regulations based upon propositions that are either debunked or unproven.

5. Enthusiasm for slippery-slope arguments  

It is this final characteristic of “paranoid libertarianism” which best sums up Sunstein’s worldview and the libertarian worldview that he opposes. According to Sunstein:

The fear is that if government is allowed to take an apparently modest step today, it will take far less modest steps tomorrow, and on the next day, freedom itself will be in terrible trouble. Modest and apparently reasonable steps must be resisted as if they were the incarnation of tyranny itself.  

Slippery slope arguments can be and are sometimes abused. In The Breakfast Club, when after Mr. Vernon allows Andrew Clark to get up from his seat, and John Bender quips: “Hey, how come Andrew gets to get up? If he gets up, we'll all get up, it'll be anarchy,” the line is funny because of the absurd slippery slope reasoning that is mocked. From the point of view of deductive reasoning, a slippery slope argument is fallacious because there is no way to assert with certainty that the feared consequence will result. For example, it would be fallacious to assert that it is deductively certain that total gun confiscation will result from a ban on convicted felons owning assault rifles. However, when a slippery slope argument is instead employed as a form of inductive reasoning, and there is strong evidence that the feared consequence is likely to result, then such reasoning is logical. For example, it is well known that tyrannical regimes have often curtailed freedoms gradually, slowly killing their citizens’ rights the way that a frog is slowly killed in a pot of boiling water. The Nazis did not begin the “final solution” of the Holocaust immediately after assuming power. Along the way to complete tyranny, the Nazis passed the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Enabling Act, the Nuremberg Laws, etc.When one acts as if a law that violates natural rights does not matter, then soon one will find the nation on the road to totalitarianism. The slowly boiling frog does not notice that it is boiling, but when human beings do realize it, the rational thing is to get out of the water rather than assume that the fact that the water is beginning to get hot does not mean that it will continue to get hotter until it is dangerously hot.