During the very short portion of Sean Hannity's program that I heard on Monday, a caller rebuked Hannity for taking contradictory positions. You call for smaller government, the caller said, but now you attack Obama for not doing more in regard to the oil spill in the Gulf. Hannity responded that this was not a contradiction, that he was only demanding that the government do what it is supposed to do.
The fact is, cleaning up oil spills is not a proper function of government.
Hannity--and other conservatives--want to make the oil spill Obama's Katrina. They continually deride Obama for incompetence and indecisiveness in handling the spill. But the government's proper response should have been to do nothing but hold BP responsible for damages to the property of others.
For all their empty rhetoric about small government, conservatives are not opposed to government encroachments on our rights. Indeed, they champion many such violations--prohibitions on pornography and abortion ranking are but 2 examples.
Hannity and his ilk are not about small government (whatever that means). Nor are they about limited government. They do not advocate that government be limited to its proper function of protecting our rights. What they do advocate is the coercive imposition of their values upon the entire nation. In that regard, they are no different from liberals.
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Friday, June 18, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
So Be It
On Monday's program Rush Limbaugh was discussing the new law in Arizona allegedly intended to address illegal aliens in the state. The law allows the police to charge individuals with a crime if they are suspected of being in America illegally and cannot provide documentation proving their innocence. (This is my interpretation, not Rush's.)
Rush cited a poll that found 73 percent of Arizonians in favor of the law, with 53 percent stating that some civil rights violations were likely. Leftists, Rush said, found this contradictory and cited it as evidence that the poll is flawed. But there is no contradiction, as Rush pointed out--Arizonians are unconcerned with violating civil rights. And Rush concurred, saying that if we must violate some civil rights to enforce immigration laws, so be it.
So much for Rush Limbaugh as a defender of individual rights.
At the moment, the law is aimed at an unpopular group--illegals. However, many laws are initially aimed at unpopular groups, and then expanded to the rest of the citizenry. If an individual is considered guilty of a crime until he proves his innocence, that principle applies regardless of one's immigration status or anything else. For example, the police could demand that Rush prove that he didn't rob a bank last week, wasn't speeding on the way to the golf course, or any number of things. The Arizona law sets a very dangerous precedent.
Obama has promised to challenge the Arizona law, citing potential civil rights violations. Rush declared that this was simply coded language for minorities to get riled up in protest. What he, and other conservatives, fail to realize is that the individual is the smallest minority. And this law is an attack on individuals.
Underlying Rush's position is altruism--the belief that morality consists of self-sacrificial service to others. Some individuals, he declared, must give up their rights for the "greater good". Some individuals must endure unjust arrest because it will promote the "general welfare". This is the same premise embraced by the Left in promoting ObamaCare, cap and trade, and every other statist policy.
Conservatives have long embraced the same moral premises as the Left. They are powerless to stop the Left's steady push to drive us into tyranny. They bicker over details while conceding every major issue. and in the end, when the Left demand more control over our lives, all they can say is: So be it.
Rush cited a poll that found 73 percent of Arizonians in favor of the law, with 53 percent stating that some civil rights violations were likely. Leftists, Rush said, found this contradictory and cited it as evidence that the poll is flawed. But there is no contradiction, as Rush pointed out--Arizonians are unconcerned with violating civil rights. And Rush concurred, saying that if we must violate some civil rights to enforce immigration laws, so be it.
So much for Rush Limbaugh as a defender of individual rights.
At the moment, the law is aimed at an unpopular group--illegals. However, many laws are initially aimed at unpopular groups, and then expanded to the rest of the citizenry. If an individual is considered guilty of a crime until he proves his innocence, that principle applies regardless of one's immigration status or anything else. For example, the police could demand that Rush prove that he didn't rob a bank last week, wasn't speeding on the way to the golf course, or any number of things. The Arizona law sets a very dangerous precedent.
Obama has promised to challenge the Arizona law, citing potential civil rights violations. Rush declared that this was simply coded language for minorities to get riled up in protest. What he, and other conservatives, fail to realize is that the individual is the smallest minority. And this law is an attack on individuals.
Underlying Rush's position is altruism--the belief that morality consists of self-sacrificial service to others. Some individuals, he declared, must give up their rights for the "greater good". Some individuals must endure unjust arrest because it will promote the "general welfare". This is the same premise embraced by the Left in promoting ObamaCare, cap and trade, and every other statist policy.
Conservatives have long embraced the same moral premises as the Left. They are powerless to stop the Left's steady push to drive us into tyranny. They bicker over details while conceding every major issue. and in the end, when the Left demand more control over our lives, all they can say is: So be it.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Force and Fraud
KHOU recently reported that Metro "cooked" its books in order to secure federal funds to build light rail that nobody will ride. Not surprisingly, Metro officials deny the accusation. Congressman Ted Poe worries that taxpayers may get hit with another bill when Metro can't finish the rail lines:
The fact is, force and fraud are two sides to the same coin:
It is acceptable for one government entity to stick a gun in our face and take our money. But if another government entity resorts to "cooking" the books to get some of that loot, it is doing something wrong. With this kind of double standard, it is little wonder that conservatives aren't being taken seriously. Until conservatives can stand on principle and oppose all forms of government initiated coercion, they will continue to present no meaningful opposition to the Leftists.
Down the road, Metro's gonna come and say, "Oh well, we don't have the money to finish this project. We need another penny, two cents on the sales tax to make the poor taxpayers in the Houston area pay for this project we started. We gave bad information to the federal government. We need more taxpayer money. All of that is fraud and deceit."Apparently Poe doesn't have a problem with the use of coercive government power to fund mass transit. He just thinks that Metro should be up front about it. Metro can use force to fund its operations, but fraud is going too far.
The fact is, force and fraud are two sides to the same coin:
Fraud involves a[n]... indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises.While Poe is decrying Metro's alleged attempt to defraud the federal government, he ignores where that money came from and how it was obtained. The money that Metro is accused of attempting to steal was in fact stolen from taxpayers. That apparently doesn't matter to Poe.
It is acceptable for one government entity to stick a gun in our face and take our money. But if another government entity resorts to "cooking" the books to get some of that loot, it is doing something wrong. With this kind of double standard, it is little wonder that conservatives aren't being taken seriously. Until conservatives can stand on principle and oppose all forms of government initiated coercion, they will continue to present no meaningful opposition to the Leftists.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Sean Hannity's False Alternative
I generally try to avoid listening to Sean Hannity, but I happened to catch a portion of his program the other day. A caller was frustrated over the attitude of those who have argued that we cannot claim that a government takeover of the health care system will be a disaster. Hannity offered no explanation for this position, and simply repeated that the free market works.
Hannity is correct of course, if individual freedom and well-being is one's standard for "works". There is ample evidence--nineteenth century America, East Germany versus West Germany, communist China versus Hong Kong, etc.--that demonstrates the practical benefits of freedom. But these practical arguments have been, and always will be, ineffectual. The reason lies in morality.
Faced with a choice between what is considered moral and what is practical, individuals choose what they regard as moral. Having embraced altruism--the belief that morality consists of self-sacrificial service to others--the "conflict" between the moral and the practical is inevitable.
The free market is founded on the premise that each individual has a moral right to act according to his own judgment in the pursuit of his own values. It is a system based on rational self-interest, in which each individual is free to take the actions he deems appropriate to achieve his own interests and happiness (so long as he respects the mutual rights of others). This is of course, the antithesis of altruism.
Hannity, like virtually all conservatives, is blinded to the false alternative between the moral and the practical. He refuses to question altruism, and has no explanation as to why Americans are increasingly rejecting the practicality of the free market. Indeed, his own position adds to that rejection.
If morality consists of self-sacrificial service to others, if we must place the welfare and interests of others before our own, if the needs of one man supersede the rights of another, then morality demands that practical consequences be cast aside. To mystics like Hannity the issues of life on Earth are ultimately of little concern when the fate of one's eternal soul is at stake.
The truth is, a proper moral code is eminently practical. The purpose of morality is to provide man with a code of values for living his life on this Earth, to provide guidance for achieving his values.
So long as Hannity and other conservatives embrace altruism their arguments regarding the practicality of the free market will fall on deaf ears. Until they recognize and accept The Virtue of Selfishness
they will continue to endorse the false alternative of the moral versus the practical.
Hannity is correct of course, if individual freedom and well-being is one's standard for "works". There is ample evidence--nineteenth century America, East Germany versus West Germany, communist China versus Hong Kong, etc.--that demonstrates the practical benefits of freedom. But these practical arguments have been, and always will be, ineffectual. The reason lies in morality.
Faced with a choice between what is considered moral and what is practical, individuals choose what they regard as moral. Having embraced altruism--the belief that morality consists of self-sacrificial service to others--the "conflict" between the moral and the practical is inevitable.
The free market is founded on the premise that each individual has a moral right to act according to his own judgment in the pursuit of his own values. It is a system based on rational self-interest, in which each individual is free to take the actions he deems appropriate to achieve his own interests and happiness (so long as he respects the mutual rights of others). This is of course, the antithesis of altruism.
Hannity, like virtually all conservatives, is blinded to the false alternative between the moral and the practical. He refuses to question altruism, and has no explanation as to why Americans are increasingly rejecting the practicality of the free market. Indeed, his own position adds to that rejection.
If morality consists of self-sacrificial service to others, if we must place the welfare and interests of others before our own, if the needs of one man supersede the rights of another, then morality demands that practical consequences be cast aside. To mystics like Hannity the issues of life on Earth are ultimately of little concern when the fate of one's eternal soul is at stake.
The truth is, a proper moral code is eminently practical. The purpose of morality is to provide man with a code of values for living his life on this Earth, to provide guidance for achieving his values.
So long as Hannity and other conservatives embrace altruism their arguments regarding the practicality of the free market will fall on deaf ears. Until they recognize and accept The Virtue of Selfishness
they will continue to endorse the false alternative of the moral versus the practical.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Conservative Populism
Glenn Beck can be both illuminating and infuriating. As an example of the latter, he recently made a statement on his radio show that the states have a right to institute universal health care, hand out free cars, etc. if the citizens of that state want such things. He stated that the federal government is barred from such actions, but the states are not. In other words, he is not opposed to violating individual rights; he just wants it done on a more local level.
This is a typical approach by conservatives. They do not oppose government power over the lives and property of individuals. They just want that power to be exercised by state and local governments. To these conservatives, universal health care, entitlement programs, and business regulation are perfectly acceptable, so long as they are implemented on the state level.
This unprincipled thinking is primarily why the Republicans have lost control of Congress. They occasionally oppose violations of individual rights on the federal level (and even then that opposition is precarious and inconsistent) but not on the local level. They do not challenge the premise that the individual must be forced to sacrifice for the "common good"--they merely want to argue over who will make that determination.
If the people want it, Beck said, then virtually anything goes on the state level. But why does he apply this only to the states, while denying such power to the federal government? Beck's answer is: The Constitution.
The Constitution limits the power of the federal government, but not the states. The Tenth Amendment reserves for the states those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. According to Beck, while the federal government has limited powers, the state governments do not. This isn't a defense of individual rights; it is an invitation for the states to establish fifty separate tyrannies.
Beck is not opposed to government using coercion to implement the "will of the people". Whatever his good points (and there are many), Beck does not defend individual rights as a matter of principle. For all of his talk about honor and integrity, he is sadly lacking in rational principles.
Recently Beck has been attacking the Progressive Movement from the late 1800s and early 1900s, as well as its current manifestations, and rightfully so. But ironically he shares some of that movement's basic premises. The Progressives, largely animated by German Idealism, argued that "the people" should have a greater voice in government. Beck, who is animated by religious mysticism, concurs, only he wants that voice to be expressed in the state capitols rather than in Washington.
Beck demonstrates why conservatives are losing the intellectual battle. They have accepted the same basic premises as the Left, and they just want to bicker over the details. They aren't opposed to slavery, they just want the masters to be closer to home.
This is a typical approach by conservatives. They do not oppose government power over the lives and property of individuals. They just want that power to be exercised by state and local governments. To these conservatives, universal health care, entitlement programs, and business regulation are perfectly acceptable, so long as they are implemented on the state level.
This unprincipled thinking is primarily why the Republicans have lost control of Congress. They occasionally oppose violations of individual rights on the federal level (and even then that opposition is precarious and inconsistent) but not on the local level. They do not challenge the premise that the individual must be forced to sacrifice for the "common good"--they merely want to argue over who will make that determination.
If the people want it, Beck said, then virtually anything goes on the state level. But why does he apply this only to the states, while denying such power to the federal government? Beck's answer is: The Constitution.
The Constitution limits the power of the federal government, but not the states. The Tenth Amendment reserves for the states those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. According to Beck, while the federal government has limited powers, the state governments do not. This isn't a defense of individual rights; it is an invitation for the states to establish fifty separate tyrannies.
Beck is not opposed to government using coercion to implement the "will of the people". Whatever his good points (and there are many), Beck does not defend individual rights as a matter of principle. For all of his talk about honor and integrity, he is sadly lacking in rational principles.
Recently Beck has been attacking the Progressive Movement from the late 1800s and early 1900s, as well as its current manifestations, and rightfully so. But ironically he shares some of that movement's basic premises. The Progressives, largely animated by German Idealism, argued that "the people" should have a greater voice in government. Beck, who is animated by religious mysticism, concurs, only he wants that voice to be expressed in the state capitols rather than in Washington.
Beck demonstrates why conservatives are losing the intellectual battle. They have accepted the same basic premises as the Left, and they just want to bicker over the details. They aren't opposed to slavery, they just want the masters to be closer to home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
