Why Every Capitalist Should Think Like a Lefty

So I recently lost my job, and wound up getting one in L.A., rather than staying in Vegas.  The funny part is, I got really, really excited about my new job, my new company, and everything it stands for, even though it is usually pretty associated with the left.

My new job is at a craft beer bar and restaurant with a very local, sustainable focus.  All but five of our 72 beers are CA craft beers.  All of them are on draft.  Even our wine comes in kegs, to reduce waste.  Our entire menu is locally sourced, with an emphasis on local, small, sustainable farmers.  This is like a hippy's wet dream.

Thinking  about it, though, it should also be every Libertarian, economic conservative, or free market Republican's wet dream too.  Part of the reason we should not feel bad about deregulating, or about cutting social services is that we should insist that the free market is capable of "doing the right thing," without regulation and over-taxation.  That is, we would wind up donating more to charity if so much of our hard-earned income didn't get taken away for welfare and social security programs.  Businesses would have an incentive to protect the environment, and the rights of workers, especially in today's world of free flowing information, if the government let competition take its toll.

My question is this, though.  How many Republicans or Libertarians have made a conscious choice to buy responsibly, or to help a charity, recently?  Let's put our money where our mouth is.

I'm not really huge on the environment, or on animal rights.  So why is local, sustainable, vegan-friendly dining such a big deal to me?  The human rights aspect.  Last time I took a class on this, the world produces enough food to feed its population three times The issue is not a lack of resources.  It is an uneven distribution and supply chain.  The vast majority of food produced in "developing" nations (poor places), goes to the U.S. market.  Moreover, a lot of it is not consumed by humans as food.  Instead, it goes into gasoline as ethanol, or gets fed to our  livestock in factory-scaled farms.  By buying locally sourced, grass-fed food, we leave more grain in those poor countries to support their populations.  I guess it is also more humane, and more green, but more importantly, it is a good step toward basic human rights.

Prove the left wrong and prove that the free market can be green, humane, and compassionate.  Donate some time or money this holiday season, do your Christmas shopping at a local small business, or eat a meal you know was sourced locally.

Free Trade Agreements and Libertarianism

So this is an issue that I think all Libertarians should consider (along with targeted tax breaks).  I guess it comes down to how idealistic we are versus how pragmatic we are as Libertarians.

I saw this link, but the speech itself is not really what poses the question.

The question is, from a Libertarian perspective, are free trade agreements a good or a bad thing?  The good side is fairly obvious.  Free trade is a good thing.  It encourages competition, and reinforces the rights of business owners (both here and abroad) to practice their business as they wish to.

The bad side is a little more complex.  Yes, free trade is a good thing.  Financially, and for the individuals in the countries involved, or American businesspeople who do business with them, this is obviously a very Libertarian step.

On the other hand, the idea of individual bilateral free trade agreements is very anti-Libertarian, anti-free market, and anti-capitalistic.  Instead of removing regulation and leveling the playing field, it creates an even more stark, government-induced contrast between the restrictions different sets of business owners face.

It creates two classes of international countries, and with them, two classes of American businesses.  That is, those businesses who choose to do business with countries we have free trade with, and businesses who choose to do business with other countries.

In short, if lower government regulation is what we think of as Libertarian ideals, then I guess these agreements are a gift.

If, on the other hand, less government involvement in our individual and business lives is what we see as Libertarian, this is terrible.  I would rather have more regulations, but have them be simple, and consistent, than have no restrictions for some countries, but a government web of individualized agreements with other nations.  Am I a bad Libertarian?

Surveillence State

I saw this a few days ago, and it really hit me.  This is a big part of why I am a Libertarian.  Although our current government may not be out to harm us, the technology available to it is scary.  All it would take would be one individual in the White House, Congress, or any of an ever-growing number of arms of the federal bureaucracy with less than kind intentions to turn this technology against us.

A state, or, for that matter, any other organization, which has the ability to monitor someone's every moves is only one short step away from controlling that individual.  Especially in our technology-driven world, where blogging, Tweeting, Facebooking, and texting are such large parts of our lives, this is scary.  The government can literally see where any American is planning on meeting their friends later this evening, what they had for dinner, who they took a photo with at the bar last night.  They can see your personal conflicts with friends, family, or your boss.  They can even tell whether you liked last night's episode of Glee.

Almost as concerning as the government's ability to collect this information is the fact that with our benevolent government, this is all useless information.  A true conspiracy theorist, or a pessimist, might fear that our government has sinister motives for wanting this information.  As an optimist, I believe that our government has no intention of misusing this information.  Why, then, are we paying thousands of people to collect and sift through it?  Why are we spending millions of dollars developing the technology to assist in this task?  As government debt and deficit rises, why are we wasting this money?

Just as importantly, there are actually bad people out there (within the U.S. and abroad).  As a highly trained, highly educated specialist sifts through my personal life via Facebook, this blog, Twitter, and my texts, how many of those bad people and their bad plans are slipping through the cracks?  As our government collects massive amounts of voice and text data from millions of American citizens, how many phone calls or messages planning the next major attack on America are sitting in a backlog of data somewhere?

Why the Libertarian Party Should Nominate Ron Paul

Alright.  So, as a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, here's my plan and advice for 2012.

Keep in mind I live in a closed primary state.  I cannot caucus as a Republican unless I officially change my party affiliation before the caucus, which I might actually do.

The Libertarian party should nominate Ron Paul.  Why nominate a traitor, you ask?

Well, there's a few reasons.  First, the matter of principles.  Although Ron Paul may have left the Libertarian Party, he still holds firm in many Libertarian beliefs.  Best example?  Ron Paul has been an outspoken opponent of the U.S.'s Middle Eastern wars since 2001.

There is nothing in either law or the LP bylaws which states that  candidate must actually be a party member in order to be nominated on the Libertarian ticket.

Second of all, practicality.

Best case scenario for Libertarians (and small "l" libertarians as well) is Ron Paul actually wins the Republican nomination.  A candidate can appear on the ballot with multiple nominations.  If this happens, one of two things happens, depending on each individual state's election laws.  Either the candidate appears twice on the ballot, with each party's name, or the candidate appears once with both parties.

Scenario a) the candidate still gets the votes from both names.  We could actually have a Liberty minded president in 2013.  More importantly, the LP could leverage these states to show how popular Libertarian ideas actually are.  Although Ron Paul, Libertarian, would appear below Ron Paul, Republican, on the ballot, both votes count the same (for who wins the office).  On the other hand, the total per party is calculated separately.  In this case, the Libertarians could appeal to Republican voters to choose the Libertarian Ron Paul if they hold Libertarian values.  Without the risk of them "wasting votes" or "stealing votes" from Obama's opponent, they could still vote for the same candidate but express their true, Liberty-minded, political opinion at the same time.  Since Ron Paul's own campaign, and the Republican Party, would likely be paying most of his campaign expenses, Republicans could focus on these states and voter education to encourage voters to vote for Ron Paul, Libertarian.

In Scenario b), the candidate only appears once.  Sharing a nominee with a major party would mean a lot of "Libertarian" votes.  Which could potentially help with ballot access issues, as well as raise general awareness.  Just seeing the name of our party next to one of the two real contenders in a presidential election will arouse a lot of curiosity.

Now, the other possibility is that Ron Paul loses the Republican nomination and wins the Libertarian nomination.  Should Paul have a strong showing in the Republican primaries, but not win, he might choose to actively campaign as an independent, or, more to the point, Third Party, candidate.  With the huge amount of fundraising he is sure to do leading up to the primaries, this could provide the LP with significant sources of campaign funding.  Moreover, as shown by the whole Ron Paul rEVOLUTION thing, he has many, many, very devoted followers.  Although most will surely vote for the "lesser of two evils," some are actually Democrats or Independents, and some are hardcore liberty-minded Republicans, all of who might very well choose to support Ron Paul over the Republican nominee.  It is doubtful this would be enough votes to win the election.  But it might very well be enough to get the Libertarian Party some attention, and, more importantly, to have the "largest third party in America," be viewed as a viable political force and option.

More on Moral Politics and Libertarians

So, having re-read all of Moral Politics, the author actually specifically addresses Libertarians within his frame of thought.  And it is even more irritating than what I thought was his total emission.

First of all, he covers Libertarianism in all of one page.  Second, he uses that page to basically say, "Libertarians won't admit it, but they are Conservatives at heart."  His argument is lacking in several aspects.

First, he defeats it with his own arguments.  His explanation of Libertarianism is that inherent with "Strict Father" (i.e. Conservative) morality and politics is the inherent reality that a) a strict father raises his children that way so that once they are mature, they can be self reliant, and b) there is resentment from an adult child whose father is overly intrusive and does not allow him to "sink or swim" in adulthood.  Libertarians focus, rather than on other aspects of Strict Father morality, on this resentment of the overly-intrusive father figure (i.e. the government).  Well, that would seem to make sense, except for a couple things.  First, this is a side effect of the Strict Father morality and politics, not a central issue of it.  Focusing on a side effect of the system does not mean Libertarians buy into the system.  Second of all, according to his own explanation of Strict Father morality, and why Conservatives can support policies that don't seem to actually achieve their ends, he brushes this off, as saying that, in Strict Father morality, preservation of Strict Father morality is always priority number one.  So, if his explanation of the priorities of Strict Father morality is true, then Libertarians cannot truly be a part of this, if their emphasis is on removing an overly-strict father from the picture, rather than on preserving absolute adherence to Strict Father values.

Although he does not address it in his discussion of Libertarians specifically, the author dismisses the idea that Libertarians, or anyone else, could have a political theory based on something other than either "Strict Father" or "Nurturant Parent" family-based morality.  He argues that because the family is biologically and socially our primary point of reference, it is impossible to look at morality without considering the family.  And, because politics is necessarily moral, it is therefor impossible to have a political theory not based on morality, and thus on the family.  This argument looks bullet proof at first glance.  Upon a closer look, however, it is faulty.  This would be equivalent to saying that because physical nutrition is our foremost requirement, everything we do, think, or say, must be based on food.  Just because something ranks high on our ladder of priorities as individuals and a society does not mean everything below it must be based on it.  It just means that, at the end of the day, if it comes down to food or family, we take food.  If it comes down to our family's survival or our moral values, we choose family.  Look, for instance, at conservative families who embrace their gay and lesbian children.  They place their family over their personal moral values.

Yes, our political discourse is filled with references to the family.  It is also filled with references to  money, war, sex, relationships, geography, death, survival and dozens of other things.  This does not mean it is based on any one of these things.  It means that either a) they are all factors, b) our politicians are skilled at using terminology that will pull at people's deepest instinctual and emotional strings, or c) some combination of the two.  In sciences, and even in social sciences, there are two questions too often overlooked by people trying (consciously or subconsciously) to prove a point.  First, is the relationship causal, and second, which direction does the causation run?  While Moral Politics lays out a relationship between family values, morality, and politics, it does not answer either of these questions.  Are the three linked by a causal relationship?  Do family values lead to morality to politics, or some combination of them?  Or are they all just such large factors of our lives that they inherently cross paths and influence each other?  If we accept that there is, in fact, a causal relationship, which way does that run.  Do people hold the values they hold because of their family values?  Or do we raise our children a certain way because of our political and/or moral outlook?  The book does not adequately answer any of these questions.

Finally, even if we accept that Conservatives are Conservative and Liberals are Liberal because of their respective systems of child-rearing and the moral values those systems instill, it does not mean that every political ideology will necessarily be based on a family-based moral outlook.  Even if we accept that they all are, however, there is no evidence to support the idea that these are the only two ways of raising children, or the only two systems of moral values that guide child-rearing.

In short, the author has laid out a wonderful hypothesis.  It's time to prove it.  Using links and value hierarchies, however, does not prove a causal, much less an exclusive causal relationship.

I would argue that Libertarianism could just as (if not more) easily be viewed as a Nurturant political system as a Strict political system.  In fact, it is based on the (according to the work Nurturant) idea that we should be able to make our own choices, and choose to be creative, to express ourselves, etc. There is also another factor.  Libertarians believe that perhaps the government is not the best at nurturing its citizens.  Libertarians support private charity, small businesses creating jobs, freedom of expression to express ideas and educate each other through art, etc.  Perhaps, then, Libertarians fit within our own family values system.  Perhaps it is the Nurturant Sibling, or Orphan, family morality which guides Libertarians.  Like families who have been neglected by parents, where an older sibling supports and raises a younger sibling, Libertarians may feel our government has not been there to provide the nurturing "upbringing" it was supposed to.  Despite years of over-regulation, social welfare programs, public education, arts education, etc. look at where we are?  We are soon to be overtaken as the world's largest economy.  A (relatively) small dip in the world markets has left millions unemployed and kicked out of their homes.  The poverty rate in our country is still abysmal for a country which consumes so much.  Perhaps the Libertarian philosophy is that our parents (the federal government), our foster parents (local governments and government subsidized big business), and the system have let us down.  It's time for them to back off and let the big siblings, who have done well, create jobs, education, and other infrastructure, and nurture our "younger siblings" who need a little extra help.

Libertarians and Taxes

So one of the problems with political parties is that they often take broad stances and try to attract many, many people who vaguely or generally agree with them.  I thought that this was the case mostly with the major parties, but it happens with third parties too.  I realized this when I was reading the campaign website of Art Lampit, the Libertarian candidate for Nevada Governor this last election.  In all honesty, I voted for him, because of who the other candidates were, but despite his affiliation with my own political party, I really did not agree with him on a lot of issues.

The big one is taxes.  The official Libertarian stance on taxes is that they are a government intrusion into our pockets and our lives and they should be lowered.

Now, where do selective, targeted tax cuts and tax breaks fit into that understanding?

I can see the argument that any tax break is good as it takes less of our money and gives it to the government.  Baby steps, right?

That to me is what a "practical" Libertarian might think.  You know, the "ends justifies the means" type.  With this philosophy, a tax credit for providing health insurance to employees, or for creating green jobs, or for being a small business, makes sense because it lowers the overall tax burden.

I, however, am what I would call more of a "philosophical" Libertarian.  Beyond taking our money, if we think about why high taxes are un-Libertarian, tax breaks seem like a very un-Libertarian idea as well.  To me, Libertarianism is largely about limiting government to its pre-defined (by the Constitution) and necessary role.  Our government was given the right to collect taxes as a way of raising revenue to perform certain tasks.  Not as a way to manipulate and control our behavior.  Taxes should be a necessarily evil way of raising revenue from ALL citizens and businesses, not a way for the government to encourage or proscribe certain behaviors.

Also, the tax code itself is too complicated, requiring massive Federal, State, and Local bureaucracies to interpret, collect, and enforce.  This in itself contributes to large government.  Adding more loopholes and tax "incentives" only contributes to large government, and increases government spending.

That's why to me, being a Libertarian means supporting a proposal like the Fair Tax or Flat Tax, which would eliminate the IRS tax code, even if it means that the actual amount of money paid to the government by me, or by anyone else, would go up for now.

Overall tax expenditure should be cut by reducing bureaucracy, waste, and intrusion by the government, not by giving tax breaks that reward positive behavior and punish negative behavior.

Moving Beyond Party Lines to Oppose TARP

Alright.  So, the 2010 general election is just around the corner, and I'm sure that many people plan on voting for candidates they think can get us out of this mess we're in.  A lot of people will automatically assume that means voting Republican.  Think again.

The Libertarian Party recently posted this list of Libertarians taking on TARP-supporting incumbents.  Look past the letters next to your candidate's name.  Particularly if you live in one of the following districts, seriously look into the candidates' views, rather than just their party affiliation.

Alaska (Senate)
CA-3
CA-26
CA-42
CA-48
Georgia (Senate)
Iowa (Senate)
MI-4
MI-6
North Carolina (Senate)
OH-2
OH-8
OH-12
OK-1
SC-2
TX-8
TX-11
TX-12
TX-13
TX-21
TX-32
VA-10
WI-1

If you live in one of these districts, you are currently represented by a "Republican" who supported the costly and failed TARP funding.

Third Parties and Run Off Election

Recently, the Libertarian Party posted an article (I failed to read it in its entirety) pointing out that polls are now showing several Libertarian candidates in Georgia getting enough votes in November to lead to runoff elections.  At first, I did not see how significant this was.

Thinking about it, however, I now see that this is a huge step for Libertarians, independents, and third parties in general.  Talking to many voters, they often acknowledge that the views of third parties (usually Green or Libertarian) are actually closer to their own political beliefs than those of either major parties.  In election cycles where this thought prevails, particularly in election cycles like the current one, where there is huge discontent with the status quo and the party in power, the opposition party usually spends time and money trying to portray third parties as stealing necessary votes from close races.

I have always maintained that it is more important to vote for the best candidate, even if it does, in fact, steal votes.  The harm done by one elected candidate in one term is nothing compared to the damage to our society and nation done by a failing two party system over a period of several centuries.  By voting for third parties, every vote is another vote of confidence, and will, eventually, contribute to either the fall of the two party system or a change in the two prominent parties.

Runoff elections, however, provide us with an opportunity for an even more concrete gain from our "wasted" third party votes.  Essentially, the prospect of a runoff election provides voters with an opportunity to vote for the best candidate without risking pushing the worst candidate into office by "wasting" votes.  For example, if Georgians are confident that there will be a runoff election, they can express support for Libertarian values and candidates in the actual election.  Although the Libertarian may not win, they will cause a runoff election.  The in-power Democratic candidate will not win the first round of the election.  Libertarians can then vote in the runoff for the "lesser of two evils" candidate.

We should take this opportunity in Georgia, and wherever else it presents itself this November, and use the elections not as a referendum on the Democratic or Republican Party, but on their two party system as a whole.  Vote for the best candidate this November, and then vote for the "lesser of two evils" in the runoff.

The added bonus of this is that by forcing a runoff election, we force the two major parties to spend even more money than they already do on this election cycle, emphasizing just how much time, effort, and money it takes to coerce votes from people who really aren't happy with either option.