Friday, November 16, 2012

Liberty Just Isn't Cool I Guess

* Welcome new readers! Just a note. This is mostly a rant. Check out the links below the post for more serious writing.

I've been hearing the crap flooding out of Republican politicians and talking heads about tax increases for "the rich" are okay, being against abortion in cases of rape and incest means you're a purist and how Romney's comments are stupid (just 10 days after the election they hate the guy now). I have some problems with establishment Republicans. By establishment, I mean the guys and gals who have been in there for years, have no regard for the constitution, and who know nothing of political philosophy. They're in "there" without a clue as to what they're supposed to be doing for the citizens of the U.S.

Problem numero uno. Tax Increases are cool now. For the rich that is.

Questions: who are the rich and how will raising taxes on the rich help our country? Who are the rich? Are small business owners now considered to have the wealth of Bill Gates or Vince McMahon? When did that happen? Oh right, 10 days after the election. So the guy down the road from me running a printing card business who makes around 250 to 300 thousand dollars a year (before paying his employees, taxes, etc.) is now economically recognized as a Vince McMahon?


So let's tax the heck out of him so he can fire the employees he has and put more folks out of work. That's the right thing to do. That's the way to reward business owners. That's just good old economics, right? How will this help our economic situation? How will taking more money from "the wealthy" get us off the volcano? I'm confused.

Problem numero dos. You're a purist if you're against abortion in cases of rape and incest.

Or maybe I just understand that human beings are objectively valuable and have inherent worth regardless of how that life came to be. I don't think ending a life because it reminds you of a traumatic experience is just or moral. Maybe I'm crazy. If everyone in the world thought that killing a human being because that human being came into existence due to rape or incest is just or moral that still wouldn't make the action just or moral. Things are not right or wrong because someone thinks it right or wrong.

I agree that Murdock and Akin need to take pro-life classes from Scott Klusendorf and/or Greg Koukl, boy do I agree with that, but just because the message they gave sucked doesn't mean they're stupid or their view is antiquated and needs to be aborted. It just means they're not very good at defending and proclaiming their view. They need lessons. They're not the only ones who need lessons by the way. Coulter (who called me, Akin, Murdock and others purists - we're purists now, which is fine by me, I'll wear that mantle) and others need to take lessons in critical thinking and philosophy so they can follow their arguments to their logical conclusions and, I don't know, actually think critically about what they're saying.

Problem number three (I'm done with the spanish thing). Liberty isn't cool anymore. 

Stop being a purist. It's not cool to be a purist. Saying no to tax increases and being against abortion in cases of rape and incest makes you a purist and purists just aren't cool man, they're just not cool, so get over yourself and be for tax increases and abortion for rape and incest situations. Who says that? The R party says that now. Popular talking heads on R blogs and television are saying that now. Ten days after the election conservative principles (which they don't know about really) are out and moderate anti-purist principles (can we call them principles? they don't know what they stand for) are in. Remember desktop computers? They went out. Remember the iPad 1? It's old news already. That's how some people treat their political philosophy. Liberty? Yeah, that's out. I like tyranny now. I like being told what kind of light bulb to use, what kind of toilet to use, and what kind of food to eat. That's cool/hip/rad/whatever.

It's sad when liberty isn't cool. When it's not "in." It's sad. It's sad that people take their liberty for granted and that some people treat elections like a game show or talent show. I heard people talking about candidates as if they were participating in "Dancing with the Stars" or "American Idol." These people don't realize that their votes affect our society. They don't recognize it because the affects have been slow. So slow it can be compared to the sloth. Even these changes have been slow, you have to realize they've been happening since the Wilson presidency.

Don't forget our natural rights. Don't forget what it means to have economic and civic freedom. Study the stuff. Read Locke. Read our founding documents. Listen to the Constitution 101 course from Hillsdale college. Learn our history.

Speaking of liberty, Rand Paul wrote an excellent piece on his father's legacy. Check it out here.

More stuff
The Consequences of Freedom
The Anchor of our Freedom
The Collectivist Monster


  1. Seth -

    On abortion, especially in cases of rape and incest - I've got a couple of questions.

    If you feel that all human life is objectively valuable - then you are opposed to capital punishment? If no man is fit to judge when an unborn life should be terminated, then surely no man is fit to judge when *any* human life should be terminated? If there are exceptions after we are out of the womb, then certainly there may be exceptions when we are still in utero? I'm OK with a consistent value (or lack of value) on the sanctity of life. I cannot reconcile myself with the paradox of a left that is pro-choice and anti-capital punishment, and anti-war or a right that is anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment and pro-war. Let's not start picking apart the meaning of these phrases. We're all clear that no one *likes* to kill... but when we say "pro-war" we're talking about a party that is quicker to use show of force and dispose of diplomacy during conflicts.

    For my own part, I think these are all very difficult choices - and I think that we're all entitled to our own opinions. I'm OK with you having your opinion about abortion, including in matters of rape and incest. If you have a daughter and she is raped by her uncle and your family values say that a resulting pregnancy should be carried to term, I think that should be your family's right. The Government should not interfere in your ability to pursue this course of action. That is a basic liberty.

    Likewise, if the same situation should happen to my family and we should decide that the resulting pregnancy should be terminated - that should be *our* right. We may not hold the same values as you, and your values should not trump ours, any more than ours should trump yours.

    This has been the *practice* of the platform on abortion in the Republican party for decades. The *position* is clearly anti-Abortion - but the practice has been to leave the matter unenforced politically or legislatively. So, I don't think Republicans need to abandon this position as a core *value* - but they need to make clear that they have no intention of enforcing this position.

    Isn't that really the rational answer that critical thinking should bring one to on this matter?

  2. This post was definitely a rant. I'm upset with the quickness of former Bush advisors and political analysts I respected saying things after this election like, "We need to be more moderate," etc. "we need to lose certain language." It's upsetting. Ah well.

    Thanks for commenting! I appreciate thought out and honest comments.

    I do think life is objectively valuable. I think I'm consistent with my view on abortion and holding the view I have on capital punishment. On abortion in cases of rape and incest. It's difficult for me to understand how one can be anti-abortion in all other cases except rape and incest. Why does an innocent human being have to die because he/she/they remind the mother of a traumatic experience? Why is it permitted to end a life for that reason? The human being who is aborted isn't the one who caused the traumatic experience. It just confuses me. I have friends who are pro-life except in cases of rape and incest and none of them have been able to explain it to me. If you can, please do because I might be persuaded to hold to the view.

    On capital punishment. Honestly, on this view I'm floating right now, not firmly planting my feet on any ground currently. Do I think life is objectively valuable? Yes I do. I also hold to justice though. If there is a human being who has committed egregious crime against another human being like violating another's right to life by ending that life then I think it's fair to say and consistent with my view on life that he should be punished by his right to liberty being stripped from him (life in prison) or his right to life (capital punishment)however the state decides. I think all citizens should respect each other's natural rights and when one disrespects another's rights he, she, or they should be punished, which again goes back to abortion: why should the new human being's natural rights be targeted for someone else violating the mother?

    Are there problems with capital punishment? Yes there are. Few people enjoy seeing a life ended, but sometimes that is justice. Especially if the recipient of justice is a person who has committed many crimes against society, by capital punishment we can be sure that person won't commit crime again. On the other hand, sometimes innocent people are framed and receive capital punishment though I don't think that is as often as opponents of CP argue. It's tough because I hate to think of a life ending. What if he or she would change? Did we ruin that chance by inflicting CP on that person? I remember Schopenhauer's comment on abolishing CP, "Those who would like to abolish it should be given the answer: 'First remove murder from the world, and then capital punishment ought to follow.'


    I'm still not firmly established on any solid ground. I guess if pressed I would say I'm for it, but I think it should be an uncommon form of justice.

    In summary, I don't understand why a new human being's life and liberty should be stripped from him for another's crime against the mother.

    On capital punishment. A human being living in society with others, under natural law, should respect his fellow man's natural rights to life, liberty, and property. When he violates his fellow citizen's right to life he should be punished in some measure by losing his natural rights. I think that is a consistent position with holding to life as objectively valuable.


Reformed Seth appreciates and encourages your comments, but we do have guidelines for posting comments:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.