Almost Classical

The election is over, thank goodness. I see social media posts suggesting we "relax" - but that's not what anyone should do, no matter who is in office. Both parties need vigilant voters to ensure there are checks and balances. Do things. Write. Blog. Create art. Criticize the powerful. Engage in dialogue with your neighbors and beyond. Get out of whatever bubbles you might be in, and we are all in bubbles, to find common ground with people of other ideologies. When I read some of the claims about Pres. Obama, I remind friends I side with socialist Cornel West and libertarians against extra-judicial use of drones, expansion of wire-tapping, the selling military "surplus" to police forces, the highest rate of deportations in U.S. history, and many other policies we have had during this time. How many bankers went to prison? I respect Pres. Obama more than I will ever respect a Trump or Pence. But I'm not going to waive my moral and ethical compass on issu...

Watching a clip of Chris Matthews and two guests lump the Tea Party, CPAC, and libertarians together was enough to make my skin crawl — and not as a great thrill up my leg, to paraphrase Matthews. No, it is utter disgust and contempt I feel for Matthews and company, people who see what they want to see. The core of classical liberalism, libertarianism with the small "L" independent of party nonsense, is that the ultimate "property right" is that of yourself over your mind and body. To quote John Stuart Mill, "The individual is sovereign." That is, in essence, classical liberalism. It is an ideal of negative rights, a terminology I have repeatedly criticized as unfortunate. It is the right to be protected against government abuses. When Matthews and company suggest states rights, a common "conservative" mantra, is in any way associated with libertarianism, they are mistake. The smaller state or county has no more right to my being than doe...

Following a post on Krugman, probably because that is what he was reading, Nathan posted the following comment: In your description of yourself, you are a classical liberal defined as: "Classical liberalism embodies the original concept of liberalism: a faith in freedom to, not freedom from as a guiding principle." Yet the concept of 'freedom to,' which is positive liberty, is contained nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers of our country were, as far as the definition of classical liberal that I know, mostly classical liberals - hence where we get the term. Yet, the U.S. Constitution is only written in terms of negative liberty, or 'freedom from.' How do you reconcile what appears to be a modern interpretation of classical liberalism from what is most assuredly a different actual and historical definition of the term classical liberal? Check the definition with references from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy before answering ...

Paul Krugman, unfortunately, is the dominant voice among left-leaning economists. His columns are too often a sad example of what passes for great intellectual insight from the Coastal Elites in today's United States. Consider this series of logical leaps: Moochers Against Welfare   By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: February 16, 2012  [The] regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn't Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don't eat Thai food and don't rely on handouts? Krugman is a master of misleading arguments, resorting to a mix of straw man arguments and ad hominem insults that are meant to belittle conservative voters. Why the use of the word "moochers" for people on aid? If the goal is to make a point that people on aid are not  moochers, Krugman fails. Instead, his use comes across as insulting. A moocher...

Today, the Pew Research Center released the following: The American-Western European Values Gap It should be no surprise that Americans value personal freedom more than they value a social safety net. The United States is a nation built by explorers who managed to survive frontiers. Even immigrants celebrate the rugged individualism of our national heros. A table of the survey findings: Notice that the data are mirror images. Europe has a different history, one shaped by two world wars and various upheavals. Neither approach is "right" or "wrong" — but I definitely fall in the personal freedom camp. I do not trust governments to solve problems and would rather be left alone to succeed or fail, as much as possible. Most Americans support a minimal safety net, but nothing comparable to the European welfare state. Individualism and the Role of the State In the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, views of the role of the state divide significantly acro...

For something to be a "right," it must be something you have the right and ability to pursue on your own. A right is contained within the self. If you believe in personal property, personal control, personal choice, the end result is a philosophy that rights are individual liberties. A good is something it is nice to have, but to which there is no inherent entitlement. Goods are purchased or bartered for in some way. Health care is not a right. You have the right to pursue a healthy lifestyle. You have the right to negotiate for health-related goods and services, but you are not entitled to the services of other people. We cannot mandate a certain number of medical professionals exist. We cannot mandate that trained doctors treat everyone. A doctor is free to retire and go fishing if he or she wants. Since health care relies on other people taking actions, to force them to do anything is servitude. Is there an ethical reason to have national health care? Sure. But t...

The best I can do is be true to what I value. I value education, the mind, reading, writing, etc. I value my personal freedom -- and equal freedom for others. (Unfortunately, "freedom" can be "from" or "to" and I am a "from" sort of person. Freedom from people / authority matters to me.) Am I a "capitalist pig" in theory? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean I personally care about money, power, or anything material. I care about my family, my students, and my community. You don't teach at a university seeking wealth, and most freelance writers aren't wealthy either. My "fight" (when I have the energy) is against limits on my choices. It is the fight against the state of Minnesota telling doctors off-label uses of medication is illegal. I wrote a 50+ page paper on the subject after the doctors here informed me I couldn't take the same meds as in California due to state laws. It is the fight against federal...