If You Care About Limited Government, You Don’t Wave Away Abuses of State Power

29 12 2011

As someone who is both a libertarian and a Republican I have a somewhat complicated relationship with conservatism and what some self-identified conservatives claim it means to be conservative.

Chiefly the trouble lies in the fact that most every conservative claims they are supporters of individual liberty and limited government, but then toss away those concerns the moment it involves liberty for someone they don’t approve of, whether they be gays, immigrants, Muslims, or other unpopular minorities.

Mostly I’ve focused on immigration and how many on the right so easily reject the free market in order to subsidize American labor interests. This time though, I want to focus on another aspect of so-called conservatives enabling statism.

In a recent post Ann Corcoran of Potomac Tea Party Report responds to a report highlighting incidences of police brutality by cavalierly dismissing it as so much political agitprop from the Left.

This is unconscionable if you honestly believe in limited government. I care about things like the tax code and land use policy, and I certainly recognize how the state uses them to restrict individual liberty. But the police being free to brutalize innocent people and even to egregiously violate the civil rights of actual criminals is a massively bigger threat to individual liberty.

And contrary to Corcoran’s implication, this isn’t something that was made up by the Obama administration or George Soros or some other bogeyman leftist.

I spent about 5 minutes on investigative journalist and libertarian activist Radley Balko’s site and found the following:

  • Over 380 cases of police breaking into people’s homes and terrorizing the occupants while doing no-knock drug raids. These incidents frequently feature physical harm being inflicted on occupants and put both young children and elderly relatives at risk. In virtually every case they either found only miniscule amounts of marijuana or actually had hit the wrong house.
  • Over 320 cases of police shooting people’s dogs when the dogs posed no threat to the officers. In many cases people pleaded with the officers to allow them to pen the dogs or otherwise restrain them but the officers refused to do so and shot the dogs instead.
  • Something like 700 cases of police getting away with flagrant violations of the law either because other police officers refused to enforce the law against them or courts refused to consider as valid testimony that contradicted the claims of the offending officers.

Spend a bit of time reading through the linked material. It’s horrifying to think that this sort of thing happens in America today. We’re a far sight better than places like North Korea, China, or the various authoritarian tyrannies of Africa and the Middle East, but the state is still egregiously violating individual liberty in the United States and in ways a whole lot worse than excessive marginal tax rates.

Just because those abuses aren’t terribly visible to people like Corcoran or myself it doesn’t mean they aren’t real and it certainly doesn’t mean that they aren’t an issue that limited government advocates ought to be outraged about.





Independence Day Thought

4 07 2011

I’d be interested in seeing to what degree people who complain about illegal immigrants breaking the law correlate with people who illegally shoot off fireworks on the Fourth of July.

Also, I think it’s worth linking to my Independence Day post from last year.





Big Happenings in New Hampshire

15 04 2011

As I’ve indicated before, I’m very excited about the possibility of former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson running for president in 2012. Well based off an email I received today from the Our America Initiative, it looks like that may well moving one step closer to happening very soon:

Dear Friend,

Next week will mark my ninth trip to New Hampshire since I started the Our America Initiative in December 2009. I truly enjoy my visits to the Granite State and look forward to many more in the future.

This upcoming trip promises to be my most exciting yet. Next Thursday, April 21, I’ll be making a special announcement, and I would like for you to be a part of it.

For those of you who can’t drop everything on a dime to come and join me, please follow along on the internet. We’ll be providing more details next week. For those of you who can, lets go!

At 9 AM on Thursday morning, I will hold a news conference on the steps of the New Hampshire State Capitol Building in Concord.  Please join me if you’re in the area. It will be a great opportunity to show our support for the message of liberty. Later in the evening at 7 PM, we will be gathering at the Executive Court in Manchester (1199 South Mammoth Road). Please stop by to say hello! I would enjoy the opportunity to hear your concerns about our country’s direction and discuss my suggestions for charting a course toward freedom and prosperity. There will be food, refreshments, and music, so it promises to be a great time. Here is a Google map for your convenience.

I will spend Friday, April 22, in Manchester visiting local businesses and speaking with residents from across southern New Hampshire. If you’re in town, keep on the lookout so we don’t miss each other! I will also be doing a number of TV, radio, and newspaper interviews throughout the day at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm’s College.

On Saturday, April 23, I will cap off my exciting week in the Granite State by skiing Mount Washington’s famousTuckerman’s Ravine. I may not have mentioned this to you before, but I truly love to ski, and Tuckerman’s has long been a challenge I want to tackle. We’ll meet at 8:00 AM at the Pinkham Notch trailhead before beginning the 2.5-mile hike to Hermit Lake Shelter at the base of Tuckerman’s.

As you can see, there is a full slate of events scheduled next week. My days will surely be packed, but it promises to be a lot of fun, too. I hope to see you there!

In liberty,

Gary

P.S. Thank you for your generous support during this past year. I truly appreciate your contribution, no matter the size: http://ouramericainitiative.com/donate.

Maryland is a bit far from New Hampshire, so I can’t make it there, but I highly encourage anyone who can be there to show up and support Gary as he makes his big announcement.





Mixed up on Gay Marriage

24 02 2011

For those who care about such things, RedMaryland is once again debating the gay marriage issue and what Maryland conservatives ought to be doing about the move to legalize it in the Old Line State.

For a while now there’s something that’s bothered me about this debate (the debate generally, not this one specifically), and I finally think I’ve put my finger on what it is.

Simply put, what government calls a marriage is not really a Marriage.

That which is really, truly Marriage is a commitment made between the partners and, if relevant, the deity they mutually revere. It is a commitment to be forever united and faithful to the person in question – it’s an acknowledgement that the other has become such a fundamental part of your own identity that there is no possibility of your own wholeness without their presence in your life.

Government marriage doesn’t hold a candle to that. It’s just a piece of paper saying the government agrees to recognize two people as one for certain tax and property ownership purposes and that they mutually have the right to make certain decisions on behalf of the other. In substance, it’s just another form of contract, not any different than a contract forming a joint partnership and government calling it marriage doesn’t make it Marriage anymore than government calling a jar of peanut butter a PB&J sandwich would make it so.

So if all that’s at stake is government limiting a certain subset of contract law to some people, then I see two implications arising:

  1. Same-sex marriage isn’t the big deal it’s made out to be, by either side of the debate.
  2. Prohibitions on same-sex marriage are an interference with freedom of contract, and if we support free markets than we can’t simultaneously support abridging freedom of contract.

I don’t imagine writing this will have much of any impact on the policy debate being decided in Annapolis, but with the significant difference between marriage and Marriage, I would strongly urge Republicans, both in legislators and activists, to cease their opposition to the same-sex government marriages.





Is the Tea Party Serious About Liberty?

26 01 2011

It’s an important question and the answer isn’t as self-evident as it might seem.

As Salon’s Alex Pareene has noted, there are some disturbing trends when it comes to Tea Party activists taking anti-liberty stances:

Andrew Sullivan documented two examples of Tea Party illiberalism earlier this week. First of all, polling reveals that support for gay marriage is lower among Tea Partyers than among almost any group besides “conservative Republicans.” Fifty-two percent of Tea Partyers don’t support gay marriage or civil unions. That is not really the position of actual libertarian-leaning Republicans, let alone freewheeling libertarians.

But more damningly, various New Mexico Tea Partyers booed one of the movement’s superstars for daring to suggest that a wasteful and — let’s just say it –tyrannical government campaign be ended.

That’s pretty troubling stuff, as is the hostility to free trade and aggressively anti-immigration sentiment coming from some Tea Party activists and attendees.

However the Cato Institute’s David Boaz has a fair counterpoint to Pareene’s:

“The tea party is not a libertarian movement, but (at this point at least) it is a libertarian force in American politics. It’s organizing Americans to come out in the streets, confront politicians, and vote on the issues of spending, deficits, debt, the size and scope of government, and the constitutional limits on government. That’s a good thing. And if many of the tea partiers do hold socially conservative views (not all of them do), then it’s a good thing for the American political system and for American freedom to keep them focused on shrinking the size and cost of the federal government.”

In general I’d say Boaz comes closer to the truth. But then I see things like this and it makes me want to re-consider:

More importantly than being MSOP’s first meeting of the New Year, this meeting will feature Robert Broadus, leader of Protect Marriage Maryland. We will discuss the imminent threats to traditional marriage in Maryland, which have become very legitimate due to November’s elections, and what the average Marylander can do to stop them.

That’s from the website of the Maryland Society of Patriots, one of the two main Tea Party groups in Maryland (the other main group is AFP based). That they are taking this kind of stance is incredibly disturbing.

There simply isn’t anything pro-liberty about using the coercive force of the state to define marriage as exclusively being the province of the combination of one man and one woman. I don’t expect Tea Party groups to go and support the libertarian social policies, but if it wants to be serious about it’s pro-liberty credentials it needs to avoid coming out and endorsing social conservative statism.





Libertarians and the MDGOP

7 01 2011

After the selection of former State Senator Alex Mooney as Chairman of the MDGOP RedMaryland’s Mark Newgent rightly noted:

His social conservatism may put off more libertarian minded members of the party, who would [be] allies on the fiscal front.

I’ll admit, I’m among those libertarians who have concerns about Alex’s social conservatism. But I’m staying with the MDGOP. Here’s one of the reasons why:

Senate Republican Leader Allan Kittleman said Wednesday he will introduce legislation establishing civil unions between both heterosexual and same-sex partners.

“I’ve always felt that we should have equal rights for same-sex couples,” Kittleman said in an interview. “I also think it’s important we protect marriage as an institution.”

The Republican who represents part of Howard and Carroll counties said he was introducing the legislation on his own behalf, and not as caucus leader, though he had phoned the other 11 members of the GOP caucus to inform them. He emphasized this is “not a Republican leadership position.”

This is the first time that Kittleman, who has strong libertarian tendencies, has weighed in on the contentious issue.

Kittleman, a lawyer, said his preference actually would have been to remove references to marriage in Maryland law, and simply have civil unions for all consenting adults, with marriage existing only as a religious institution.

But he found he was pre-empted by the federal Defense of Marriage Act, that denies benefits to even opposite sex couples.

“I think we have a good chance to do this this year,” Kittleman said of his civil union bill, which is being drafted. He called this approach “something that hopefully can be a consensus.”

The existence of Republicans like Kittleman, people who understand that freedom doesn’t come in pieces, do a great deal towards making it worth being a Republican libertarian.

And fellow libertarians in MD, think about this – Democrats, the ones who are supposed to stand up for civil liberties, have controlled Maryland for decades but we still don’t have gay marriage or marijuana legalization but we do have speed cameras and mass arrests without cause.

At least our Republican legislators are, more or less, good on taxes and spending. And with Kittleman it’s pretty much the full package. Just need to get a few more like him.

P.S. Mark’s also written up a good response piece to Kittleman’s bill and it’s generating some interesting debate.





Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act

21 05 2010

It seems a great deal of digital ink was spilled yesterday, particularly by left-wing bloggers, over Rand Paul’s thoughts on the Civil Rights Act. Here’s Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Matt Zeitlin, Jamelle Bouie, and Jamelle again for a sampler.

Now I’m at least happy to see that all of the above agreed Paul isn’t a racist and that at least most of the libertarians who share his position on the Civil Rights Act and bans on private discrimination in general aren’t either. It’s a refreshing change from average web commentators who don’t seem to be able to grasp that.

However that being said, I do have to take issue with what strikes me as the real substance of the complaint, namely that such a position is absurd because racism and private discrimination never would have ended on their own without government action.

Now, perhaps there’s something I’m missing, but I fail to see how that isn’t the absurd proposition. Look at marijuana today. More and more people every year are coming to the conclusion that it ought to be legalized, at least in some limited form, but legal action to that effect is lagging behind public opinion.

I would think American history shows the same trend as far as concerns legal racial oppression in America. With the exception of cases where state and local hands were forced by higher up authorities, I think it’s probably safe to say every legal shift was preceded by shifts in public opinion of the relevant constituencies.

That’s why the public-private distinction matters. Government can’t change how it does things unless the law changes. Private actors can however respond to shifts in public opinion, and historically public opinion has continued to become more accepting and more tolerant with every generation and it has been those shifts that have driven changing legal norms rather than the other way around.

So it seems to me incomprehensible to suggest as so many do that if the Civil Rights Act had not included provisions outlawing private discrimination that things would have never changed in the South. They would have changed, just a great deal more slowly.

Now, whether or not the rate of change is tolerable and therefore whether or not those provisions were justified is a debate worth having. But Jamelle’s claim that:

To put it another way, the liberty gained by allowing some Americans live free of institutionalized racism was much — much — greater than the liberty maintained by letting some Americans to freely discriminate.

Is far different when the assumption is unchanged institutionalized racism forever or a gradually weakening institutionalized racism, particularly when the liberties curtailed remain always curtailed even as the threat weakens.





There Are No Words For This

5 05 2010

This past weekend I attended the Maryland GOP Spring Convention in Ocean City, primarily to hear one speaker, Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico and honorary chairman of the Our America Initiative.

He gave a fantastic speech and cemented my already firm conviction that he will be the candidate I support if he runs for president in 2012. However, during his speech he got a cold reception from the assembled party members on two points:

  1. The case for legalizing or at the very least decriminalizing marijuana and abandoning the War on Drugs in favor of a harm reduction approach.
  2. The argument that our continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does nothing to advance our national security interests.

I want to focus on the first item. Every single person in the room who scoffed at Johnson’s call for a sensible policy on drugs needs to read this post by Radley Balko and then watch the embedded video (I’ve embedded it here, but go and read Radley’s post first) and then explain how they can possibly justify continuing the War on Drugs when this kind of abuse happens hundreds of times every day in America.

In February, I wrote the following about a drug raid in Missouri:

SWAT team breaks into home, fires seven rounds at family’s pit bull and corgi (?!) as a seven-year-old looks on.

They found a “small amount” of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

So smoking pot = “child endangerment.” Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone’s safety.

Just so we’re clear.

Now there’s video, which you can watch below. It’s horrifying, but I’d urge you to watch it, and to send it to the drug warriors in your life. This is the blunt-end result of all the war imagery and militaristic rhetoric politicians have been spewing for the last 30 years—cops dressed like soldiers, barreling through the front door middle of the night, slaughtering the family pets, filling the house with bullets in the presence of children, then having the audacity to charge the parents with endangering their own kid. There are 100-150 of these raids every day in America, the vast, vast majority like this one, to serve a warrant for a consensual crime.

But Jonathan Whitworth won’t be smoking that pot they found in his possession. So I guess this mission was a success.

I happen to be a libertarian whose sympathies are more with the Right than the Left. But when I see things like this I fully agree with Mark Thompson:

When the government has the right to bust into tens of thousands of homes in the middle of the night, unannounced, with guns drawn and in full military armor, to take the life of beloved family members, and to menace 6-year old children, all because the homeowner is believed to possess a few grams of a plant or a non-explosive substance, tyranny cannot be said to be on the way. It’s already here. And President Obama wasn’t the one who created it, either.

I will believe that conservatives and the American Right view the words “liberty” and “tyranny” as something other than politically effective platitudes when they make putting an end to 40,000 raids like this a year a higher priority than whether they are taxed to provide someone else with health care or the unrealized hypothetical consequences of cap and trade.

Maryland GOP members, or rather, those of you who scoffed at Gov. Johnson – this is what you are supporting. Remember that the next time you hear someone speak out against the Drug War. Remember the paramilitary police that barged into a family’s home and shot their dogs right in front of their seven-year-old child.





1/26/10 QAC Commissioners Meeting Comments

8 02 2010

I meant to post this last week, but after I had it 75% written and then lost it all I said to hell with it and decided to do it later. So here it is.

A couple weeks ago now I spoke at the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners Meeting. My purpose in speaking was to respond to an advisory opinion issued by the county Ethics Commission against my father (he spoke as well, in fact my comments follow and build off of his).

To offer a little bit of context, my father is a real estate broker and occasional small-scale developer. Queen Anne’s County unfortunately happens to be in the grip of a fervent, one might even say rabid, anti-growth movement. Even though the county is still something like 80% open land and in no danger of being over-developed (For the record, nowhere in QAC is over-developed or anywhere near it. I went to school in north New Jersey so I know what I’m talking about) the anti-growthers, who should rightfully be recognized not as anti-growth but as anti-freedom, are insistent upon stopping any and all development in county. As a result, since my father is a proponent of a reasonable growth policy, they have been fervently against his appointment to the county Planning Commission.

Their most recent move was to get Commissioner Fordonski to file an eleventh hour request for an advisory opinion as to whether my father or the one other person not opposed to growth would have a Conflict of Interest preventing them from serving. The Ethics Commission, in a clearly incorrect decision, held that yes, it was a Conflict of Interest (I’ll post more on this later most likely), hence the comments by my father and I.

You can watch them here. Once you click the link, choose Commissioners Meetings, then Commissioners Meeting 1/26/10 Part 1 of 2. My father’s comments begin at about 00:53:33 (be sure to watch his comments and then the back and forth afterwards). After that I speak at 01:08:15.





Two Visions of Growth

1 02 2010

I have decided that there are two visions of growth in Queen Anne’s County (they presumably exist elsewhere as well, but I’ll focus on here because I know it best).

They are commonly referred to as pro-growth and anti-growth. Neither of these is accurate.

What the anti-growth advocate supports is not opposition to growth. It is an embrace of death. These individuals claim they are protecting a traditional way of life, but what they are really doing is advocating for quicksand, for trapping individuals in a mire that prevents them not just from progressing forward, but from moving at all. And the end result of that stagnation is death, a slow death by inevitable suffocation.

Inversely, what the pro-growth advocate truly stands for is not growth, but freedom. The freedom of the individual to use their property as they see fit. No Quick-Sander, as I think of them, would stand for a neighbor coming into his or her house and mandating how pictures must be hung or furniture arranged. And yet these same people see nothing wrong with going to their neighbors and telling them what they can and cannot build or divide. Nothing differs between the property inside a home and the property upon which the home stands, and the pro-growth supporter recognizes this fundamental truth.

As we approach the coming county elections the respective forces will begin to mobilize once more. In some ways they already are. So remember, the issue isn’t being for or against growth. It’s being for or against freedom and for or against a slow death by suffocation.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.