...now they want to make it normal.

It's not enough that abortion rights activists want to keep abortion legal. Now they want it to be normal. Like going to get a haircut. "What'd I do today? I got my nails done, I had my abortion, then I stopped by Starbucks."

If you're one of the few who have read my last entry from too many months ago. The thesis goes like this:

Government has a specific role, and that role ends somewhere before being the solution to every argument we have. Just because something is legal, that does not make it moral. Inviting the Government into this solution for the Pro-Life crowd only makes things worse, and Hanna Rosin's column from today's Slate shows the most glaring example why.

My liberalism for medical "rights" unfortunately has to encompass the barbarism of abortion. It is an ambiguity that does not have a legal remedy. But, Ms. Rosin, my goodness... is there no room for discretion in this debate?

Not if you need sanctification. 

As a libertarian, I believe every living being has a moral right to the course of its natural life, including a fetus. Just because you can have an abortion, that does not mean you should, even if your pregnancy is inconvenient. 

I had a huge case of writer's block for most of 2014. Nothing really motivated me to write. Until today. 

Rosin's work is vile. I can see why sanctification would bring relief. I posted it because it should be viewed, understood, and scorned. 

We must find peace in this debate.

Are we really this dark?

Not everything has a legislative solution

Very few people know that the medical procedure of aborting an incomplete pregnancy was at least propagated as accepted practice by the Progressives and their Eugenics movement. Andrew Napolitano, in his dissection of the Progressive Movement titled "Theodore and Woodrow" tells us Progressive Era politicians wanted to "control the lesser races.." (p.93). Rooted in the desire for a completely pure race, Eugenicists used abortion and sterilization to limit the populations of races they deemed less worthy. It's pure Aryanism and as a people our lack of understanding of its roots are tragic.

That having been said, abortion procedures are sometimes necessary. Even the staunchest social conservative allows for "cases such as rape or incest or when the mother's life is in danger." So we all recognize the legitimacy of this medical procedure. Making it a political argument does much damage that can never be undone. The gravity of the decision to abort a pregnancy demands that it not be political, yet, all too often, it is.

Rooted in the fallacy that we can leverage legislative solutions for every one of our problems is the notion that there must be laws either legalizing or prohibiting the practice of abortion. Without deeper consideration it is easy to seek authoritative solutions either permitting or prohibiting the practice. Either life or liberty hangs in the balance, and the choice seems so black and white. That makes it an easy lever with which the corrupted bureaucrats can pit us against one-another as a means to advance their careers. And, on this debate, there could be no more success.

The battle cries are simple:

"We must PROTECT the unborn!!!!!"

"A WOMAN has the RIGHT to CHOOSE!!!!"

These are seductively simple black and white arguments that lend themselves to cable television shouting matches, accusations of all manner of personal deficiency, and ultimately, stalemate. We tend to focus on emotion, which leaves little room for reason. But seeking to prohibit outright an accepted medical procedure that is rarely yet sometimes a legitimate decision unwittingly abets progressives and enhances public sympathy for their cause.

Ultimately, there is no legislative solution to this problem. Making it a political football motivates people to pursue the practice whether it is needed or not. Given that Abortion is a medical procedure, beyond regulating for the cleanliness and safety of the medical facilities where this and other procedures take place, we need to excuse the government from this decision. With that will go the special interests that seek the government out for funding of this brutal, barbaric practice. (And also, please understand that brain surgery and setting broken bones is also brutal and barbaric, yet, sometimes necessary.) Getting both political sides out of this argument is unlikely in the current political climate because there is simply too much money to be made and political powers to be gained in publicizing the opposing points of view. For the socially conservative, they know not the damage their simplistic, authoritarian approach causes. They have indirectly enriched Planned Parenthood by making its continued funding a matter for vigorous public debate. They have allowed pro-abortion forces to distract women from what matters by focusing the discussion on rights rather than responsibilities. An insane pay structure increasing public funding based on the number of abortions performed has developed. In the reference, Marianne Anderson says in an interview with Natalie Hoefer about her experience working as a nurse at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Indianapolis, "It was a money-grubbing, evil, very sad, sad place to work." Anderson states that on the days abortions are performed, Tuesdays and Fridays, the clinic performed between 25 and 35 abortions. Using 30 as an average, that means 60 children a week are deprived of their lives by a medical procedure that should amount to the merest fraction of those numbers. And that's just one clinic in Indiana, a midwestern state with presumably midwestern values that would at least minimize, if not avoid abortion procedures as much as possible. The question must be asked, no matter how well-intentioned pro-life social conservatives are, how many lives has our predilection for authoritative solutions actually cost? No, clearly, not everything has a legislative solution.

So, what to do? We've become so accustomed to leveraging authority, we can not conceive of a world where the government is not the solution. But leveraging force actually made this problem worse. Stop seeking authority to make people do what you want. Minister to them. Beef up the alternative clinics that already exist. Get the word out in the community. There is a better way.

We must end this political debate. Abortion is legal and will never be made illegal, and continuing to battle for it only reinforces the opposite argument. Americans are libertarian in nature, are becoming ever more so as disillusionment with the existing political parties continues to grow. Clearly, the American community seeks a better way to conduct our affairs.

On this and many other socially conservative positions, the arguments have failed and we must pursue another path if we really care about those issues. Otherwise, this stalemate will continue to cost the lives of countless unborn children who's rights to their natural lives have been mercilessly terminated in the name of convenience, racism, political power, and yes, even money. 

Authority is a Dinosaur

Understanding a problem is the first step in solving it. Most of us agree we're not prospering in the post-tech era like we should. And that's where the mutual understanding ends. Unfortunatley, most of us look to authoritarianism for solutions. We think the government will solve our problems for us. They say they will and we trust them, even though we know better. They fortify our faith with trinkets, be them government enforced rights that should evolve from policing ourselves or specific baubles in the form of entitlements that have made us dependent and addicted to authority. Trinkets and Baubles keep us addicted.

Eventually, the faith will run out. The younger we are, the more libertarian we tend to be. So the change is happening. People know instinctively that polticians are loathesome, and I continue to struggle reconciling people giving more power to self-interested, corrupt politicians. The notion that we live in a free country has become absurd, and it seems like most of us don't even realize it. Whenever I hear someone say that, I chuckle because frankly, we live in anything but a free country. We live under Bureaucratic Fascism.

It is this massive level of interference that holds the American economic engine in check. This is the fourth iteration I have attempted of this post, primarily because I have attempted to explain my understanding of the intricacies of that interference to a much greater degree than a blog post would justify. The fact is the concept requires significant effort and should make a great project for legions of political science and law students. But, for now, I think I have a handle on how to make you, the casual reader with a life, understand the problem and perhaps maybe sway you toward a plan to fix it.

Simply natural economic forces would provide better, more substantial, and most importantly more sustainable solutions to all our social problems from racism to health care to security in old age. Hundreds of millions of self-interested participants creating demands for markets fulfilled by equally self-interested individuals with ideas on how to fill them. We don't need a gun to see to each other's well-being simply because self-interest naturally involves promoting the interests of others. This is the fundamental error in the Authoritarian model and the antithesis of the notions of our founding.

Now, I don't sit here an anarchist. Far from it. Individuals tend to organize into groups, and groups tend to accumulate power to the point that imbalances are created. We need dispassionate government to establish and maintain power balances among our many groups, including government itself. Our current economic shortfall are symptoms power imbalance, namely, the partnership between corporations and government, or more specifically, politicians, and the rest of us. We're not creating anything but new computing devices primarily because all the other markets are regulated to the point nobody else can get into them.

Commonly, you hear the term "capitalism" used to identify our economic system, but, our system is far from capitalism. It's corporatism. A bureaucracy created by politicians whose careers were enabled by large corporations who expect rules to be created to benefit them. That is the system we live under, and that is the system you continue to pay for propping up after it nearly collapsed in 2008.

We have to replace the corporatist system and we can not do that if we continue to elect politicians who care not for your freedom so much as they care for their own power and fortune. This is not the system established by our Founders. It is inherently corrupt, and there is nothing "free" about it. Our's is a market of entrenched interests who are unable or unwilling to innovate and create. They seem more interested in making sure nobody else innovates or creates, lest they lose their piece of the action. They partner up with politicians to create rules only they can live by, so, competition is largely impossible. 

For a glimpse into the future, I encourage you to google Hutt River in Australia and the Free Cities Institute in Honduras. Here you can see what free people can do to break free from modern bureaucratic fascim, and what might happen in a decentralized society. 

Why Term Limits?

A friend of mine who could have done anything with his life explained to me one day why he considered and rejected the notion of a career in politics.  He believes that once elected, and you go to Washington and walk the halls of the Capitol for the first time, lobbyists and women both throw themselves at you.  No mere moral can withstand the temptation for any appreciable period of time.  There is no way to go to Washington without becoming at least a little corrupt.

And so when Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor at NYU, speculates that we should eliminate presidential term limits, I wonder what he believes restrains political corruption.  A President who has persuaded the American People to make him a perpetual executive eventually answers to no one, and the longer they hold office, the deeper their political ties run, and the harder it becomes to separate them from the American imagination. This is but part of the anatomy of corruption, and how tyrants come to their notorious misdeeds.

Zimmerman starts his column with questionable logic.  He quotes from 1947, Senator Harley Kilgore, not surprisingly a Democrat, who said:

"The executive's effectiveness would be seriously impaired," when explaining his staunch opposition to what was then a proposed constitutional amendment enforcing the decency every American President supported until FDR.  Kilgore continued, "as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive can not run again."

For more than a century American Presidents followed George Washington's example of limiting their tenure to two terms, be they consecutive or no. Every American President from Washington to Hoover agreed that two terms was enough. FDR changed that, not coincidentally as Progressivism reached a certain maturity.  Democrats clearly do not appreciate or respect the wholly illiberal wages of deference to authority, and that defines the battle politic as we now know it.  Is our power distributed amongst the hundreds of millions of American Peoples, or is it focused on a relatively small group of people who work, in the worst case, 4,805 miles from the remotest American city in an actual State?  (Naalehu, HI).  Progressives from both parties yearn for the latter, for it is the only way to implement narrowly defined, singular visions of governance.  Presidential term limits are designed specifically to prohibit Presidents from gaining unlimited power over us.  Such limits are the only way to confine any one individual's impact on our lives.

As a libertarian, I should abhor term limits. But the systematic, unavoidable corruption that defines American politics demands a constant check.  Mere humans can not be trusted with more power and authority than the Constitution grants, and even that power and authority should be strictly monitored by a persistent and diligent people.

Making Sense of Democrat Holiday Propaganda

The internet buzzes today about the Democrat's publishing a "guide to talking politics with your republican uncle."  I do not intend to reference that site here.  Google it if you desire to see it for yourself.

Jammie Wearing Fool makes a feeble attempt at rebuttal.  It references a somewhat less feeble attempt.  And so on.  Republican response has been weak.  Complaining about "ruining Thanksgiving dinner" is a legitimate claim certainly,  but Republicans continue to struggle mobilizing their message.

Democrats designed the propaganda site to be mobile friendly, so their supporters can easily access information at the dinner table.  Regardless of the correctly stated violations of etiquette, rebuttal is the best way to squelch this ambush.  Granting that rebuttal can not take the form of a thoroughly researched dissertation, common sense should rule this day.  Defusing an argument at the dinner table only requires one successful refutation.  Here are a few examples of how I would respond to that end.

As feeble as Republican attempts have been to rebut this detail, the Democrat talking points have been worse.  They mainly serve circumstantial, very poorly analyzed evidence citing weak or internal sources.  Let's consider how to respond to the propaganda in a calmly reasoned approach.

Deficit:
They argue the deficit as a percentage of GDP has been cut by more than 50%.  Besides the spun statistic, in part, they cite their own government papers to support this claim.  The second support is a Congressional Budget Office Study which says Obamacare requires a significant tax increase to offset the deficit increase.  The deficit is currently $17.2 Trillion.  When Obama took office, it was $11 Trillion.  It's growing at record pace.  The only way they know to cut it is to take more of our earnings.  This hurts the economy in the long run.

Jobs:
They say we've seen job growth for 44 consecutive months.  I say, again, they're reporting their own numbers.  Plus, that's not the real problem.  FactCheck.org dissects these claims.  Millions more live in poverty.  Household incomes have not kept pace with inflation.   The debt is up 90% and on pace to double before 2016.  The real problem is that we're not creating anything new because of onerous government regulations and college students who major in unmarketable subject matter.  The government needs to get out of our way and we need to focus on creating and building again rather than distracting ourselves with party propaganda.

Taxes:
With the deficit rising, eventually taxes will require increase.  Obamacare will raise marginal tax rates for most Americans 10% by 2015.

Obamacare helps small business save money:
Yes, ObamaCare cuts small business expense by relieving entrepreneurs of the responsibility of providing health insurance for their employees because they can no longer afford it.  That does not account for the simple fact that the insurance employees must seek is overpriced and in many cases completely unaffordable and inaccessible.

Obamacare is a government takeover of the healthcare system:
They claim Obamacare was the result of Republican ideas.  This is true.  Progressives in the Republican party authored a policy to force people to buy insurance.  The Democrat version of that policy validates this Corporatism.  The fact is Democrats found it a handy way to gain more power over your health care decisions while enriching their Big Insurance donors.  Fortunately, at least for now, they've been unable to manage the complexities and establish a working system.  All we have to do is look at the health care website for an apt description of how well this system is being managed.

The Supreme Court Rules Obamacare Constitutional:
Yes, by calling it a tax, when throughout the 2012 campaign, the Obama team repeatedly claimed it was not a tax.

On Climate:
Claiming 97% of scientists agree is specious because it's nearly impossible to sample all scientists.  Ultimately this is hard to judge, and climate change can be a matter of common sense.  Humans can not control the weather.

Do we really need to do this over Thanksgiving Dinner?  Our tribal differences are bad enough without compromising the few times we have to come together in peace.

Relevance

Those familiar with this weblog may remember it’s prior writings, which I have deleted.  I find that effort lacking, therefore I am rebooting this journal.  That effort was rooted in frustration with the events that transpired around the election of 2008.  Alas, the blog was too narrow in its focus, too pithy in its prose.  As momentous as it was, electing our first African-American to the highest office in the land, unfortunately it represented a deepening of the Progressive agenda started by Theodore Roosevelt and codified by Woodrow Wilson, then capitalized by Franklin Roosevelt, then solidified by Lyndon Johnson.  We need to focus not on the party in power or our opposition to it.  Because, as we are coming to learn as a people, those who call themselves Republicans now are no better.  The two parties are barely discernible, and our political squabbling viewed nightly on the cable news shows are just so much tribalism.  No, our focus must be as a people on returning to our fundamentals.  While select groups may believe the Progressive agenda serves them best, the reality is it only serves the political class best, and the long run will prove this out.  It is time we start the road back to liberty and freedom before it becomes too long.

Most Americans cared only about the demographic achievement of electing the first African-American to the highest office in the land in 2008.  But most of us overlooked the platform of the elected, and failed to notice its deeply progressive roots.  They even said they were setting out to “fundamentally transform America,” so it’s not like their Progressive erosion of our personal liberty should have been much of a surprise.  Partisan bickering is largely ignored by the masses, which is handy for the parties in power as they propagate oversimplified stereotypes of each other such that they keep those of us outside the beltway arguing, all the while colluding to make us personally weaker individually.  The fact is both of them have a vested interest in expanding their own power, and they use the media on a constant basis to keep the drumbeat of oversimplified dissent alive.  We have to stop listening to that.

In order for Americans to take action, relevance must be demonstrated.  It is not enough for most of your neighbors, family, and friends that one party believes this and the other party believes that.  Most Americans don’t care until issues become relevant to them.  I have a friend who told me she largely ignores my political concerns, except for the question of gay marriage, because as it turns out, her daughter is a lesbian.  So that matters to her, therefore she enters into the debate taking up the side in favor of gay marriage.  That question is relevant to her, therefore she cares.

Now I shall not delve into the nuances of my views on marriage in this writing.  I will save that parsing for another time.  What I wish to focus upon in this inaugural writing is a more basic approach.  I want to demonstrate why letting government settle our differences is a bad idea.  So today’s discussion focuses on the cold civil war that rages between the Republicans and the Democrats, and the largely dispassionate masses who don’t really care about the nuances of each position, or the mechanics of power involved for those who participate in government.  Working for the Government is all about contracting your power, therefore anything they do should matter to you.  I’m taking it on myself to show you how and why, if I’m able to get you to care enough to listen.

And so the lesson for today is this.  As governmental authority increases, your personal liberty decreases.  Every rule, regulation, edict, executive order or law restricts your behavior.  And make no mistake, this blog does not advocate anarchy.  We have to have some structure and law to maintain order.  But the editor of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review said it best in 1837:  “That government is best which governs least.”  Our National Government certainly does not govern least.  We need to push it back in that direction.

How?  This author does not endorse violence.  That would be fruitless, for violent upheavals rarely result in a better situation.  They generally lead to a power vacuum filled by a single dictator as desperate masses search for stability.  So violence in the modern world is not the answer.  So then, what?

It’s taken over 100 years to progressively wean Americans from their freedom.  In that time, the Government has cloaked the actual role of the states, imposed a rigid set of bureaucratic rules over the fading republic, replacing our Federal system with a 20th Century Style fascism that distinguishes itself only in the lack of a single strong-man.  No, Americans would never tolerate a dictator, but they will tolerate bureaucratic fascism as they have demonstrated for the last 10 decades.  Over that time, even though the American People are fully capable of managing their own affairs and do better when left to their own devices, the politicians who control the bureaucracy have convinced us that we can not.  We have largely been seduced by power seekers, and most of us can not imagine a life without the intrusions we take for granted.  Remember the creepy “Life of Julia” web tool used by the Obama campaign in 2012?  The Washington Post blog references a link on the Obama website where the infographic once existed, but in keeping with the creepy theme, the Administration has put it to rest.  The link cycles back to the top of Obama’s page.  I guess they don’t need Julia anymore.

The infographic made a lot of assumptions about the role of government in our lives.  But it’s main point was this.  Your life is only better with government assistance, therefore you should elect people who want to expand the role of the Government in your life.  Do you want more Government in your life?

Government is necessary, certainly.  The Founders knew that, and that’s why they set up what Andrew Napolitano in his new book Theodore and Woodrow calls a "Federal Democratic Republic."  They offered a loose structure for the union of our states in the Constitution.  In it, they described specific, “enumerated powers” which the “federal” government had the right to exercise.  The rest of the powers were left to the States as we will see when we examine the 10th Amendment.  But two centuries later, we have as a people ceded much of that power, and, well, are you better off now than you were four years ago?  Eight?  Twenty?  Forty?

And so we will examine history, both past and present, and its relevance to you.  We will establish first that history, both past and present, does matter to you, because its results directly affect what you must do and what you may choose to do for yourself and your families in your day-to-day lives.  And this matters to you because the more power you cede to the Federal, or as it seems to wish to become, the National government, the less power you have yourself.

Do you care?  We’ll see.  

Epilogue:
I work for a living.  I care about this country, and I chafe at those who believe a sudden change is the proper way to solve our problems.  Like I said earlier, the road back to true Federalism will take decades.  My purpose here is to push you into getting involved in setting those wheels in motion, so five generations from now, our grandchildren’s grandchildren’s children will live in an America that thrives, creates wealth, celebrates freedom, and sets an example for the rest of the world.  You know, the way we used to.

For now though, I work for a living.  I have a job, a life, and little time.  So this blog will be a display of passion when the spirit moves me to pontificate and vent my knowledge.  I don’t know how often that will be.  I don’t want it to be too often, because I want you to think about what I have to say.  So, certainly, pay attention, check back, or maybe even you can email me to find out when the next entry is coming.

In the meantime, keep the Faith.  Regardless of their origin, Americans love their freedom.  When we figure out how it’s being bled away, we’ll rise to that occasion.  The Republican party right now is, whether it wants to acknowledge it or not, in a grand battle for its soul.  On one side, the Roosevelt Progressives, like George W. Bush, Mitch McConnell, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon.  On the other side, the Libertarians.  The Real republicans, like Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Calvin Coolidge.  I believe the Libertarians will lose that battle because the Progressives in the GOP will be reinforced by the Progressives in the Democrat party.  When that happens, the current political parties will continue their coalescing, and the American people will surely notice they are supporting a one party system.  A new opposition will rise up in place of the GOP, and the Democrat-Republican party will return to its former prominence.

But, for now, we’re stuck with what we got.