Asylum Seeker

As I sat listening to the news a certain phrase struck me. They were talking about the issue of immigration and what is going on at the border when I heard both the interviewer and the person he was interviewing use the words asylum seeker.

Earlier they had used the term immigrant or migrant but switched as the story went on so that it would have gone almost unnoticed. As a writer and someone interested in language and the words we use this switch hit my ears like a baseball bat.

The Evolution

The switch from immigrant to asylum seeker is no accident and it is not the first time our language has been used to change the narrative.

The original, and legal, term was illegal alien. This term was clear and concise meaning a person who entered the country outside of the legal means who was not a citizen of the country.

The term alien was too alienating so the language was changed. Instead of illegal aliens we now had illegal immigrants. The change was small so we all went along with it without giving it much thought.

An alien was someone from a foreign country but an immigrant was someone moving from one country to another. A subtle but important difference. It made it seem like the person was just looking for a home, not that they had a home they left for someplace else.

Recently the term was changed again, dropping the word illegal and leaving us just with immigrant. Activists started using phrases such as no one can be illegal. This changed happen very quickly and was done very openly.

It was done for a sinister reason, so that opposing the arrival of illegal aliens could be twisted to call someone a racist and a xenophobe. An immigrant is someone who is coming into this country from another looking for a home. If they are just immigrants than opposing their arrival means you oppose letting anyone into this country, when in reality you do not want someone to come to this country illegally.

The next change that is coming is the term asylum seeker. This is not someone simply moving into another country, but someone fleeing one country due to violence or disaster. We have seen this term used to justify illegal immigration into Europe.

This term produces sympathy for the person trying to get into another country illegally. Once you start calling all illegal aliens asylum seekers, suddenly you’ll have nothing but ‘asylum seekers’ crossing the border.

The Muddling of Language

It is a muddling of our language so that we can no longer talk to each other. The quickest way to get people to not talk to each other is to have them speak a different language.

While most people will mean illegal alien when they use the term immigrant or illegal immigrant there are others who will hear a different meaning. They will believe that you oppose anyone coming into this country and then assume that you only oppose them coming in because of the color of their skin.

If you have ever listened to two people speaking in a different language around you than you have probably at one point assumed they are talking about you. Sometime this might be true but for the most part they are probably just talking about themselves, but that feeling is still real.

For example the statement, increased border security is a good thing to prevent illegal aliens from entering our country, can mean that you are fine with people entering the country but just want them to do it legally. To another person it means you hate anyone coming into this country who does not have the same skin color as you and you are xenophobic because they are just fleeing their shit hole country, but don’t call it a shit hole country because that will trigger me too, and it also makes you a racist.

Once you realize our language is being muddled you have to ask yourself the question, why? Why would someone not want people to be able to talk to each other? Because they want them to fight. If we cannot solve our problems together using our words than we will resort to using violence.

If we are fighting than we will organize ourselves into groups and we will lose one of the foundational advancements of our culture, the sovereignty of the individual. We will seek protection in the group and doing so will mean that we must give up more of what makes us individuals.

Who?

Once you realize our language is being manipulated, naturally you will want to know who is doing it. The answer is a difficult one because it not one person or group. The answer is we are all manipulating the language.

If we switch over from illegal alien to immigrant we are participating in the game of language manipulation. The awful thing about this is that even if you ‘win’ at this game you still win at the game of manipulation because you have already stopped playing the game of truth.

Language does change and evolve naturally. For example the word literally now can mean both something literal and something figurative. This change, even though it seems silly, is perfectly acceptable. It is when this change is either forced, such as will bill C-16 in Canada, or intended to manipulate that you will see a problem created.

Try listening for a week to the words people use and ask yourself why they used that word instead of another one. Listen to the words you are using and ask yourself the same question, I think you will be surprised by your answer.

This is why it is so important to be careful with the words you use. Always aim for using the best words you have to describe what you are talking about in the clearest detail whenever possible. Tell the truth, or at the very least do not lie.

A Professor Against Political Correctness

I first encountered Jordan Peterson on a YouTube video when he was part of a Free Speech event on the University of Toronto Campus. At this event protesters called him all sort of names, they unplugged the sound system and created so much white noise so that the speakers could not talk.

I had seen this type of event happen before, but this time something seemed different. I slowly realized that the things Professor Peterson was saying were articulate and well thought out versions of what I had in my mind.

I had to know more about this person. Thanks to the power of the internet I was able to find hours of video on YouTube. The first ones I arrived at were his videos against Bill C-16 that was being discussed in the Canadian Parliament.

Bill C-16

Professor Peterson made three videos where he addressed his issues with this piece of legislation. The series is called Professor against Political Correctness (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). In these videos he talks about the law itself as well as the doctrine and ideas behind the law and those who are pushing for it.

Little did Professor Peterson know that his three videos on an obscure piece of Canadian legislation would attract global attention. He simply thought the law crossed a line that he would not cross, the codification of compelled speech into law.

In his videos he even says that the act of making the videos could be interpreted as illegal under the Ontario human rights commission. He was told he was overreacting at the time but the University of Toronto sent him a letter telling him that he needed to take down the videos and what he was doing was probably illegal, providing justification for his earlier fear.

This stance brought a lot of attention to Professor Peterson, not all of it positive, and started him on the road of speaking tours and a new book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

Activist Assault

“This is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, or Milo Yiannopoulos.” Said Professor Nathan Rambukkana of Wilfred Laurier University.

The quote was uttered during an interrogation of teaching assistant Lindsey Shepard. She was being reprimanded for playing a video of Jordan Peterson in her university classroom. A video that was played on Canadian TV station TVO, broadcasted to the public and at the time of this writing has been seen close to 1 million times on YouTube.

Before this protesters at McMaster University tried to shut down a talk given by Jordan Peterson by making a lot of noise and using air horns to drown him out. Peterson ignored them and kept on talking, eventually moving the talk outside and giving it there.

More recently a surreal scene took place at a talk at Queens College as protestors interrupted the speech by jumping on stage. Another shouted from the audience, while protestors outside banged on windows and doors. Shouts of ‘lock them in and burn it down’(3:44) could be heard as other protesters attempted to block the door from the outside using trash cans. One protestor, who broke a window, was arrested carrying a garrote.

Along with these protests numerous smears have been made against Peterson in the media. He has been called alt-right, a homophobe, and transphobe to name a few, despite identifying as an English Liberal.

The personification of this assault can best be seen in an interview Peterson did with Cathy Newman on England’s Channel 4. One thing that becomes clear in that interview is that the strawman built up of who Peterson is does not hold up to reality.

Sorting it Out

With all the bad press and protests how do you figure out what Peterson is actually about? Go to the source. He has hundreds of hours of videos on YouTube, from college lectures to personal videos recorded in his home.

You could read his books, Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos or check out his public speaking events.

Jordan Peterson is known to give advice such as ‘clean your room’ imploring people to physically clean their room and in doing so taking control of a small part of their world. Setting it in order so that it is clean, functional, and beautiful. It is a call to set your own life in order before you try to criticize or change the world.

Rule 4 from 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is ‘Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today.’ A call to do something no matter how small to make yourself slightly better than you were the day before. Imagine how much better you would be after a month of doing that every day.

So why has Peterson garnered so much attention? For those who are interested in his ideas he offering them a message of personal responsibility and individuality. For those how see him as alt-right (he is not by the way) they fall into a few different camps. Those who have only heard about him as a transphobe second hand and believe it without checking him out for themselves and those who see him as a threat to their ideological and cultural hegemony.

Yet do not take my word for it, I encourage you to look for yourself. If you are interested in hearing it straight from Jordan Peterson, he has a speaking event at the Keller Auditorium in Portland Oregon on June 25. There will also be a book club conversation about his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos in Beaverton Oregon on June 23^rd.

Eight Principles to Unite the Republican Party

These are the 8 principle I think we as Republicans can all agree on. I understand that I am not the ultimate authority on these subjects, but this is my attempt to explain and articulate these ideas.

Through conversation and further reading and thought these ideas will evolve, but I will be aiming at seeking the truth of these principles. While I might not always get everything correct I have faith that if I employ the guiding light of truth I will at least be able to move in the right direction.

The Importance of Agreed Principles

Possessing a set of agreed principles produces many benefits to any type of association, from a family to a nation. It provides a common narrative and language that can unite people.

If you look at a company or industry you will quickly discover they have their own type of language. They may employ the language native to the country, so any speaker of that language could understand, generally speaking, the words being used. But certain terms and words will have different meaning than the common usage.

Language is more than just words, it is the meaning behind those words. It is this shared meaning that generates the narrative that binds a group together. Take a look at the word Racism. For most people racism means something like discrimination or hatred of a group of people based on race. To others it means power plus privilege.

To those with the first meaning, the narrative is that anyone can be racist by simply hating a group of people based on the immutable characteristic of race. The narrative of the second meaning only allows those who possess power and privilege to be racist. If someone or some group lacks either of those characteristic they are incapable of being racist.

Both groups would probably agree that racism is bad, but they will find themselves at odds because they do not share the same narrative of what is racism. The power plus privilege narrative allows those who believe in it the justification for hating groups of people if it is done by those who are viewed to lack power and/or privilege.

Those who follow the first narrative will see any hatred of a group of people based on race as racism, even if it is done by those who are perceived to lack power and/or privilege. This is why agreed principles, meaning a shared narrative, is so important.

The Republican Party has lost the sense of what it means to be a Republican. This is due to a loss of First Principles, grounding ideals that we all agree on and unite us.

Currently the slightest disagreement results in someone being called a RINO (Republican in Name Only) or not a real Republican. My hope in articulating these principles is to build a foundation that can bring us all together.

Note: These principles are presented in no particular order and are up for disagreement and discussion.

Principle 1: Sovereignty of the Individual

One of the greatest ideas of western culture is the primacy of the individual over the group. This idea sprung out of the Judeo Christian idea that each person is created with the divine spark within them.

Each person has the freedom to live their life as they see fit as long as they are not violating the liberty of others. This places the power, and the responsibility associated with that power, on the shoulders of each person.

This idea was expressed in the Declaration of Independence when it was written “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Each individual consents to invest a part of their sovereign power into the government so that it can better protect the natural rights of the individual.

The individual is possessed of all natural rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, association, and self-protection. It is the choice of the individual to consent, not necessarily to agree with, to the government a part of their power so long as the government uses that power to protect and expand liberty and freedom.

When a government abuses this power, a government simply being a collection of individuals, the individuals can withdraw this consent and abolish the government and replace it with one more favorable to them. This does not mean that a violent revolution is in order, but could be done through the use of the ballot box.

Principle 2: Private Property

The idea of private property is that an individual not only owns their possessions and property but that they own themselves. This self-ownership was one of the greatest advancements in Western thought.

The natural extension of this thought was the death knell for slavery. If you as an individual own yourself than no one else can own you.

The idea that an individual can own something also lends itself to the right of privacy and the prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures. If you own something then no one has the right to take it from you without due process.

Ultimately this principle lends itself to borders. If you as an individual own something you have a right to grant or deny access to that thing or property. Taking this out farther, the state, which is a collection of individuals, can determine who is and is not allowed access to the country.

Principle 3: Fiscal Responsibility

This involves both taxation and spending. It is okay to have welfare programs as long as they work, create the desired outcome, and we have the money to maintain them. Republicanism sees debt as a pathway toward corruption and it must be avoided if a just and functioning state is to be maintained.

We know lowering taxes help the average person and boosts the economy. Money is most effectively used when the decisions are done by the individuals most invested in the outcome and success of those decisions.

This does not mean there is no role for the government to play in public works, but they should be financed as locally as possible. There is no reason the people of Utah should have to finance public works in Florida that they will never see the benefit nor will they gain personally for doing so.

So we want to keep taxes as low as possible, yet for this to be effective we have to be willing to also cut spending. Government spending is highly susceptible to corruption, contracts being awarded to friends and family members. We saw this with former Governor Kitzhaber and his girlfriend’s consulting firm.

Another way government spending gets out of control is that they are incentivized to lose. If a department is not producing results in the public sector they always claim the problem is that they did not have enough funding.

This ends up with ineffective programs increasing in size and requiring more money. The politicians who started these pet projects gain nothing by admitting they were flawed, in fact it could cost them their job. So they say the only reason it failed was due to not enough funding, often blaming the other party for obstruction of those funds.

The department heads go along with this because it looks good to run a department that is growing and it covers any wrong doing on their part.

This is simply a blame shifting tactic that has a high cost, both in terms of money and public trust. This is why government spending and programs should be as local as possible, it increases accountability and oversight by the public who is funding these programs.

Principle 4: Individual Virtue

In order to better understand this we must have a definition of what virtue is. Naturally virtue is going to have as many meaning as there are people, but for right now we are going to take it to mean doing what is morally right.

This is not a loud and publicly shared virtue but a personal and individual kind of virtue. It is not virtuous to disparage an individual because you believe they lack virtue, which is just a different type of virtue signaling.

There are a few kinds of virtue signaling. The first kind is shaming others for not being virtuous. When you do that you are implying that you possess more virtue than the person you are shaming. At that point is has become more about demonstrating publicly your virtue or the lack of virtue of another person.

The second kind of virtue signaling is the one often seen during protests. People publicly stating causes they support, not just because they think it is the virtuous thing to do, but because they are seeking praise from their peers and the public at large.

These types of virtue signaling seek to draw attention on the individual to be praised for their good deed or to punish those who seem to be less virtuous. Both are corrupting influences. The goal of virtue signaling is praise and attention, not an attempt to live a good life.

Instead virtue is trying to do what is right regardless of praise. To be clear, praise of virtue is not bad itself, but when the goal is praise or attention instead of virtue it tends to move an individual away from doing what is right to doing what is popular.

Individual virtue means that given the means and opportunity to do something wrong that you make the choice to do what is right. An example of this would be going into a convenience store that is very busy with your own coffee cup filling it up and walking out.

You could get away with this very easily and the clerk or cops probably would not do much to stop you, but morally it is still stealing. A virtuous individual would wait in line and pay for the coffee.

Principle 5: Rule of Law

In Republicanism the country is not ruled by a person or people but is under the rule of the agreed upon laws. This means that everyone, from the rich to the poor, the famous and infamous, the highest elected office and the common person, are all subject to the law.

This does not mean that all laws are just or that you have to agree with every law, but you must respect the law. If you find a law unjust or harmful, seek to change it through the legal means. We all must accept that there are going to be laws we do not like but must follow in order to maintain a functioning society.

The reason the rule of law is important is that it is a check on power. In order for it to function properly the law must be accessible and understandable by the average person. The Roman senator and historian Tacitus was correct when he observed that “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”

When the law grows in complexity and is no longer understood by the average person, it loses its ability to check power and instead becomes a tool for the individual(s) in the position of power.

The rule of law breaks down and becomes corrupt when it is being used as a weapon to settle personal scores and vendettas as opposed to settling disputes between individuals. “In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs.” Walter Lippmann, An Inquiry into the Principles of a Good Society (Boston, 1937) p. 267)

Distributive justice or social justice, meaning the application of the rule of law that varies depending on perceptions of privilege, wealth, and opportunities, is a corruption of the rule of law and blind justice. F.A Hayek was correct when he wrote:

“…[T]he main difference between the order of society at which classical liberalism aimed and the sort of society into which it is now being transformed is that the former was governed by principles of just individual conduct while the new society is to satisfy the demands for ‘social justice’ –or, in other words, that the former demanded just action by the individuals while the latter more and more places the duty of justice on authorities with power to command people what to do.” F.A. Hayek The Mirage of Social Justice (1976) p. 65-66

It is this collection of power to administer justice that can corrupt the rule of law and it is the duty of the citizens to protect against that corruption.

Principle 6: Opposing and Limited Government

In order for a government to be able to perform its duties it must be invested with the power to carry out those duties. The founding fathers were aware that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

This is why they structured the government the way they did. They intended the various branches to oppose each other as a way to check one branch from gaining more power over the others.

Republicanism believes that a government is necessary to protect the rights of the individual against the mob as well as outside forces. In this line of thought a government should adjudicate disputes between individuals and protect the country from other nations.

When you allow a government more and more power over your life, you give up your freedom for a false sense of security. If a government becomes too powerful it can become a danger to its citizens as opposed to a benefit to their liberty.

This is why small federal government and active local government works best. It allows those closest to the problem to address it in the way most suitable to themselves. A government can also take up tasks the responsibilities that cannot be effectively solved by the private sector, such as monitoring drinking water and disaster relief.

Yet it should be up to the locality to determine how much of a role they want their government to take. A good rule when thinking about where to draw that line on government power is to ask yourself if you would be comfortable with those who hold opposing political beliefs to possess such power. If you answer no than to do not grant that power to the government, because at some point in the future they will be in that position and will not be shy about using that power against you.

When former President Obama was in office I heard a few of my Democrat friends remark that they wished he could just implement the policies he was advocating for. When I pointed out this was a bad idea they often dismissed me as a Republican who just opposed Obama. Yet I doubt they would be comfortable placing the power they wished for former President Obama into the hands of President Trump.

In order to secure liberty for the individual a government must be limited in its power and the best way to accomplish this goal over time is to create a government with opposing powers limited by the rule of law.

Principle 7: Civic Duty

Duty does not mean blindly following orders, but taking the responsibility to do what is needed and expected of you as part of a civilized society. This can take many forms, from military service to public office to voting.

In order to maintain freedom and liberty for individuals, those individuals must willingly accept the duty and responsibility for their own life as well as for the betterment of those around them. Take an interest in what is going on in your local community and help out where you can.

In times of war, join the army or the National Guard, and do not dodge the draft (if it is implemented). In times of peace volunteer as a firefighter, participate in jury duty, and follow the law. Be sure to stay up on current events as best you can and participate in the system by voting.

The world is a better place if everyone does what is expected of them and takes on as much responsibility as they can handle to improve the country. The amount of good and change you as an individual are capable of will amaze you once you accept your duty.

Generally speaking civic duty should never be forced but willingly accepted on an individual level. Each individual is best situated to determine how much responsibility they are willing to accept. By accepting that responsibility at an individual level the country and the world will improve as will each individuals life.

Principle 8: Inalienable Natural Rights

Human beings are possessed of inalienable natural rights, such as but not limited to free speech, freedom of association, the right to bear arms, and religious liberty. Since each individual is possessed of these rights only the individual can make the choice to give up any part of those rights.

These rights can come from God, or are simply part of the natural order of the universe. This is important because it sets those rights outside of man-made structures and orders, such as government.

Being part of a society you naturally must also give up part of your right, in the hope that by doing so your freedom will be increased. For example, an individual might willingly submit to a prohibition against yelling fire in a crowded theater, limiting free speech to protect the right to life.

These rights come from outside of man-made institutions and as such man made institution only have authority over them that the people allow. This is the social contract between the individual and the state. The state does not grant you your rights but it can negotiate limits with the individuals within the state.

Just like any other negotiation it is up to the individuals to determine what they are going to accept. This does not mean that acceptance is permanent, but the negotiation is a continuing and ongoing part of living in society.

Even if you disagree with a limit put into place, you still have the right to use your freedom of speech to seek a redress of your grievances. Remember the four boxes of liberty, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.

This is why any sort of limit placed on natural rights should be done with a great deal of skepticism, care, and consensus. Failure to do properly consider these things will lead to conflict and both sides entrenching themselves, focusing more on winning against the other side as opposed to seeking the truth and doing what is right.

Republicanism

In the Republican Party you will find many different types of people with different ideas. This variety makes it hard to reach a consensus and agree on policy and candidates. Yet if we all hold these principles we can discuss and argue in good faith with each other knowing that we all are presenting our ideas for move toward freedom and liberty for all.

With these grounding principles we tend to fall back into our groups or tribes. As history has shown tribes fight and destroy each other and do not advance civilization forward. The Republican Party has lost this shared narrative, but if we agree on these principle, or at the very least the meaning and narrative behind them, than we can unite and be a positive force for change in this country.

I am reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin when he was asked what kind of government have we got at the close of the constitutional convention in 1787 as he left Liberty Hall. He replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

A Republican system only works if the people are willing to make it work, this takes duty, responsibility, individual virtue, and respect for what has come before. Let’s rediscover our shared narrative and unite to make life better for each individual in this country by allowing them the freedom and liberty to choose their own path, their own responsibility and duty, and to live the moral life they think is best.

Edits: 6/6/18 Spelling error 'boarder' to 'borders.'