Wednesday, June 6, 2018

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.'

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Congratulations, To Whoever Wins, and Good Game


I know people still have time to vote today in the primary, but I wanted to say congratulations to whoever wins.

This was my first time taking part in a primary under a specific party and it sure was an exciting primary season.

Royal Rumble

This year we had a lot of candidates for the governor’s race. Ten candidates at least, with a few more refusing to run. Bruce Cuff pulled out of the race to throw his support over to Greg Wooldridge.

It was great to see so many passionate people who desired a chance to get our state back on track. It would have been nice to see some of these talented and worthy people aim at other offices so we can balance out the state in other areas as well.

In the end we had three candidates who stood out above the rest: Knute Buehler, Greg Wooldridge, and Sam Carpenter.

Rough and Tumble

This year was a rowdy primary season. Each of the front runners had strengths and flaws in their campaign, which were exploited by the other candidates.

Of course this created tensions between supporters of different candidates who defended their preferred candidate with a passion and love for their state.

Buehler was seen as a moderate, this would help win over unaffiliated voters and disaffected Democrats, but created trouble with the base Republicans who felt he was at odds on certain topics such as abortion and the right to bear arms.

The Carpenter campaign seemed like an imitation Trump campaign. Carpenter was ready for a street fight and his fighting spirit is admirable, but his campaign was perhaps too eager for a fight. His campaign manager and a brigade of supporters attacked anyone who dared to disagree.

As Republicans and conservatives we have had to deal with these sort of tactics before from Progressive Democrats. This did not sit well with many people but drew in those who were tired of establishment Republicans that would seemingly roll over without a fight.

Wooldridge had lots of support but entered the race very late. He did not have the time to get a solid campaign up and running. By the time he started to become a contender most people had already chosen a candidate to back. A boost came when Bruce Cuff withdrew from the race and endorsed Wooldridge.

It would have been interesting to see Wooldridge as a candidate if he had joined the race sooner, but his late entry was a major handicap.

Good Game

At the end of each of my high school football games we would line up on the 50 yard line and walk down the middle of the field and high five the other team while saying good game. At the time I understood that it was sportsmanship and the right thing to do, even if I did not fully understand why.

Now, looking back, I understand the lesson taught by that action. That even if we were playing against each other as hard as we could, not giving an inch without a fight, we respected the other players. We did not love them, or even liked them, but we shared a bond of giving our all for our team while trying to win the game.

Each candidate fought a hard primary because we are all passionate about our principles and our love for our state.

So I am here to say to the winner of the primary, whoever that is, good game. The battle is over (or will be soon) and I will support you in the next part of this contest.


Monday, April 30, 2018

Sam Carpenter: By Any Means Necessary


Recently a photo was circulated by the campaign manager for Sam Carpenter. This photo showed respected Republican and Communications Director for the Wooldridge campaign, Jonathan Lockwood at a fundraiser for Maria Garcia.

Maria Garcia is running for Multnomah County Commissioner and is a moderate Democrat, who has been endorsed by Bernie Sanders.

Since then I have been watching the activity of the Carpenter Campaign, especially the activities of his campaign manager David Bacon Gulliver and the hyper active brigade of supporters that surround him.

First let’s look at the events of a few weeks ago.

The Lockwood Affair

It did not take long for David Bacon Gulliver, Sam Carpenters campaign manager, to start casting aspersions on Lockwood, calling him an “LGBTQ activist bomb-thrower” and labeling Garcia as a “radical socialist.”

Make Oregon Great Again, who is strongly tied to the Carpenter campaign, echoed this sentiment and was followed by Carpenter loyalists online.

The problem is they missed a few things in their rush to judgement. One Lockwood is an independent contractor working on the Wooldridge campaign not a direct staffer.

Two he did not directly raise funds for Garcia, simply attended a fundraiser for her as a local business owner interested in local politics.

Third he was allegedly fired from the moderate Knute Buhler campaign for being too Republican.
Also Garcia is a staunch anti public employee-labor union advocate. While she was endorsed by Sanders and does support sanctuary status at least she has some common ground with a few Republicans.

Doubling Down

Instead of recognizing that they are creating fractures within the Republican Party Carpenter and his loyalist supporters doubled down and deflected.

They tried to say they were just questioning what Lockwood was doing and that they are standing up for true Republican values. You know the same excuse your nephews give you when you catch them with their hand in the cookie jar and they say they just wanted to make sure the cookies were still there for later.

It did not work when you were kids so what makes you think it would be any different now that you are adults? Also if you had a backbone you would have taken it up personally with Lockwood first.

Instead you were more interested in the public attention you would get for virtue signaling as opposed to doing the real work and sacrifice that it actually takes to have real virtue.

Same Team?

The Oregon Tea Party has released communications from Sam Carpenter’s Campaign manager, David Gulliver, showing him directing Carpenter supporters to paint other conservatives as racists and bigots.

This is to be done to “make Greg [Wooldridge]…ashamed to have them.” This tactic might be effective online and provide short term gain, it does damage in the long run when you have Republicans calling each other racists. It just adds credibility, or at least the appearance of credibility, to the Progressive’s baseless accusations that the Republican Party is the party of racism.

This is the same sort of tactics used by the mainstream media against President Trump. They would say his supports are bigots, racists and violent and when protesters would attack Trump supporters they would say ‘violence erupts at Trump rally’ implying that those who are violent are the Trump supporters. Inferring that Trump is to blame for the violence done by Progressive protesters.

David and his comrades also engage in an online tactic known as brigading. Brigading is a concentrated effort by one online group to manipulate another, usually through mass commenting and down voting. Generally speaking this is an acceptable form of discourse online as it does not seek to silence anyone but rather promotes a differing opinion. Of course it is the internet so expect a few trolls to pop up now and again.

The point of this tactic is to make it appear that there is overwhelming support for one topic, issue or person and drowns out the voices of those who disagree or dissent. If you pay attention you will often see the same small group of people commenting and liking pro-Carpenter propaganda. It also gives the false impression of overwhelming success, which will draw people in who think that he has massive support, when in reality his support base is a minority of people cycling through.

Here are what I believe to be a few members of the brigade: Lori Tiger Davis, David Bacon Gulliver, Carol Leek, Helen Church, and Mary Wellman. Of course you will find a few others who comment and post but they have been taken in by this group think mentality more suited for Social Justice Warriors than free thinking liberty loving individuals.

They even deny reality when confronted with the evidence. Even when provided with screen shots they still deny the truth. The same way the Progressive’s deny biology when it suits them. In this conversation they cannot refute the evidence, so they fall back on personal attack. They call the person dissenting a liar and claim he is engaging in a smear campaign while doing they engage in the same.

My Opinion

These are just a few examples of this sort of behavior.

These sort of tactics accomplish a few different things. One they make people feel like Carpenter is ready and willing to fight it out. It would seem that he is so eager to fight that he is attacking his own party. People want a Republican who is not so soft and who is willing to say I stand for Republican values and I am not ashamed to actively promote and defend them.

Using this on your own party, while it might benefit in the short term, only creates problems in the long term. It gives the Democrats ammunition for the general election and causes sore relationships among party members.

Sam Carpenter, I doubt you are ignorant of the things going on in your own campaign. Meaning that you are not only allowing this sort of behavior to happen, but are fostering and promoting it.

Of course the comments to this blog will be much of the same. You will get people posting things like ‘MOGA’ and ‘Carpenter for Governor’, and ‘I am with Sam.’ You will also get people saying this is nothing but a smear job or a hit piece and they will call me a liar. They will seek to attack me and ruin any credibility I may have while putting me on trial in the court of public opinion.

That is the essence of social justice and we have seen it throughout the history of the world when people try to speak the truth. From Galileo, to Jesus, to Socrates. I am not saying I am anywhere near comparison to these great people, but that we need to learn from their example that the loudest and angriest voices are often not the correct ones.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Starbucks Employees are Racist According to CEO



On Thursday April 12th 2018 two men were removed from a Starbucks after being asked repeatedly to leave by the store manager.

The men asked to use the restroom and were told it was for paying customers only. They were asked to leave and when they refused the manager called the police.

The police arrived and that is when the camera started to roll.

Who Cares?

That video went viral across the Internet and made its way onto mainstream media. Why would anyone care about two people getting being asked to leave a business and when they refused to do so had the cops come and remove them from the premises?

It is because these two men are black. Since they are black, this must have something to do with racism. All other factors, elements or facts are irrelevant and we do not need to wait for the whole story before we act. This still went viral and it is worth looking at why.

A small group of people (activists, useful idiots, media) are so desperate for a story about racism that they more than happy to be willfully blind to alternative reasons as to why this happened.

They are okay with being willfully blind if it means they can 1) feel good about themselves for ‘fighting racism’ (in the most lazy and least risky way) 2) virtue signal about how not racist they are (me thinks the lady doth protest too much) and 3) find meaning in destroying the lives of others they judge as morally inferior (the employees are all racist so they need to undergo unconscious bias training, the manager only asked them to leave because he is racist not because they were trespassing and should be fired).

The truth is the demand for racists/racism far outstrips the supply. When demand is significantly higher than supply that commodity becomes more valuable. What is the value of racists/racism? It sells papers, it gets clicks, and it gets people emotional.

Media Dust Up

The activists, mostly college educated to see racism and sexism everywhere in everything (much like a fundamentalist religious person will see their deity everywhere and in everything), act as outrage manufacturers. They present their product, outrage, to the outrage merchants (the mainstream media) in the hope that it will grow and become a household name.

These outrage merchants can deliver their product directly to your TV, computer or smart phone screen. They are not interested in truth, rather they care about kicking your emotions so that you will pay attention to them.

Currently outrage has never been more valuable, from the outrage industry populated by activists and media elites, to the political arena where outrage is being used as a club against political opponents.

Note: Yes there are justifiable reasons to be outraged but this incident is not one of them. This outrage industry has a real world impact.

Unconscious Bias Training

The CEO of Starbucks Kevin Johnson said in an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America on Monday that he was going to have Starbucks employees undergo unconscious bias training, as well as submit managers to additional training as when to call the cops.

This seems like run of the mill training that most companies undergo every year. I am sure most of us have gone through some sort of training similar to this. So why does this matter?

First we have to understand the implications for this training. The CEO of Starbucks is telling all of his 238,000 employees that they are biased, and biased here means racist, and because of that bias they must undergo training to eliminate it.

By the very act of participating you are admitting that you are racist/biased. Most people will go to this training and nod along finding it boring and will find they are not changed personally. But it only takes a small minority to change the culture of a company.

With a few zealous employees driving the culture from the bottom and informing to managers who will enforce company policy from the top, those in the middle and on the bottom will either be forced out of a job (for failure to conform) or will slide farther into the mindset put into place by this training and its enforcement.

It was John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty who said “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (Page 13). Your employer does not have the right to meddle about in your unconscious, they do not own you, it is your mind and you have a basic human right to freedom of thought and privacy. It is an invasion of privacy of the highest order.

By imposing this training Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson might as well be telling his employees, ‘your thoughts are wrong, allow me to training you in what to think, you don’t want to be a racist now do you?’

If you work at Starbucks I would suggest you talk to your coworkers and organize. Submit a statement concerning the training you are being forced to undergo. If management ignores that, I would suggest you protest by whatever non-violent means that would be most effective for your particular location. If that is also ignored I would walkout on the day of the training and find another job somewhere else.





Thursday, April 12, 2018

The First Amendment is Not Your Right to Freedom of Speech


The first amendment is not your right to freedom of speech. The first amendment is simply a limitation on the government. That limitation is the legal protection to ensure that a government does not suppress your speech.

A popular argument is that since the first amendment only applies to the government, companies like Facebook and YouTube can limit your speech. It is their company and product, they have the freedom to say what is and is not allowed to happen.

That is only partially true.

What is Behind the First Amendment?

Freedom of Speech is a basic human right. Any conversation about rights has to take into account one basic question: where do your rights come from?

Of course the founding fathers in America believed, mostly, that your rights come from God and preexisted government. Atheists have a problem with this idea as they do not believe in the existence of a being known as God.

Yet even an Atheist can find utility in the idea that your rights come from outside of the human sphere. If your rights come from something beyond human authority than the idea follows that no human authority is justified in taking those rights away from you.

The individual’s rights flow from some greater force (call it God or Nature or whatever you like), along with free will, to use as they see fit. Part of living in a civilized society means that as an individual you decided that you are okay giving up part of what makes you an individualistic creature in order to fit into society and to help it function.

Liberty and freedom does not mean the absence of rules and limits, but it means the application of those rules and limits that help foster the greatest amount of freedom for the individual. This is getting a little off the topic of freedom of speech, but it needs to be said.

Freedom of speech is so important in this aspect because it is the method we, as individuals, use to determine what those rules and limits are that guarantee the maximum amount of freedom. Of course this means we need to be free to say stupid, offensive, and harsh things regardless of how it makes others feel.

Throughout history we can find examples of where the truth or what is viewed as right today was seen as offensive. The idea that slavery was immoral was offensive to most of the world at one point. It was also seen as offensive to think that people should have the right to self-determination and should not be tied to the land owned by a lord or king.

In order to say what you think in the pursuit of truth you must be willing to risk being offensive. You also have the responsibility to allow others to be offensive to you in their pursuit of truth.

Facebook, YouTube, and Free Speech

The popular argument is that Facebook and YouTube are their own companies and should have the freedom to do with their service as they see fit. I would agree with that to some extent, a company has the freedom to decide the scope of their business.

I am not entitled to the property or labor of another individual. Yet the right to freedom of speech is a right owned by the individual and that right can be oppressed by more than just the government.

Companies like Facebook need to make a choice, are they going to be a platform (a place where people can speak and thus be obligated to uphold the individual’s right to freedom of speech) or are they going to be a publisher (a place that edits and approves the type of speech allowed).

For a private company there are problems with both. If it is a platform you run the risk of people saying offensive and hurtful things that you and the majority of individuals do not agree with or like, which could lead them to leaving your platform. The benefit would be that you are not responsible for the things other people say.

For example, if I say something hurtful or derogatory over the phone, it is not AT&T’s fault that I said those things while using their service, the individual is responsible for their own actions.

Yet if they are a publisher and have a say in what does and does not gets published than they can be held liable for things being said by users of Facebook. They might be able to keep the outrage police happy for some time but policing one billion users every day will be an increasingly difficult task.

They can hand over more and more freedom but will only get an exponentially decreasing return in security. At some point due to stifling the individual’s free speech, the rise of competitors, and the increase in cost of policing their platform, Facebook will no long be able to function at a profit and will cease to exist.

Note: when I say free speech I do not mean free from all limits, but free speech within the currently established legal limits for speech in a public square.

The Hecklers Veto

The first amendment is a limit on the government is the same argument ‘protesters’ use to shut down speeches on college campuses or political campaign rallies. They apply pressure to event coordinators and location owners in the hope that they will stop people from speaking.

They do this by falsely labeling people alt-right or neo Nazi, getting local papers to publish stories spreading these false claims, and if that does not work protests will be organized and violence with be threatened.

In Portland Oregon threats of violence were used to shut down a local annual parade. Protesters disrupted a talk at PSU by James Damore by damaging sound equipment. Protesters silenced speaker Christina Hoff Sommers as well at Lewis and Clark Law School.

It is true that the first amendment is only a limit on the power of the government. Yet the right that this limit protects supersedes government.

Individuals have a right to free speech and it does not matter if it is the tyranny of the tyrant, majority or minority that is trying to oppress that right, it is still the suppression of a human right whose oppression should be odious to all freedom loving people. 

Thursday, April 5, 2018

12 Principles for 21st Century Conservatives



I got this list from Professor Jordan Peterson a Canadian professor of Psychology who has made a name for himself by standing against the far left Progressive policies and activists on Canadian universities and in government.

1.      The fundamental assumptions of western civilization are valid.


These assumptions include the ideas that the individual has intrinsic value, that individuals have rights that precedes the law, and that individual freedom and liberty is the best way to unleash the best and fullest potential of each person.

 
From these assumptions we get some of our more noticeable rights, such as the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

 
The proof that these assumptions are valid is in the actions of people throughout the world. What counties do people risk their lives to come to? Why don’t we see an exodus of socialists to socialist countries but rather an exodus of people from socialist countries to capitalist ones?

 
The focus on the individual is a deep and precious idea that is worth defending. If we lose that we must put the group first (tribalism) and if the group is what matters then you, the individual, do not matter very much.

 
2.      Peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and war. In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual impulse and idiosyncrasy.

 
This might seem to contradict the importance of the individual but in reality the two are different sides of the same coin. Ask yourself the question, would you willingly give up part of what makes you an individual in order to benefit from being part of a peaceful social order?

 
This is the social contract. We choose how much we are willing to give up so that we can exist peacefully with each other in the hope that the benefit we gain by giving up a part of our individuality and liberty outweighs the cost in doing so.

 
For example we are willing to give up part of our wealth in taxes so that the state can maintain a military that provides for the security of each individual in society. This is an acceptable constraint to ultimate liberty that secures the maximum amount of freedom for the individual.

 
This also does not mean you must always follow the rules all the time. Only that you should follow the rules, even if you do not understand them completely, unless you have a very good reason in breaking them. For example without breaking the taboo of touching a corpse medicine would not have advanced as far as it has.


The thinker Adam Ferguson articulated it best when he said “Liberty or Freedom is not, as the origin of the name may seem to imply, an exemption from all restraints, but rather the most effectual applications of every just restraint to all members of a free society whether they be magistrates or subjects.”

 
3.      Hierarchies of competence are desirable and should be promoted.

 
Those on the far left desire and fight for equity. Meaning they seek the destruction of all forms of hierarchies. They want to force everyone to be equal. It sounds good if only for the fact that it was not so murderous.

 
If you eliminate hierarches and make everyone equal (which the only possible way of doing so is through violent oppression in Gulag work camps or through starvation) than what do people have to strive for? If you cannot move up than why move at all?

 
What they fail to realize is that everyone benefits from multiple hierarchies of competence. Ask yourself, would you rather have a plumber who got the job based on the color of their skin or what type of genitals they have or some sort of historical oppression, or would you rather have the most qualified and competent plumber?

 
It is in these hierarchies where the most competent people rise to the top, not because they were given that position, but because they earned it. We want those people in those position so that we can extract the most use out of them for the benefit of all.

 
This message is not being related to young people. They are not being encouraged and told that they have potential to be the best at something. They are not being told to go out into the world and make something of themselves. Take personal responsibility, discipline yourself, see if you can learn to tell the truth and concentrate on something for a year or two and you can take the world by storm. It is possible to make yourself successful.

 
4.      Boarders are reasonable. Likewise, limits on immigration are reasonable. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that citizens of societies that have not evolved functional individual-rights predicated polities will hold values in keeping with such polities.

 
Boarders in this instance does not simply mean lines between states. Instead it means the boundaries between categories. For example the law is the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable actions and behaviors.

 
Of course you do not want to have too many boarders, this will limit the flow of information and resources as well as constrict freedom. But too few boarders is chaos.

 
When it comes to immigration, limits are reasonable. When immigrants come to a new country they bring new customs, traditions, and ideas. Too much of this will destabilize the existing order as well as place a burden on those at the bottom.

 
You also want to be sure that you are letting people into the country that will be a benefit to not only the society but to the immigrant as well. Not everyone will be a benefit, those who come from a society that lacks individual rights might not see the value in maintaining those rights. Instead they would seek to change the system to something that is more agreeable to their temperament.

 
For example someone who comes from a society where woman are not allowed to vote, might seek to repress the vote of women, either through the law or by exercising social pressure on the women around them. I am not saying deny people entry depending on where they come from, but that it is something worth considering.

 
5.      People should be paid so that they are able and willing to perform socially useful and desirable duties.

 
People get into higher positions because of competence not power. Most people get to where they are because they have earned their position, not because society handed it to them. You want people who earned those position there because they provide a use to society.

 
The best method for making sure that the most able and willing will occupy those positions is to create a system that produces equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.

 
6.      Citizens have the inalienable right to benefit from the results of their own honest labor.

 
This should be obvious, but it needs to be said. If you let people benefit from the results of their own labor, than they will work to produce something that you need.

 
It also means do not try and tax people so much that they fail to see the point of working. Yes some taxes are required to provide for social services, but too much becomes a burden. People work hard for what they earn, taking more and more to fund one program or another only de-incentivizes people from working while creating a growing underclass of people who depend solely on the government.

 
7.      It is more noble to teach young people about responsibilities then about rights.

 
The conversation has been centered on rights. We tell young people that they have a right to this and that. No one is talking to them about the responsibilities that come with those rights.

 
Instead of telling young people what rights they have and should have, we should be telling them that they are capable of taking responsibility for their own lives. Getting the government to give you things is not the only way to get what you want. In fact it is probably the worst method for doing so.

 
Do something useful that will benefit you, your family and your community. It is through the willing adoption of responsibility where you will find meaning in life. That meaning will benefit you far more than any right.

 
It will also benefit those around you. You will be a comfort in times of crisis and pain and you will be able to help people when the tragedy of life renders them useless. Believe it or not young people are desperate for this message.

 
8.      It is better to do what everyone has always done, unless you have some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise.

 
The traditions in society did not simply fall from the sky, nor where they placed there by some malevolent force or group bent on suppressing you. They developed over a long period of time because they had value to them.

 
These traditions should be respected as they have produced the current world we live in and all benefits and advantages we possess. Messing with them is dangerous and should only be done if you have a seriously good reason for doing so.

 
We do not know everything and do not always know how the changes we make will play out in the world, not only in society but across time.

 
9.      Radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.

 
We are in a time of radical change (internet, globalization). Things are changing so rapidly that it is hard for people to keep up. Even in my life time we have gone from slow dial up internet on the computer to having high speed internet access in our pockets. We do not fully understand how the changes of the world have and will impact society.

 
It is perfectly reasonable to say slow down a minute and let’s try to address some of these changes and the impacts they are having. It is also reasonable to say the change may be good intentioned and seem to come from a place of compassion, but do we truly know what the end result will be.

 
Gradual change over time reduces the risk of destabilizing a system and increase the possibility that it will produce a positive outcome.

 
10.  The government local and distant should leave people to their own devises as much as possible.

 
This is a call for humility. I would rather have individuals making their own stupid mistakes and getting things wrong for themselves in the hope that a few people will get things right, than having one person impose their view of what is right on everyone and risk getting it catastrophically wrong for everyone at the same time.

 
Don’t think that what you are doing is right, or that it will come out as you predict. You cannot know everything or how it will affect everyone, understand that you have limitations.

 
11.  Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.

 
One of the bedrocks of society is the traditional family. I hate that I have to say it but I will say it; I am not saying that I oppose gay marriage or that gay/lesbian couples cannot be good parents, I am not saying that. Instead what I am saying is that maybe children need a role model of each sex.

 
Regardless of your opinion on the matter it is pretty clear that two parent families are more successful. It should seem obvious that having two loving parents in the home is better than one. Again this is not a dig a single parents, but rather a recognition of the difficulty of raising a family.

 
The point of marriage is too tough it out for better or for worse, not for your happiness but for the chance to tie the rope of your life together with someone else’s life. Happiness is fleeting and if marriage is only about happiness, it too will become fleeting. Rather marriage is about two people weaving their lives together so that they can become stronger as a union than they ever could be as an individual.

 
You will often hear claims made that marriage is just an oppressive institution developed to keep women in bondage. There is some truth to that claim and a few examples can be found to prove it, but it is only one side. It fails to take into account the benefits gained from the union of marriage. It is two people who share in the suffering and success of life.  

 
Other types are families are fine, and if that is what you seek, more power to you. We also need to keep in mind that the structure of the traditional family has worked well for the entire existence of humanity and it is not just a social construct and that we mess with it at our own peril.

 
12.  We should judge our political system in comparison to other actual political systems and not to hypothetical utopias.

 
We should compare our systems to other active systems in the world. If we are near the top than maybe we should not mess with the system too much. It means that we got something right and it is working.

 
It might not be perfect, nothing is, but have some gratitude for the benefits that system produces. A few examples would be that we have enough food that obesity is more of a problem than starvation. That you can peacefully interact with your neighbors and even interact in a way that is mutually beneficial to both parties. That you can ask a police man for help and they will actually help you.

 
This is not the case in a lot of the world. Police will only help you if you bribe them, and sometimes not even then. Other countries are run by thugs who are perfectly fine with having your door kicked open and murdering you in the middle of the night.

 
We have a lot to be thankful for in our country and it would benefit to show a little gratitude for that, instead of trying to compare what we have to whatever form of utopian heaven that you can dream up and would love to impose on people without their cooperation and without their will. That was already tried in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany with murderous results.

 
A Case for Conservatism

 
There is a viable case for conservatism that produces a benefit to society. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative and expressing conservative values. Do not let anyone silence you, but also do not silence yourself for fear of being ridiculed or attacked.

 
You might not say everything right all the time, in fact you will probably say a lot of things that are wrong, but if you say them honestly and listen when people talk to you than you will get better at it. You will be able to articulate your ideas clearer and with more confidence and with the knowledge that your ideas have been tested.

 
You have every right to be conservative and there is nothing wrong with you for being conservative. It is time to get organized and push back against the hyper educated resentful utopian dreamers out of the positions of power.