|
|
The following article originally was published February 1 by Grand Junction’s Free Press.
At least Dan Maes answered the questions
by Linn and Ari Armstrong
Recently the Supreme Court struck down part of the McCain-Feingold censorship law in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision is tragic because the Court only partially restored the First Amendment, and apparently four of the justices cannot comprehend the simple phrase, “Congress shall make no law…”
Leftist critics of the ruling argue that, while a lone individual might have some rights to free speech, individuals do not have the right to freely associate to express themselves. Further, these critics claim, you have no firm right to spend your own money on expression.
To grasp the left’s hypocrisy on finances, just ask a critic of the ruling whether the right to get an abortion would be preserved if women and clinics were forbidden from spending money on abortions. (Eugene Volokh raised this point.)
Regarding this case the left is perfectly consistent with its Marxist roots. Marx wrote, “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
In simpler terms, you are just too stupid to independently evaluate a film or ad funded by a corporation. You need the benevolent nannies of the left to help you think straight.
Unfortunately, some people do everything they can to prove Marx right. They thoughtlessly buy junk just because the idiot box or their friends tell them to. They never read great books or otherwise develop their reasoning skills. They vote for candidates based on appearance, smooth talk, and hysterical smear campaigns against the other guy.
However, trying to save people from their own stupidity only entrenches stupidity. People cannot choose wisely if they lack the capacity to choose badly. In terms of free speech, people must be free to say and believe stupid things, if we wish to preserve the right and ability to say and believe profundities.
The law properly guards against fraudulent speech. You can’t legally tell someone a used car has only ten thousand miles on it when it actually has a hundred thousand. Nor can you make up lies about a candidate. Established law already addresses such matters.
Aside from libel, however, people should be free to say whatever they want about candidates (using their own resources), whenever they want, and with whomever they want. That is precisely what the First Amendment is all about.
We can’t blame bad government on advertisements. After all, smear campaigns work only if voters fail to critically judge them. It is you, the individual voter, who must carefully evaluate claims, do some background research, and seek the broader context. If you fail to do so, censorship laws will not save the republic but will only further erode its foundation.
Let us make 2010 the year when candidates articulate their views on the issues and voters decide accordingly. Let us make this election about ideas, principles, and policies, not hair dye, cowboy hats, and vocal timbre.
It is in this spirit that we introduced our Candidate Survey, found at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10. Unfortunately, as of our deadline, we had heard from only two candidates running for governor or U.S. Senate. Dan Maes, the Republican challenger to Scott McInnis, said he’d answer the survey and followed through on his word. We also heard from independent candidate Rich Hand. You can find their responses linked from the original survey.
Though we originally contacted all the major-party candidates (or their representatives) for those offices by January 13, our initial correspondence did not make it to the right parties in the case of McInnis and Democratic top gun John Hickenlooper. While representatives of both candidates have now confirmed receipt of the survey, they have not committed to answering it. We encourage readers to ask these candidates to answer the survey.
Maes is the underdog, and we disagree with a number of his views. Generally, though, we are impressed by his responsiveness, straight talk, sincerity, and hard work.
Maes is a pretty solid fiscal conservative. He thinks the state should cut taxes and permit the traditional energy industry to thrive (thereby also increasing the tax flow from energy). He is too unfriendly to immigrants in our view. Disappointingly, he said campaign censorship laws should be “maintained,” and he thinks flag desecration should be Constitutionally outlawed.
Most disturbing is Maes endorsement of the “personhood” measure, which if fully implemented would outlaw nearly all abortions, outlaw common forms of birth control, restrict fertility treatments, and subject women to severe legal interference.
Maes also punted on several questions. For example, we asked, “Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?” Maes answered, “It already is.” Cute. Perhaps Maes would care to answer the question next time: what does he think the law should say?
At least Maes answered (most of) the questions. That’s a start.
The following article originally was published on January 4 by Grand Junction’s Free Press.
What are conservatives trying to conserve?
by Linn and Ari Armstrong
Conservatives are a strange bunch. They support free trade, except when they want to outlaw or restrict select medicinal plants or forcibly stop employers from hiring willing workers of their choice.
Conservatives support freedom of conscience, except when they want to censor what they declare to be obscene works, punish the mishandling of the flag, or force people to fund religious programs with which they disagree.
Conservatives advocate strong national defense, except when they support a war the president declares unwinnable, along with years of “nation building” at the expense of American lives.
Conservatives endorse federalism, except when they want the national government to tell states how to handle marriage.
Conservatives uphold independence, except when they call on politicians to imprison women for getting an abortion.
Conservatives tout the dignity of the individual, unless that individual happens to be gay or a brown-skinned laborer from Mexico.
Conservatives declare to stand for time-honored principles, except when they “compromise” to raise taxes, pass smoking bans in violation of property rights, expand health welfare, endorse corporate welfare, and use the invasive tax code to crack down on the “crime” of productive work.
We have to wonder just what it is that conservatives are trying to conserve. How can we make sense out of the hash of modern conservatism?
A common explanation is that conservatism is a “fusion” of faith-based tradition and libertarian free-market leanings. There’s something to that. The problem is that faith often clashes with tradition, while libertarian government-bashing often clashes with individual rights.
The libertarian anti-government strain is a minor part of the conservative movement. Many libertarians join their own party, avoid politics, or loudly distance themselves from conservatives. Down-with-government conservatism, illustrated by Grover Norquist’s infamous and unfortunate line about drowning government in a bathtub, alienates the general public and tends toward the reactionary, in the sense of reacting against anything to do with government rather than championing some positive value.
That leaves three major conservative traditions: tradition, faith, and liberty.
Tradition explains why so many conservatives oppose gay marriage and immigration. They want things to stay just the way they are. The problem is knowing which traditions to conserve and which to change. Slavery was a tradition for many centuries, overturned by liberal-minded abolitionists who wanted to fundamentally change society. Rule by king was a tradition.
For too many conservatives, tradition is just a rationalization for advocating policies and cultural trends without the bother of having to justify them on moral grounds. Tradition is the fall-back of the thoughtless.
Sensing the weakness of a strictly traditional approach, many conservatives turn to religious faith. Christians may lay aside Old Testament calls to murder people for homosexuality, witchcraft, adultery, and parent-cursing.
Christians cannot avoid the fact that the New Testament “contains scores of commandments demanding the redistribution of wealth and property from those who created it to those who did not,” as Craig Biddle points out in The Objective Standard. The Marxist injunction, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” finds its “origin in the Bible,” Biddle notes.
Many Christians openly apply Biblical principles to the welfare state; for example, the Colorado Catholic Conference advocated tax-funded “health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death.”
Conservative Christians do a lot of comical dancing trying to pass through the eye of a needle with their riches intact. Yet, in terms of Biblical principles, the best such conservatives can do is say that, yes, people have a moral duty to redistribute their wealth, only they should be free to do it or not. The fact remains that the Bible says precious little in defense of political and economic liberty, individual rights, or the value of economic prosperity.
As Sarah Palin writes in her biography, her brand of conservatism rests on the alleged truth “that man is fallen.” The presumption is that people just aren’t good enough to live in a socialist order. Instead, such conservatives argue, politics must cope with vicious humanity. Then faith-based conservatives who appeal to our “fallen” nature wonder why they can’t capture the moral high ground.
We are conservatives only in the final sense of the term: we want to conserve liberty and indeed radically expand it. We hold that liberty is not a gift from men or the gods, but a necessity for thriving human life. To live successfully, we need the freedom to act on our own judgment regarding ourselves and our property. Government must protect our rights, but it must be restrained by a written constitution that limits political power. Unlike the libertarians, we are not against government; we are for a government that robustly protects individual rights.
The interesting thing about this brand of conservatism is that it sounds a lot like what liberalism was always supposed to be, until its purported defenders twisted that movement to the opposite purpose. The best conservatives, it turns out, are also the only true liberals.
The following article originally was published December 21 by Grand Junction’s Free Press.
Ralph Carr shows politicians can stand for liberty
by Linn and Ari Armstrong
If you still have last-minute Christmas shopping to do, we have a suggestion. Adam Schrager, the thoughtful 9News reporter, wrote a book called The Principled Politician: Governor Ralph Carr and the Fight Against Japanese American Internment. This delightful account of important Colorado history came out in paperback earlier this month.
Carr served as governor from 1939 to 1943, an era spanning parts of two of the nation’s greatest challenges: the Great Depression and World War II. Carr responded to both these crises by defending liberty and individual rights.
As Carr entered office, Colorado government faced a $1.8 million deficit. Unlike many of today’s politicians, whose answer to deficits is to raise taxes and “fees” or increase government spending, Carr called for fiscal responsibility.
Schrager writes that Carr “announced plans to abolish many of the state bureaus and boards established by the last administration.” He also “proposed shifting the net income tax benefiting schools into the state’s general fund.” During a speech he “told the crowd that anyone who joined the civil service to have an easy job financed by taxpayers… could expect to be fired.”
We wish we could hear Carr’s common-sense wisdom reflected in today’s political debates. (All quotations are from Schrager’s book.) “The way to save money is to stop spending it.” “Spending and lending is unsound and… thrift and the full payment of debts… is simple and common honesty.”
While seconding the nomination of Wendell Willkie, who lost the presidential contest of 1940, Carr said, “If we are ever to save this country, we must first save business. Every one of you is in business — big business and little business, farmers, stockmen, laboring men, industrialists.”
Carr turned down a chance of running with Willkie (a wise move in retrospect) to continue his work in Colorado. Carr said, “What have we done to justify your returning us to office? We have taken the income of the state of Colorado. We have lived within it. We added not a dime of new taxes. We cut the levy for state purposes… and we balanced your blooming budget.”
Carr opposed Roosevelt’s expansive political controls: “The New Deal has usurped the powers of the state [and] undermined personal liberty.”
Carr added, “It is not disloyal to oppose and to question the policy of one who has not yet proved himself omnipotent and to require that he too be limited and circumscribed by those same ideals and standards governing others. We insist that the president recognize and follow the Constitution which created him.”
Carr summarized his basic political philosophy with an eloquence rare in politics: “The individual is supreme and government is established only to protect and foster his rights.” He later added, “Every time the individual submits to a central government for a solution of another problem of business or life, there is a consequent surrender of individuality, of privilege, of right.”
Carr argued that the term “liberal” had been stolen by the left. He said, “The true liberals are those who consistently follow the proposition that liberty means freedom to exercise individual rights unaffected by external restraint or compulsion… The underlying theory of the Constitution is found in the proposition that every man may use the talents which God has given him, may reach any goal toward which he sets his eyes, and may enjoy the fruits of his ambition, his study and his toil, provided only that he does not use his powers to injure his fellows.”
The fate of the nation changed on December 7, 1941, when Japanese bombers attacked the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor. Carr rose to the challenge, setting up “an emergency meeting of the Colorado Council of Defense for the next morning,” Schrager writes.
While most Coloradans responded to the crisis admirably, some turned to paranoia and racist threats. Some called Japanese Americans “vipers” and “yellow rats.” Various politicians and media personalities wanted to put them into concentration camps. The Denver Post wrote, “To hell with the Japs!” Nels Smith, governor of Wyoming, said “there would be Japs hanging from every pine tree” if sent to that state.
Carr rejected racism. He said, “We have among us many of a new generation of Japanese people born in the United States — sincere, earnest, and loyal.” He offered a “hand of friendship” to immigrants. He urged protection of the Bill of Rights and the “security, freedom, and opportunity” it offers.
In a public address, Carr granted the existence of enemy “fifth columnists” and assented to federal relocation policies. Yet he also spoke for “loyal German, Italian, and Japanese citizens who must not suffer for the activities and animosities of others.” He warned against “the danger of inflammatory statements and threats against these unwelcome guests” forcibly sent to Colorado.
Though we may not approve every detail of Carr’s career, he has richly earned his place in history as a man who defended liberty. We thank Schrager for telling his inspiring story.
The following article originally was published November 23 by Grand Junction’s Free Press.
People vote for freedom with their feet and effort
by Linn and Ari Armstrong
“Why are they all running to Colorado? What have they got down there that we haven’t got?” So asks a villain in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. He complains about Colorado’s primitive, lazy government that “does nothing outside of keeping law courts and a police department.”
A young worker answers, “Maybe it’s something you’ve got that they haven’t got.”
High taxes, economic controls, and intrusive politicians and bureaucrats kill production. Unfortunately, fearing Colorado’s economic stagnation, the politically connected call not for more economic freedom but for more taxes. They act like doctors who prescribe bloodletting for anemia.
A recent Qwest-funded report from the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation bears the title, “Toward a More Competitive Colorado.” But some of the report’s recommendations would lead to higher taxes, less competitiveness, and a weaker economy.
The report notes that Colorado ranks well in areas of health, education, and investments. Yet, rather than promote more of the Western liberty that made Colorado prosperous, the report worries that politicians aren’t spending enough of other people’s money on college, preschool, infrastructure (however that’s defined), and welfare.
“A Gordian Knot exists in Colorado’s Constitution that makes governing a challenge,” the report complains. That seems to be code for “gut the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.”
Though especially concerned about education, the report declines to discuss freeing colleges from state controls, expanding competition for K-12, and cutting taxes so families can better afford college and philanthropists can donate more.
The only constitutional change we need is to repeal Amendment 23, which sets education spending on auto-pilot regardless of economic conditions.
Meanwhile, as the Daily Sentinel reported Nov. 17, the Pew Center declared Colorado in “fiscal peril” because, darn it all, people get to vote on tax hikes.
Either people restrain the politicians or the opposite becomes true. The more the political class oppresses the people, the more people move away or reduce their production.
Rand’s novel is about the nation’s top producers going on strike against oppressive politics, some moving to Galt’s Gulch where they can live in freedom. In Free to Choose, Milton Friedman warns that people vote with their feet, moving where they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.
This is true between states. Regarding last year’s U.S. Economic Freedom Index, lead author Lawrence McQuillan summarizes, “People are moving to the freest states and fleeing the least free states.”
Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal declared New York the “tax capital of the world.” The paper noted, “According to Census Bureau data, over the past decade 1.97 million New Yorkers left the state for greener pastures — the biggest exodus of any state.”
The same is true around the world: people tend to leave more repressive countries and move to freer ones. Recently we celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall, built by tyrants to keep an oppressed people from moving away.
Britain suffered a “brain drain” as their doctors sought to escape socialized medicine. When introducing the National Health Service, Aneurin Bevan bought off doctors for their political support, reportedly saying, “I stuffed their mouths with gold.” Upon implementing the new system, he declared, “We now have the moral leadership of the world.”
Yet many doctors suffered indigestion. Some found that this gold tasted a lot more like thirty pieces of silver. Others rebelled against the new political controls. They wanted no part of the “moral leadership” that put bureaucrats in charge of health. Some of these doctors moved to the United States.
If we go further down England’s path, some doctors will move out of our country and cater to medical tourists. Others will retire early.
We’ve seen examples large and small of people giving up. Higher car fees have convinced some to sell the extra car or put off purchasing a new one. Some work less for taxable income and trade more goods and services (though such exchanges are supposed to be taxed, too).
Chris Edwards recently published disturbing figures at Cato. He writes, “While consumption, exports, and the government sector were up, private investment has fallen through the floor.” Fearing more federal political controls, Edwards calls this “the death of private investment in America.”
Meanwhile, unemployment nationally has crept over the double-digit marker, despite (or partly because of) President Obama’s “shovel ready” stimulus projects. No need to look very far to figure out what it is that Obama is shoveling. An ABC headline illustrates part of the problem: “Jobs ‘Saved or Created’ in Congressional Districts That Don’t Exist.”
As one of our friends wondered, “You mean taking money out of the private sector, creating money out of thin air, and indebting future generations actually doesn’t make us more prosperous?”
If we want to return to prosperity in Colorado and in our nation, we need less political interference and more economic liberty.
Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.
|
Help Liberty on the Rocks (Denver) Grow. Donate Today!
Get Happy Hour Reminders!
|
