Polluting the Message of Liberty With Irrelevant Christianity

When it comes to alliances in the fight for liberty, I am not one who subscribes to the "Politics makes strange bedfellows" way of thought. I often butt heads with my fellow libertarians on this issue when fiscal-sanity/smaller government "alliances" are proposed with groups like the Glenn Beck 9/12ers, The Constitution Party, Republican Tea Partyists, Meetup.com groups like the Texas Liberty Campaign, and yes, to some extent, The Campaign for Liberty, aka Ron Paul Republicans.

Why? All of the above groups(some CFLers) seem to insist upon injecting their Christian beliefs into the fight-for-liberty equation. Case in point: this meetup posted by the Texas Liberty Campaign. In what universe does Christianity have ANYTHING to do with responsible fiscal policy and limiting the size and scope of the federal government?

"But why not ally with these groups in order to win the battle for fiscal sanity and smaller government? Strength in numbers, you know."

Simple. I do not want to trade one form of tyranny for another, i.e. Big Government for Big Theocracy.

"Well, aren't you injecting your atheism into the same equation?."

No. Take the inane meetup linked to above. Did you see the text of the signs being proposed for the "liberty sign wave"? Here they are:

Side 1:Be Free in Christ
Side 2:Christian Libertarian (or Christian Constitutionalist) ETC

Side 1: I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.
(Psalm 120:7)
Side 2: Jesus Christ: Prince of Peace

Side 1: No King but King Jesus
Side 2: Resistance to Tyranny=Obedience to God (Debbie's personal favorite!)

Side 1 and Side 2: Fish swimming against the tide/school of fish image

Side 1: It was for freedom (Galatians 5:1)

Side 2: that Christ set us free

My desired ommission of the Christian nonsense proposed above is NOT "injecting my atheism". Read up on the burden of proof fallacy if that's what you were thinking.

Now, if this were MY "Celebrate Freedom Sign Wave", I'd at least keep it honest. You'd never see something like "Freedom From Religion", "The Bible is Bullshit", or other non-fiscal policy/smaller government sayings on the flip side of my liberty signs. THAT would be injecting atheism into the equation.

Again, what the hell does any of the above Xtian signage have to do with liberty?!? (I especially love the contradictory "Resistance to Tyranny=Obedience to God" proposed sign.) Yeah, I know, the meetup specifies that it wants to "Spread the Liberty Message to Christians..", but it's doing this at the "Celebrate Freedom Sign Wave"! And to boot, this meetup is posted on a religion-neutral sounding meetup called "Texas Liberty Campaign"! How in the name of Jeebus can you possibly "Celebrate Freedom" in one breathe then brag about "Obedience to your imaginary master" in the next?

Anyway, I believe all of these pseudo-libertarian groups don't give a crap about true liberty. Their ultimate goal is a Christian Theocracy, and as I said earlier, I will not ally myself with people trading one form of tyranny for another. I will not exhaust my energies in the battle for fiscal liberty, only upon victory to have to fight again for social liberty.

So to all of the above groups, stop calling yourselves "libertarian", you are nothing but refried neo-conservative sore-losers. Leave your religilous idiocy out of the fiscal sanity/smaller government equation, and I'll be happy to chat with you about alliances.

----
Image from here.

When "Belief" Becomes "Delusion" (Part Two)

I think the slaying of Dr. George Tiller says more about this than I could ever write. (Yes, I'm in another blogging rutt)

EDIT - ...and the religilous nut discussed in this Whited Sepulchre piece is just icing on the cake.

When "Belief" Becomes "Delusion" (Part One)

The last couple of weeks I've spent quite a bit of my time arguing with those of the religious persuasion. The arguments have included a variety of topics, including why I consider the "We believe in God" principle of the Glenn Beck 9/12ers to be divisive and unnecessary in the fight for less government and fiscal sanity, the effectiveness of prayer, the existence of Jesus, "God" as a delusion, and even the nature of the "real world". Each culminated, just as they usually do, in either the incredibly weak "it's all about belief/faith" rationalization/surrender or the "agree to disagree" compromise.

(Note: henceforth, I'll use the words "faith" and "belief" interchangeably, since the two are equivalent within the context of this discussion. Also in the context of this discussion, I will be using the following definition of the word Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (i.e. blind faith), and NOT - Faith: complete trust (i.e. contingent faith), which the religilous love to falsely equivocate.)

The common thread I see among each of these arguments? : how "benign belief" (i.e. imagination, open-mindedness) can mutate into "benign delusion" (i.e. dogma, true closed-mindedness), and ultimately, provide the scaffolding for "malignant & destructive delusion" (i.e. flying planes into skyscrapers, undermining public school science classes with creation myths, electing fking morons to the U.S. Presidency)

Now, the simple cognitive act of believing in the possibility of something, i.e. the existence a god, gods, evil alien overlords that populated the earth by dropping souls into volcanoes, or alternate states of reality, is not, in and of itself, delusional. All of us have some degree of imagination, and simply positing the existence of something is harmless...life would be pretty boring if Gene Roddenberry had never imagined the world of Star Trek, Joss Whedon had never believed in the possibility of the Firefly universe (or simply 'Verse, as we Browncoats like to say), or the Wachowski brothers hadn't challenged our notion of "the real world" by positing The Matrix (and subsequently flubbing the sequels). Accepting the possibility of these and other products of the imagination that might be is benign belief. This is using one's imagination. THIS, is open-mindedness.

However, one begins descending into "benign delusion" and true close-mindedness when the "possibility" clause is removed from the notion of benign belief. When one starts actually believing that Lord Xenu populated Earth with(whatever the fk Scientologists believe), The Matrix is actually real, or that unseen deities actually exist and control our fate...again, actual belief without a shred of creditable evidence to support the belief(which is now a truth claim)...one has, by definition, become delusional.

So is the individual's delusion benign, or malignant? The delusion is relatively benign as long as the delusion motivated actions of the individual do not infringe upon the life, liberty, and property of other individuals who do not share the delusion. Building conceptual models of alternate realities, prayer, attending church, abstaining from sex, drugs, and rock n roll...all benign. Unfortunately though, when an otherwise benign delusion begins to be spread and shared amongst groups of individuals, the scaffolding for malignant delusion begins to manifest.

I'll tackle "malignant & destructive delusion" in Part Two of When "Belief" Becomes "Delusion". Right now, I'm hungry.

Random Rant: Preemptive War Muggering, Iraq, and "The Meth Lab Next Door"

So I'm helping man the Tarrant County Libertarian table at the Fort Worth Gun Show last Saturday, when up strolls the inevitable NeoCon Republican ready to educate us on why the libertarian policy of "isolationism" is just flat WRONG and why Uncle Sam was perfectly justified in the mugging of Iraq.

First of all, it's a "non-interventionist" foreign policy, not an "isolationist" policy....there is a HUGE difference between the two. See, Libertarians believe in "National Defense" in it's purist form, the optimal word of the phrase being "defense". If our nation is attacked, we believe in kicking the buh-jesus out of the attackers. We do not, however, subscribe to the notion of "The best defense is a good offense"...that phrase belongs on the football field, not in the State Department.

If libertarians had an "isolationist" policy, we would be against trade with other nations, which would contradict our pro-free market economy positions. Again, we believe in a non-interventionist approach when the military might of the US is concerned. The cost and unintended consequences of U.S. meddling in the middle east has been staggering. A non-interventionist approach would have saved us trillions, not to mention the lives that would NOT have been destroyed as a direct result of said meddling.

Anyway, the NeoCon mentioned above tried to rationalize the mugging of Iraq and preemptive mugging in general by comparing the baddies of the world to a hypothetical meth lab two doors down from your house. The meth lab, like Saddam, is a threat to your life and that of...wait for it...the chilllldren.

First of all, there wouldn't even BE a meth lab two doors down from you, much less one that would be a threat, if we would end this ridiculous and costly "War on Drugs"...but don't get me started on that...I'll save it for another post. Second, this guy's analogy is flawed beyond repair. In his world, it is the responsibily of the Arkansas State Police to eliminate the meth lab next door...you know, the one next door in...BOSTON (go Red Sox!). Which leads to, lastly, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE U.S. MILITARY TO POLICE THE FKING WORLD AND "SPREAD DEMOCRACY".

"But Saddam wanted to destroy us!"

Well, so does North Korea, Venezuela, and countless other nations around the world...so why aren't we in North Korea and Venezuela? North Korea has nukes and Kim Jong Il's horrible fashion sense, while Venezuela has the noxious fumes emitted from Hugo's armpits. Said NeoCon didn't have an answer to either one.

"But all the Kurds slaughtered by Saddam...how do we just let that happen?"

The same way we let millions die at the hands of warlords in Africa, gawd knows how many under Kim Jong Il, and countless others killed under the rule of other despots around the globe. The U.S. is not the world police, nor did the founders intend for us to be:

"...it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
-- Thomas Jefferson, from his 1801 inagural address.

...THAT dear readers, is the heart and soul of a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The U.S. would be MUCH better off if we'd keep our noses out of other nations affairs. The cost and unintended consequences just aren't worth the price.

So...What the Hell is a "Browncoat"?

I often (well, once or twice) get asked this question by my vast army of loyal readers (one or two), so I'm finally going to 'splain: Simply put, a "Browncoat" is a rabid fan of the late, great, shortlived television show "Firefly" and the movie "Serenity". A Browncoat will tell you without hesitation that Firefly was the greatest TV show...ever. Period.

The show premiered in the Fall of 2002, and died in December 2002 after the knucklehead executives at FOX Television (who didn't like the show in the first place) sabotaged and sunk the show before it had a chance to take flight.

In a nutshell, the show was about nine people aboard a transport spaceship named "Serenity". The setting of the show takes place 500 yrs in the future where we've terraformed and colonized planets and moons in a distant solar system. The central planets are very modernized and "futuristic", while the outer planets are much like the American wild-west of the 19th century. The outer planets had no desire to be under the thumb of "The Alliance", the governing body of the central planets, so there was a war of independence pitting the Alliance against the outer planets, a.k.a. "The Independents", a.k.a. "The Browncoats". Needless to say, the Browncoats were on the losing end of the war. The show picks up six years after the war, following the lives of a former Independent Sergeant named Malcolm Reynolds (played most excellently by Nathan Fillion) and his crew.

But it's not the sci-fi setting that makes the show so wonderful, it's the characters on Serenity, their interactions with each other, and the snarcky dialog... you immediately bond with the characters and feel like "part of the crew".

Anyway, I won't ramble on about the show, here's a link to the Firefly Wiki page if you want to learn more:

http://www.fireflywiki.org/


Needless to say, I highly recommend this series...it's fun, entertaining, and leans very libertarian. You can purchase the complete series and movie "Serenity" on DVD from Amazon.com.



I must warn you though: once you finish the series and movie, you will definitely be craving more and, well, there ain't. (Note: be sure to watch 'em in DVD order, not the screwed up order they were aired by FOX).

Oh, and did I mention: Nathan Fillion f'n rocks. Be sure to watch him Mondays on ABC starring in the new show "Castle"...he's ruttin' hi-larious!

Random Rant: Madonna's Elbonian Kids, "Political" Science, etc.

So I'm persusing CNN.com and notice their latest poll: "Should Madonna be allowed to adopt another Elbonian child?". Now, personally, I think the Madonnas and Brangelinas of the entertainment industry adopt children because it's some kind of weird Hollywood trend...the poor kids are more for show as fashion accessories than anything. I'm willing to bet all of the chidlins will likely end up being raised by an army of nannies once the fad dies out and/or the Mabrangelinas decide to move on to The Next Big Ego Stroking Cause.

All that to say I personally don't like the Elbonian adoption fad, however (back to the CNN poll), I checked "Yes" on the poll. I may not LIKE what Madonna is doing, but she has every RIGHT to adopt as many Elbonians as she pleases. What stunned me was the results of the poll which, at the time, were neck and neck! Roughly 40 something percent of people taking the poll think Madonna should not be allowed to adopt more Elbonian human accessories! ALLOWED?!? Allowed by whom? Why, Big Government, of course. Do these folks really want the Obamessiah & co. dictating whether or not they can adopt? Don't answer that...

"Political" Science
No, not the two courses you took in college. I'm talking about "Science" used to push political agendas. My opinions that second-hand smoke is harmless and that "climate change"(is that what we're calling it now?) is happening regardless of what we pesky humans do are often challenged by people sporting incredulous looks. "But aren't you a science-loving atheist?!?" Yes, as a rule, I put my trust in credible, non-politically motivated science. However, I do not trust politically motivated "science" whose results are exaggerated to the nth degree. The "dangers" of second-hand smoke are a prime example of hysterical, politically motivated "science". I've read some of these "studies" and the ludicrous conditions under which the hapless rats were exposed to. None of these conditions resemble anything close to reality, yet the "results" have worked their way into public opinion and your average schmo on the street will think you insane if said results are questioned.

We are truly a nation of sheep.

Newsflash: You ARE "The People"

So I just finished Fredric Bastiat's masterpiece of socialist repellent, "The Law", which, IMHO is probably the most brilliant treatise on the subject of liberty ever written. If you didn't know better, you'd swear you were reading the work of a 21st century author, not a 19th century economist/political philosopher.

One particular section really hit home with me where he writes about how the socialists of his time were either elitist snobs or contradictory knuckleheads. You see, I’ve had a few run-ins with 21st century socialists, a.k.a. Democrats, who really aren’t that different than their 19th century counterparts. Both share the same condescending attitude that “the people are not capable of governing themselves”. I’ve heard this pillar of socialist wisdom countless times in discussions and from local democratic congressional candidates.

After one of these recent discussions, I got to thinking, “so exactly WHO or WHAT is supposed to govern us then, HAL?” After all, aren’t politicians “people” too? Bastiat takes it a step further, basically saying: “If people aren’t capable of governing themselves, why in the world do people, a.k.a. YOU, person who believes people are incapable of governing themselves, have the right to VOTE”? After all, if you are incapable of governing yourself, why should you be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of electing your representatives?

Bastiat goes on to point out that those that espouse this condescending opinion of mankind naturally do not include themselves in the category of lowly incapables, proving his hypothesis that socialists, or rather, Democrats of both centuries are either elitist snobs or contradictory idiots.

So the next time one of your friendly neighborhood Democrats states that “people are too irresponsible or incapable of governing themselves”, when defending their socialist ideology, pull out your lighter and kindly ask them to hand over their voter registration cards for incineration.

[EDIT] Lest I be accused of being Pro-Anti-Democrat, I must give credit to the Democrats for being open about their elitist mentality. The GOP simply pays lip service to the concept of "government by the people"...they tell us what we want to hear during the elections and promptly start treating us like serfs once in office.