Category: Politics

Rand Paul Once Again Demonstrates His Love of Authoritarianism

It’s time again for me to take a swing at my favorite political punching bag, Rand Paul. This time it is in regards to a statement he made about Edward Snowden, the man who gave up his cushy job with a National Security Agency (NSA) contractor to enlighten us all on the widespread surveillance state we live under:

During an interview with Eric Bolling on Fox News last week, Sen. Paul was asked to respond to the video of director Clapper lying about the collection of data in March 2013 – before Snowden’s leaks. Paul told Bolling it’s ironic that the same legislators and pundits calling for Snowden’s imprisonment are turning a blind eye to Clapper’s committed felony in Congress. Disagreeing with the illustration Paul created, the Senator said he wants the law applied equally: both to Snowden for leaking and to Clapper for lying.

[…]

Along with Stephanopoulos’s question of clemency, the ABC pundit wanted Senator Paul to touch on his comments to Fox News’s Bolling, regarding a prison cell for Snowden. Paul told ABC’s “This Week” that the reasoning behind his statement was to convey a point of equality under the law, pointing out that Snowden and Clapper broke laws and that neither the pro-NSA or anti-NSA sides should throw a blind eye to broken laws.

Emphasis mine. This really irritates me for a couple of reasons. First, a precedence of jailing somebody who revealed criminal activity would decrease the likelihood of another person coming forward in the future. When agencies or corporations are engaging in criminal activity that information should be made public. Unless that information is made public it is too easy to cover up the evidence and sweep the story underneath the rug. This is especially true when oligarchs, such as government officials, are on the take. Based on the stories that have come to light about the activities of the NSA; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Department of Justice (DoJ) I don’t believe it is unreasonable to think anybody who used “proper channels” in an attempt to reveal criminal activity would find themselves in a cage or ditch.

Second, what Edward Snowden did was the right thing. Punishing Snowden for leaking those documents would be no different than punishing an armed person who stopped a school shooting. Yes, entering a school with a firearm is illegal but if it is done to stop somebody who is attempting to murder students and faculty then the violation of “gun-free” zone laws should be ignored. Likewise, any laws Snowden violated by leaking those documents should be ignored. More often than not the law stands between a good person and the right thing. When this happens the obstructing laws shouldn’t be enforced.

Rand Paul attracts support from both the neoconservative and libertarian sides of the aisle. The neoconservatives, rightly so, see a politician who is willing to talk the talk without walking the walk. Libertarian supporters of Rand Paul believe a rather absurd conspiracy theory. They believe that, upon being elected to the presidency, Rand Paul will turn away from his neoconservative nature and reign freedom and liberty upon this country. If somebody can show me a single instance of such a change occurring in a politician while he was in office I make consider that conspiracy theory a bit more than a theory. But as far as I’m aware such a change of heart has never occurred.

Drug Testing is Big Business

Scott Walker, self-proclaimed governor of Florida, has made big pushes to force state employees and welfare recipients to get tested for unpatentable drugs. This push has been met with cheers by many people of the neoconservative persuasion. I don’t understand their reasoning but I guess somebody receiving state money is supposed to only use patentable drugs. Either way, that’s not the point of this post. The point of this post is the reason Scott Walker has been pushing for drug testing of recipients of state money. It’s not because he wants to be tough on crime or believes unpatentable drug use is bad. The reason he supports drug testing is because he stands to make a fortune off of it:

If you have a $62 million investment, representing the biggest single chunk of your $218 million in wealth, and you put it in a trust under your wife’s name, does that mean you’re no longer involved in the company?

Florida Gov. Rick Scott says it does.

Scott has aggressively pursued policies like testing state workers and welfare recipients for drugs, switching Medicaid patients to private HMOs and shrinking public health clinics. All these changes could benefit that $62 million investment, but Scott sees no legal conflict between his public role and private investments.

All governmental systems eventually devolve into fascism. By this I mean the state always ends up merging with the merchants. Under socialism system the state claims ownership over all merchant activities outright. Say what you will about socialism, at least it’s upfront about wanting to merge the state and merchants. Under a republic, such as the United States, the politicians simply pass laws that favor merchants they have a financial interest in. Whether politicians mandate the use of services provided by market actors they’ve invested in or use their political connections to financially benefit their spouses the outcome is the same. The politically well-connected merchants make a fortune and everybody else suffers.

Giving the Corporate Partners a Cut

A few days ago the state’s corporate partners in surveillance were getting uppidy because their profits were being threatened by the National Security Agency’s (NSA) fast and loose strategy to spy on everybody. The primary mistake made by the NSA is not cutting its corporate partners in on the game. It sounds like the White House is no longer going to standby and allow this mistake to continue:

A White House panel has recommended significant curbs on the National Security Agency’s sweeping electronic surveillance programmes.

Among its 46 recommendations, the five-member panel said the NSA should cease storing vast amounts of data on calls processed by US phone companies.

We’re supposed to read that and believe that the White House has moved in to curtail the NSA’s surveillance apparatus. But what its recommendation really means is that the spying will continue but the corporate partners will get a piece of the action by storing the data and, almost certainly, charging the NSA for access.

If the White House continues pushing this strategy and includes companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple it will almost certainly satisfy its corporate partners.

Streamlining the Killing Floor

What tools do the police need for these times of dwindling violent crime? How about a more streamlined process to kill the convicted? Apparently that’s what the unions representing police officer in Poway, California think is needed:

POWAY — A coalition of local law enforcement members met Thursday to discuss backing changes to California’s death penalty process, from streamlining appeals to finding an acceptable execution method.

“The death penalty, I believe, is broken in California. I also believe it can certainly be fixed,” Matt Clay, president of the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of San Diego County, told reporters.

Members of unions representing sheriff’s deputies, police officers and prosecutors in the county met in Poway with Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee, as well as survivors of murder victims whose killers remain on death row to talk about backing a proposed death penalty initiative.

I guess better wages and benefits are no longer wanted. It makes sense. Modern policing really reflect thuggery more than it reflects peace keeping. Thuggery requires threats and there’s no better threat than death. Therefore it makes sense that the best way to help today’s police departments is to make it easier for them to threaten suspects with the death penalty.

We live in some seriously fucked up times.

Politicians Should Give Stock Options to Volunteers

Have you ever been approached to work on a political campaign? I’m guessing a notable percentage of those of you reading this post have. What form of compensation was offered? Probably nothing.

Political campaigns are always looking for volunteer labor. They want people to work on phone banks, do door knocking, march in parades, work booths at local fairs, stuff envelopes, and other menial tasks. If a volunteer asks to be compensated for his or her time they usually receive one of several excuses. The most popular excuse is that the campaign needs every penny in order to get its politician elected. That may be true but in many cases a surplus of campaign funds exist after the election. Furthermore, most politicians receive a salary if they’re elected.

This raises a question. Why don’t campaigns offer volunteers a form of stock option? Politicians could offer to use part of their salary to compensate their volunteers if they are elected? Why don’t campaigns offer to divide any surplus funds amongst volunteers after an election concludes?

I’ll tell you why. Politicians are interested in expropriating wealth. In other words they’re thieves. And any good thief knows you don’t pay for something that you can steal.

Consider this the next time you’re approached to work on a campaign. The politician, if elected, will likely receive an excellent salary and benefits package. Meanwhile you will receive nothing. In fact you will receive less than nothing when you consider the amount of time and money (because politicians, being thieves, also ask you to donate money to their campaign in addition to your time) you sunk into the campaign. Don’t be a sucker. Demand the campaign grant you stock options paid out of surplus campaign funds and the politician’s salary if he or she is elected.

So Much for Libertarian Ted Cruz

Once again I find myself in a position where I have to rag on a recent libertarian favorite. This time around it’s Ted Cruz. Mr. Cruz won a great deal of respect within libertarian circles for taking a stance against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is my firm belief that one cannot truly be a libertarian, that is to say somebody who abides by the non-aggression principle, and an advocate of foreign intervention. Mr. Cruz has decided that nonintervention doesn’t suite him because he feels that it is the place of the United States to be Israel’s personal defensive force:

“According to the interim agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear program that was reached this weekend in Geneva, not one centrifuge will be destroyed. Not one pound of enriched uranium will leave Iran. Not one American unjustly detained in Iran’s notorious prisons will be released. But Iran will start to receive, in a matter of days, $7 billion in relief from international economics sanctions.

“All the smiling embraces between diplomats after the interim deal was signed notwithstanding, the Iranian regime remains a brutal and oppressive dictatorship that pursues nuclear weapons for the purpose of dominating the Middle East and threatening America and our allies, notably Israel. President Obama and Secretary Kerry should reconsider their policy of rapprochement with Iran that is dismaying to Jerusalem and encouraging to Tehran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu predicted this agreement would be a ‘very, very bad deal’ and has now correctly identified it as an ‘historic mistake.’ Meanwhile, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted his satisfaction as the ‘breaking down the architecture for sanctions has begun.’ The administration has gotten it backwards and it is time to reverse course before any further damage is done.”

I actually find it rather laughable that many people in the United States think so lowly of Israel’s military capabilities as to believe that United States intervention is necessary for its survival. Furthermore, I’m left wondering how far their support for the United States’ involvement in Israel’s defense goes. Would Ted Cruz be willing to send his two children off to die for Israel? What about his nieces and nephews? A common thread I find with advocates of foreign intervention is an unwillingness to send their own family members off to die in a foreign land.

Rattling sabers is not an effective foreign relations strategy. It only muddles this country in the affairs of others, which serves no purpose other than to expand the empire. If Ted Cruz really considers himself a libertarian he should not be calling for stronger intervention in the Middle East. Instead he should be calling for no intervention in the Middle East.

Mr. Anarchist Keeps the Politicos Honest

I think it’s time for me to start a new series on this blog. Welcome to the first post in the Mr. Anarchist Keeps the Politicos Honest series. In this series I will take political maneuvering, speech, and other oddities and explain them in such a way that normal people can understand what’s actually going on.

On this maiden voyage I will be discussing the Minneapolis mayoral elections. A lot of butthurt is going around the politico circles as of late because the $20.00 filing fee has allowed almost anybody wanting to run for mayor to run for mayor. Now there is a proposal to raise the filing fee to $500.00.

Where the political deception enters is the justifications given by those advocating to increase in the filing fee. Some of these justifications are doozies. My favorite justification is that anybody unable to raise $500.00 will be unable to win an election so allowing them to run is a moot point. That justification implies that everybody who runs for mayor is doing so to win the race. Many people who run for office do so in an attempt to raise awareness of an issue. For example, a member of the Pirate Party may run to raise awareness of Hennepin County’s Sheriffs Departments widespread use of surveillance devices. Even though the Pirate Party candidate knows he can’t win he feels that this issue would otherwise remain entirely ignored during the mayoral debate.

But that doesn’t matter because the people arguing in favor of the filing fee are really using their justifications to coverup their true intent. You see, for many people, the only thing worse than a dictatorship is having too many options for rulers. They want democracy but not too much democracy. What these people really want is their person to be the ruler but also to maintain the illusion of democracy. Every additional name on the ballot, at least in their eyes, stands the potential to harm their desired ruler’s chances of obtaining power. They believe other candidate could take away votes from their desired ruler or another potential ruler could win against their desired ruler. Of course the ideal solution would be to have a ballot composed only of candidates from their preferred political party. That way the illusion of choice is maintained and no result will go against their political desires too much.

In layman’s terms they want to eliminate their desired ruler’s potential competitors. Raising the filing fee would get rid of some of the, shall we say, riffraff. After all, if a candidate isn’t on the ballot they can’t win the election. The first step to ensuring their desired ruler wins is to eliminate as many challengers as possible.

I’m not asking everybody to oppose raising the filing fee. The only thing I’m asking is to dump the political deception and express intentions honestly.

The Republican Party’s Image Problem

It’s time for another installment of Uncle Anarchist explains politics. Yesterday I mentioned that the Republican Party is solely responsible for its failures. Today I’m going to delve into more detail. Robb Allen made an excellent observation in a comment on yesterday’s story:

The Democrats make it sound like the GOP is all about forcin’ Jesus into your house and preventing the gays from having fun. They’re the ones who bring it up over and over and over.

So now, the Republican has to waste time fighting false charges or ignore it, which then people claim “Well, he’s not DENYING it so he must support it!”.

This brings me to one of the Republican Party’s biggest problems: image. If you look at the history of Democratic and Republican candidates you will notice that the former are far less prone to saying stupid shit in public. Furthermore they’re far better at countering accusations made by the latter. Both of these combined lead to a far better overall public perception for the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.

Let’s consider social issues, which are often brought up by both parties. The Democratic Party usually brings up social issues to make its Republican competitors look stupid and Republican candidates are often unable to resist the Democrat’s temptation. A big part of the problem is that most of the Republican candidates either have a poor understanding of their religious beliefs or are poor at orating them. I know many deeply religious people. When somebody challenges their belief they are able to articulate very reasonable and intelligent counterarguments. Why? Because they’ve invested a great deal of time into researching their religion. Most people seem to have a mediocre understanding of their own religious, philosophical, and political beliefs. This is truly saddening because volumes of material are available on all three subjects regardless of your personal religious, philosophical, or political beliefs. Christianity has such a long history that the available material written by brilliant theologians is vast and covers almost every topic under the sun.

Being able to exploit the weaknesses of a political opponent is a necessary strategy for winning elections. The Democratic Party knows this and exercises it effectively. Democratic candidates going against social conservatives know what to say to incite an idiotic sounding response from their competitors. Abortion and gay rights issues are the easiest to exploit. Failing to articulate an intelligent response to the question of legalizing abortion and gay marriage makes one sound as though they hate women or gays respectively.

When challenged about abortion one of my deeply religious friends is always able to respond in well thought out and reasonable sounding manner. His intellectual opponents never come away with easily exploitable soundbites or text. Why? Because he has read and internalized the writings of great theologians. He has an intimate understanding of his religious beliefs and can articulate them to others.

Positioning one’s self as an advocate of small government lends itself to an effective response to the issue of gay marriage: get the government out of the marriage business. Religious opposition to gay marriage stems from religious issues. If marriage is moved from a state institution back to a private institution the religious organizations are free to perform marriages in a way they choose. The worry about the state mandating that religious organizations perform gay marriages is eliminated and same sex couples are still free to enter contractual arrangements involving the sharing of property, adopting children, and other common issues involved in the marriage debate. Getting the state out of the marriage business is a response that is compatible with most religious beliefs, a principled position for advocates of small government and personal liberties, and far more difficutl for opponents to exploit.

This advice isn’t applicable only to religious issues. I used religious issues as an example because it is one of the more effectively exploited weaknesses. But Republican candidates tend to suck at explaining their position on economics, personal liberty, small government, and other issues. Much of this ineptitude stems from their lack of understanding and internalizing what they preach. If you want to advocate free markets you should read the works of heavy hitters such as Ludwig von Mises, Frederich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard. A proper understanding of free market principles transfers to a proper understanding of personal liberties and reasons to keep government small. Other good sources can be found by looking at the history of the United States. People like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams wrote a lot of material in their journey to advocate for a small government. Making arguments based on Christianity can be far more successful after reading the works of Thomas Aquinas.

My point is that image problems are something the Republican Party is plagued with but can be overcome with work. Doing so will require the party to nominate exceptional candidates, which is something I don’t think it has the resolve to do. But it will remain the Democratic Party’s play toy until its image problems are overcome or it fades into history.

Libertarians Don’t Cost Republicans Races

It’s time, once again, for an anarchist to explain politics. This time around I find myself having to explain the fact that the Republican Party is solely responsible for its own failures. For being a party that claims to advocate personal responsibility, the Republican Party and its supporters spend a lot of time blaming others for their failures. Articles like this have been circulating the web since last night. Through various methods of twisting logic the Republicans are trying to blame the libertarians for the Democrats’ victory in Virgina. The linked article points out that the Libertarian Political Action Committee admitted that it probably wouldn’t have gotten the Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot if it wasn’t for a donation from a large Democratic Party supporter. This excuse misses an important point: the Republican candidate failed to gain enough support from libertarians to convince them to vote for him.

Since the concept seems alien to some let me explain how ballots work. A ballot has a list of names. You make a mark next to the name of the candidate you want to win or the candidate who has the best chance against the one you want to lose. Pretty simple, isn’t it? This brings us to the next point. If you want to win an election you have to convince people to put a mark next to your name. There are many ways to do this. Most candidates promise voters free shit or promise to take previously given free shit away from people. Those aren’t the only methods though. People can be convinced to vote for a charismatic candidate or, in rare cases, a candidate who practices what he preaches.

The point is, Republicans have failed to provide a candidate that can successfully do any of these. It’s as simple as that. For some reason the Republican Party has decided to run candidates that say really stupid shit, attempt to appeal to the middle by holding no principled positions, and attempt to appeal to the religious zealots by beating the social issues drum. I think the continuous defeats of Republican Party candidates speaks for the stupidity of these tactics.

If the Republican Party wants to win elections is needs to do one thing: stop sucking. That’s it. If it fields candidates that people actually like then it won’t matter who the Libertarian Party puts forward. Most people who vote for Libertarian Party candidates know that that candidate isn’t going to win. But those voters hate both the Republican and Democratic candidate so much that they’re willing to cast a vote for a person who they know won’t win. And it’s not a case that a person who votes Libertarian would have otherwise voted Republican. Since the Libertarian Party is, effectively, a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle. That means many people who vote for the Libertarian candidate may have voted for the Democratic candidate if the Libertarian Party didn’t get on the ballot.

For those of you blaming the Libertarian Party for the failures of the Republican Party I have this to say: pull your heads out of your asses and stop trying to lay the blame on somebody else. If the Republican Party didn’t fuck up so much people may actually support it.

The Outcome of Ranked Choice Voting

Remember what I said about ranked choice voting being nothing but a more complicated method of keeping the current establishment in power? I would like to thank both Minneapolis and St. Paul for giving my ego a boost by proving me right.

Here are the results of the Minneapolis mayoral race. You will see that the two candidates with the most first rank votes were Betsy Hodges and Mark Andrew. These were the two Democratic candidates that jockeyed for the state party endorsement. Neither candidate was able to achieve the majority of votes necessary to gain the endorsement so they both effectively ran and the unofficially endorsed candidates.

Now let’s look at the results for the St. Paul mayoral race. Unsurprisingly Chris Coleman, the current mayor of St. Paul, received the most first rank votes.

What is today’s lesson? Ranked choice voting doesn’t change anything. The only thing it does is give third party candidates a false hope that they can win if they work hard enough. In actuality ranked choice voting doesn’t make a difference. I think it’s important to remember that if ranked choice voting could make a difference it wouldn’t be allowed.