Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Anti-PC League

Powered by Blogger

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Why I Am Not A Leftist Liberal (Part Two)

(Continued from Part One)

From the Liberal Manifesto, points 7-17:

I believe the government should be transparent and open to prevent corruption rather than always hiding behind ‘national security’,
What difference would that make? As my first post on this subject pointed out with Social Security, government corruption exists openly. The problem with corruption isn't so much that it's kept secret under "national security", it's that the people are oblivious to it even when it's not hidden from view. The corruption in government is made possible only because of the apathy of the people.

I realize this point is probably directed at government agencies that deal with the security of the nation, such as the Pentagon, CIA, Homeland Security, the White House, etc. In reality we put ourselves at risk if we function like that. the military cannot broadcast it's battle plans before the fight, and our law enforcement cannot broadcast on TV where each undercover agent is and who they are infiltrating. To do so would be madness.

I believe in the separation of church and state,

Fair enough. Though the issue for many Christians these days is that they feel there is a movement to seperate the church from society. Should a cross be allowed on public land? I have no problem with it, as long as it was bought with private money and not placed to the exclusion of any other religious symbols. But at the same time, if a private business want to greet people with "happy holidays", then government cannot tell them otherwise. Private citizens - including advocacy groups can - but don't get government involved.

In my view, if a Christian is not allowed to display their religion openly, then by what ground can I display my religion or lack therof? I also believe people should grow some skin, as Thomas Jefferson once said:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

I believe it is more important to have high wages for your employees than high profits for your CEO,

Then that is your right to decide that for yourself. You have no right to tell others what they can and cannot earn, to do so violates the principles of Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness. As Thomas Sowell once said, "the first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it...". This works not only in regards to pricing but also in regards to wages. Anyone can be taught how to flip a burger or turn a wrench on a producton line; it takes more knowledge and ability to manage the restaurant or the factory floor, and therefore higher pay.

Now imagine how much talent (and pressure) is under a CEO is to manage a corporation. He is responsible for everything within the corporation, he has to answer not only to his board of directors, but also to his shareholders. If his shareholders lose confidence and sell their stock, driving down the value of the company and possibly putting it out of business. Usually the BoD will fire him before that happens, and with something like that on his resumé, he can forget being handed such a high level position again.

You can bitch about the wages made by CEO's all you want, but the fact is that no one is going to work as hard or assume so much responsibility without alot of incentive. Fact is, those who have made their careers by bitching about corporations (Chomsky, M.Moore, Ralph Nader) invest their money in stocks in the very same multinationals they criticize. Capitalism works, stop trying to pretend it doesn't.

BTW, Thomas Sowell concluded the quote above with, "...the first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics".

I believe that we are innocent until proven guilty,
Hear!Hear! Yet does this apply to Karl Rove? Or President Bush? Or how about the very same multinational CEOs mentioned above? I take this to mean that in practice, innocent 'til proven guilty in a court of law isn't what is meant, but instead one only has to prove another guilty in one's own mind. In which case this is entirely meaningless in the context of classical Liberalism.

I believe the “patriot” act is unconstitutional,

Fair enough, I can respect that argument. Though it is not a defining issue exclusive to the political left, as there are many conservatives and libertarians who believe the very same thing.
I believe we create more terrorists by bombing other countries and randomly imprisoning suspected “terrorists”,

One could argue this by taking a similar line of logic that by imprisoning criminals only creates more criminals, which is insane because it denies reality. What gets me is the use of terms such as "random" and "suspected". Is our military kicking down any ol' door, arresting everybody and sending them to Gitmo? Nope. Terrorists existed long before Iraq, and they didn't need to use Iraq as an excuse to commit terrorism. Sure, it's easier to cross the Syrian/Iranian border and engage the us there than it is to fly to the U.S. and bomb us. Yet consider the fact of how many terrorists would be created, and how much bolder they would be, if we did not react to 9/11. Remember, 9/11 became feasable when our nation did nothing against Al-Qaeda after previous attacks. "All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing".

I believe racial profiling is just racism,
Problem is, anti-profiling laws are counter-productive, and include more than just racism. Recently I was told a story where a police officer sitting on the side of the road saw a nice Mercedes through a rough neighborhood with his brights on in the middle of the night. Consider also that drugs often dialate eyes, forcing those who are stoned to always drive with their brights on. What would you think if you were the cop?

As it turns out, the man wasn't stoned and actually was returning from a late dinner at a restaurant (which he had the receipt for) and was driving through the 'hood because there was an accident on the main road and his on-board GPS told him that he could detour that way. So was the travesty the fact that the man was profiled based on his car and the neighborhood? Or was the travesty the fact that the cop had to write him a bullshit ticket (rather than just a verbal warning) in order to cover his own ass from profiling laws?

Remember also that even if a cop had pulled someone over based on race, he cannot actually do anything unless the civilian broke a law. So instead of simply checking under a trench coat of a turban-wearing man in Miami (where there is practically no reason to wear a coat) who might happen to be standing in a crowded area, and wishing him a nice day once nothing was found, the cop either has to find a bullshit excuse to search the man or wait for a bomb to go off. Neither alternative is the best choice when one's job is to protect the populace.

I believe that voting machines should provide a paper trail,
Sure, common sense would say so. Let's not delude ourselves though, because vote fraud is alleged to have happened in favor of Democratic candidates as well. And who can forget the Leftist opposition to simple solutions as requiring one to present an ID when one goes to vote?

I believe election day should be a national holiday,
I don't see the problem with this. Would it increase voter turnout? I have my doubts, since government holidays only affect government jobs, but hell, give it a try. I don't think this is a solution to the Dems' problems with getting elected though.

I believe that all persons should have equal rights such as the right to marry the one they love,
Then do so! Why do you need government approval via marriage license? Many companies already provide considerations such as health benefits to domestic partnerships. I also find it ironic that our society has broken the taboo of two unmarried adults living together, only to be bound again by the need for two adults living together to be married.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care what floats your boat sexually, as long as it involves two consenting adult humans. The simple solution to this issue is to remove the government responsibility for legalizing marriages. Legal issues? Write a simple civil contract in front of a lawyer. Of course, this involves less government, not more, and it keeps people on both sides of this issue from forcing their views on others; both find that unacceptable.

I believe we should spend more money educating our children than we do building prisons,
Except that throwing money at a problem dosn't solve it, nor is the amount of money spent on a program an indicator of it's success.

In my opinion, the problem lies in the quality of education. The lack of incentive brought about by competition amoung educators to excel above their peers, has led to the system to becoming stagnant. The smartest of us who would make talented teachers or feel compelled to become so are discouraged by economic reality of low wages and bureaucracy. They simply find other careers. The solution? Introduce more competition, free-market style. That doesn't just involve less government, but also the fact that all our children are not captive to the whims of whatever agenda those who are entrenched in the system want to push. Hence, we no longer see civics, western literary classics, logic & rhetoric, nor an economics class that teaches good economics in our schools today.
"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling." -Thomas Sowell

I will address the last 10 points in Part Three and possibly four.

(to be continued...)