Immigration and the New Law in Arizona (Part 1)

The recent passage of a controversial immigration law in Arizona has put the vague memories of the health care debate far into the recesses of the national political buzz. And as many of our national debates, it seems both sides are so focused on different issues that it is completely impossible for our nation to address this issue in a simple common sense and effective way.

Let me present what I think are the legitimate arguments on each side, and then present what how I think the scientific theory of porosity should be applied to developing a rational and reasonable policy.

Before I start, I must say I’m married to a legal immigrant, born in Peru but now a naturalized American citizen (with a US passport to prove it!). My in-laws who live in the US are all here legally (e.g., my mother-in-law has her green card to prove it). What I have found that it’s much easier for us as Americans to travel to Peru to visit the relatives than it is for some of them (particularly children and teens) to get tourist visas to visit us here.

The Border in Arizona
Simply put, the border in Arizona is quite porous and illegal crossings occur daily. But more troublesome is the drug trafficking and associated crimes including murders of citizens and law enforcement officers alike. My reading of the situation is that this combination of illegal crossings intertwined with criminal activities has many saying “enough is enough.” Furthermore, the criminal activity has many in fear of illegal immigrants as how can one tell which ones are the armed drug runners or other dangerous criminals.

All sides agree that it is the Federal government’s sole responsibility to regulate immigration and border crossings. But, many have noted that for decades now, the Federal government has not done enough to control the border in Arizona. In some places (such as San Ysidro, CA Tiajuana, Mexico), there are walls, border patrols and designated entry points where documents are checked. But in other places, particularly remote areas, there is little in the way to prevent entry into the US.

The proponents of the new law say that it is needed because the Federal government did not do its job regarding controlling the border.

What Does a Person Suspected of Being Illegally in the US Look Like?
The gist of the opposition to the new law deals with how it might be enforced. In particular, how does a law enforcement officer come to have reason that someone may be illegally here?

So let’s be frank. While the law prohibits “profiling” and the law’s supporters say there will be no profiling, I still ask myself, how does an officer come to suspect someone in the US illegally? If it’s not by skin color, or accent or language, what is it? Sure, some people might look suspicious, like they’re trying to hide something or fleeing when they see the police approaching.

But, if someone is not doing anything criminal or suspicious, how can one suspect someone is illegally here and not a legal immigrant or a native-born American with the same “look” as an immigrant? Many wonder will this turn into situations where people are stopped for DWH (driving while Hispanic) or DWL (Driving while Latino)? It’s happened to other racial and ethnic groups. It could happen; the politicians and other supporters are not the same people as the cops who have to enforce the law on a daily basis.

“Show Me Your Papers!”
For those suspected, law enforcement will ask “Show me your papers!” Now for a legal foreign visitor, they’re probably carrying their passport. In fact, when in a foreign country, I usually carry my passport, so this is reasonable. For those with a work visa, they can produce a “green card.” If there is strong enforcement of the law, it would seem to be advisable that those with “green cards” carry them at all times, just in case they are stopped or with someone who is stopped. In this case, the burden of always carrying a “green card” is not much more that always carrying a driver’s license, which is something most of us do.

But here’s the problem for libertarians: what about American citizens who “look foreign” (to be frank, who look Hispanic or Latino). Some may be naturalized citizens, others born here, and others may be American citizens for generations. But they may still look like people who may be in the US illegally. Will this subject American citizens to have to prove they are Americans?

What if this applied to other Americans in Arizona? Would they like having to carry a passport of birth certificate to “prove” they are Americans?

What happened to the America where a citizen never had to “prove” they belong here? It’s bad enough we have to do this when we get a new job. (Why should law-abiding, American citizens be subjected to this scrutiny just because of a minority who apply for work illegally?)

Now the politicians and supporters will tell us this won’t be the case or this isn’t a problem. But, let’s be real. It will happen from time to time. And this is a slippery slope from asking a few Hispanic Americans citizens in Arizona to prove they belong here toward having a national identity card or similar way for big government to check on us, even if we’ve done nothing wrong. To me, asking even a few American citizens in Arizona to “show us your papers” is something that reeks of Nazi Germany and other repressive regimes.

The New Libertarian Socialist View of Immigration
Let me digress to present the origins of my beliefs as a “new libertarian socialist.”

The true Libertarian (not the view of conservatives in Libertarian clothes) position on immigration is the free migration of all peoples, regardless of international boundaries. Clearly, none of the conservatives in Arizona espouse this view!

The Christian Socialist view sees the immigrant as the stranger whom we should welcome, much as Christ said that we welcome him when we welcome the least among us who is a stranger in our land. This view is also not embraced by supporters of the new law. What is lost in the rhetoric is that even those here illegally are human beings, and like all humans they are created in the image of God.

Clearly, these viewpoints do not appear to align with ringing support of the law. And they clearly in opposition to the demonization of people who are illegally in the US, rhetoric we hear from many with a conservative viewpoint on immigration. But even those who are here illegally are still human beings, as the something else you might read on some blogs and websites.

But how do we get from the status of chaos to a state where immigrants are here legally? The current national debate will never get us to a conclusion as both sides have to feed “red meat” sound bites to their political bases. The politicians are forced into the more extreme positions, so we can’t look to Washington to solve this problem.

Nevertheless, as a practically-oriented engineer, I think the real workable solution lies clearly in between the political extremes.

A Better Approach: Start with What We Agree On
I think most people agree we have a mess in the border states. Immigration is out of control. This is the Federal government’s job and it’s not been done.

I think there is a majority who would like to see the current mess transformed into a situation where those in the US who are not citizens are here legally. This would be accompanied by reasonable controls to allow a number of legal immigrants to fill jobs where there is a need. And, this would also provide the protection of the law for those non-citizens who are here legally. These legal immigrants would pay taxes and need not fear law enforcement officers as they would have the documentation to prove their legal status.

I think many would agree this would be a more organized state of affairs.

What is the Solution? What are the Alternatives?
To be continued in Part 2.

Will Marijuana Use Become Legal In California?

On Wednesday, March 24th, the Secretary of State in California certified that there were enough signatures to put this question on the ballot in November. Just in time to distract us from the never ending post-mortem of the health care debate, this should be an interesting issue to watch, particularly when a 2009 Field poll indicated the “yes” vote at 56%.

California, with its unique “legislation by ballot measure” approach to governing, is always entertaining for political observers like me. What will be interesting is watching which groups line up on either side of this issue. Not surprisingly, all candidates for Governor plus police associations have come out against it. And I would expect social conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, to be against it, as typically they like government to enforce their view of moral behavior on all, even in private.

Also, in the “to be expected” category, many in the industry supplying California’s legal medical marijuana are for it. But the argument for the ballot measure has a new twist: proponents claim a $1.4 billion benefit to the state in terms of tax revenues and savings related to police enforcement and court cases. That's a lot of revenue in tough times. So, legalize pot and ease the state out of the recession is their theme of proponents.

True Libertarians would come out for this idea, as it legalizes a private matter that adults could partake in and it’s not worth wasting the government’s time and money on keeping it illegal. The measure would allow those over 21 to use it in private, but not in public places of where minors are present.

Perhaps more surprising are that a number of police officers, frustrated by the wasted effort on nonviolent drug offenders, who support the measure as a way to focus on more significant criminal activities. But joining the "nays" are some of the current growers who fear legalization will flood the market with cheap pot (as anyone can grow it legally in a plot not exceeding 25 feet), thereby putting them out of business.

Most of all, I’m interested in seeing how conservatives and Republicans line up on this issue. This is a wedge issue that separates the true Libertarians from the social conservatives. So, I wonder where the tea party folks will be?

So, I’m looking forward to this on, if nothing more than seeing who lines up on which side of this issue. (And it’s not health care, for a change!)

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/26pot.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/25/us/AP-US-Marijuana-Legalization.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Attacks on Freedom from the Right

As a Libertarian, I have learned there is more to fear from conservatives attacking our basic freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution than from liberals. Conservatives are more likely to talk up small government and personal freedom (and “sound” libertarian), and then advocate government enforcement of their which often includes the expansion of government power, be it by snooping into our libraries and phone calls (with the Patriot Act) or even into a woman’s womb (with their anti-choice agenda).

Libertarians have to call out the conservatives on two recent proclamations:

1. Glen Beck claiming he knows better than you what religion or congregation you should belong to; and
   
2. Lynne Cheney’s attack on the patriotism of lawyers defending detainees as provided for in the law of this land.

Glen Beck’s Attack on Freedom of Religion.
This one has me steaming! Recently Glen Beck ask his audience to leave their congregation if the words “social justice” or “economic justice” are used. He said: “I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.”

While I support his freedom to say anything he likes, I don’t want anyone – in government or in the media (like Mr. Beck) – telling me ANYTHING about how I should practice my religion!!

No one has the right to tell me which religion to believe in or which house of worship or congregation to attend! The First Amendment to the US Constitution may only talk about Congress not making any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion; I take it as my personal right that I am the one and only person who decides what I believe in and where I choose to go to practice this religion. No one who believes America is the land of Freedom should be letting someone like Mr. Beck tell them how to practice religion!

Lynne Cheney’s Attack on Defense Lawyers
The implication of these attacks by Keep America Safe was to question the patriotism of lawyers that would defend detainees who were accused of being terrorists. There was another issue that lawyers who defended detainees should be “outed” if they want a government position.

Here’s thing: Amendment 6 of the US Constitution guarantees the right of a defendant to have counsel at trial. Even in a military trial (as were the cases in question), there is also the right for counsel. Within the legal profession, there is a tradition that no lawyer is looked down upon for defending an unpopular defendant.

And there are plenty of unpopular defendants accused of despicable crimes. There are mass murderers, serial rapists, organized crime, kingpins, pedophiles, and other despicable criminals. But when they go on trial, they all have a right under the laws of this land to defense counsel. From the time of John Adams providing defense counsel to British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre, the tradition is not to look down upon those who defend unpopular defendants.

And we need this right to prevent government tyranny. Without a trial system where the government has to prove its case, it would be all to easy to trump up a case against anyone it didn't like or considered an "enemy." If they do that to detainees or alleged terrorists today, they could do that to you and me tomorrow!

Even in this post-9/11 world, we have to preserve our freedoms and the American way. Conservatives seem to need an "enemy" to validate their policies. Libertarians make no such distinctions. Today's terrorist could be tomorrow's patriot. Today's enemy can be tomorrow's friend. Therefore, equality under the law for all.

So, why do some conservatives think detainees are so more evil or threatening than mass murderers, serial rapists, pedophiles, or even the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre (all of whom are allowed defense counsel)? Terrorists are not the only ones out there who want to deprive us of life and liberty. There's plenty of criminals with the same aim!

Yet it seems part of some conservative agenda to fully demonize detainees and terrorists to the point that they should have absolutely no rights and do not deserve legal counsel. Then pile it on by promoting guilt by association: anyone who would assist these terrorists is therefore not patriotic.

My point here is to quote the conservative mantra of the ‘60s and ‘70s” Law and Order. If the laws of the land guarantee legal counsel for detainees in military trials, then they should have counsel and any lawyer providing that service is acting within the law and should not be disparaged. If some conservatives don’t like the law, well, then work to change the law! But we must obey the laws as they are! And don’t attach those who are providing a necessary role as prescribed by law.

So, What to Do about Gay Marriage?

In the course of the fall, same-sex marriage (often referred to as "gay marriage") was voted down in California while it became legal in Connecticut and remains legal in Massachusetts. Other states allow a "civil union" or other rights to same-sex couples. (A US map of the current status of such rights can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage ).

Everyone is familiar with this issue and there is no shortage of strong opinions out there. Before I present my suggestion, I would like to present a brief history of what marriage has been in society. (Note that the state is a relative newcomer.)

A Brief History of Marriage

Forms of committed relationships between a man and woman date back millennia in many cultures. In many of the earlier forms a woman was considered given to a man. In European history, this was often seen as more a business deal, arranged by the families, where the woman may have been given as part of a transaction involving material goods.

Cultural traditions for marriage vary around the world and date back centuries, though the particulars typically evolved over the years. Often religious beliefs or superstitions were entwined in these traditions.

Formal state and/or religious recognition are relatively recent additions. In Europe, the first example of requiring a religious ceremony of marriage was in the Catholic Church, after the 1545 Council of Trent. However, religions ceremonies did occur for centuries before this date, but they were optional. Civil marriages emerged in Europe in the 1700s and 1800s.

The emergence of state recognition of marriage, particularly in Europe, roughly parallels the transition from state religions to tolerance for multiple religious traditions. Before that, the bureaucracy of state and church were so intertwined that the need for separate state involvement was not needed.

Controversy

In short the controversy over same-sex marriage relates to the state’s involvement in marriage: determining who can marry and under what circumstances. For advocates, it is clear that marriage is yet another right that should not be denied to any group. To the opponents, it is often contrary to deeply held religions beliefs. To some, it just seems strange or they may just feel “it’s not right.”

It is very clear that these positions are irreconcilable.

What to Do?

My proposal is simple: get the states out of the marriage business. A good pragmatic Libertarian has to always ask: “Does it make sense for the state to be involved in this?” I say: “No!”

The states should deal with legal contracts, which is one of the necessities of “being married” -- for example, ownership of common property, joint custody of dependents, rights related to health care, etc. So, I say any couple should be able to draw up a state-recognized legal contract regarding these matters.

And let the marriage ceremony return to the cultural traditions of the couple, be they religious or non-religious. Those traditions that recognize same-sex marriage can perform them; those opposed don’t have to have them.

Freedom and choice for all with no government intervention. That’s my solution.

The Redistribution of Income

In the discussion between Sen. Obama and Joe the Plumber, the Senator mentions spreading the wealth around. Joe was concerned that if he successfully bought the business and did well, his reward should be keeping this newly earned wealth.

Sen. McCain and other Republicans pounced on this, hinting that Sen. Obama was suggesting the socialist principal of The Redistribution of Income. (Heaven forbid!!!)

Now, up to this point, I've reflected on much of the libertarian side of my views, but not the socialist side. I have to come clean and say it proudly:

I believe in the Redistribution of Income!

You see, part of my beliefs come from what may be called a Christian Socialist view. If we go to the Bible in the Acts of the Apostles, we read how the early community cared for each other and distributed the proceeds of their wealth according to each one's needs (Acts 2:45). This is my basis for my belief that I am called to redistribute portions of the income I receive, being a fairly well-paid professional, for others with needs greater than my own.

I have come to believe that my earthly things are not ultimately mine to possess. Rather, they are gifts given that I might use for myself and others.

Now, most Libertarians may think I'm crazy believing it this. Many who call themselves Libertarian are attracted to this political viewpoint because they don't want government telling them what to do, they don't want to pay taxes (or pay as little as possible), and their possessions (home, land, wealth, etc.) are theirs and no one should tell them what to do with it.

To that I have three replies:

1) Though I believe in the Redistribution of Income, as a Libertarian, I don't believe that the government or anyone else should force anyone to follow this course of action. My belief comes from faith and only those so called through their own faith or beliefs should follow in the path of Redistribution of Income.

2) Not all Libertarians are of a self-centered view that precludes caring for others. For example, the "Libertarian Girl" (http://www.libertariangirl.com/) cares for people and hopes for an end to poverty.

3) Finally, if one really believes in the fullness of liberty, then each of us are entitled to our own views. And in a free society, those who wish to voluntarily redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate, should be free to do so.

So, in conclusion, as a Libertarian and Christian Socialist, I proudly admit: I Believe in the Redistribution of Income!

Developing a New Political Philosophy

"With liberty and justice for all."

I started this blog to work out my political philosophy. It’s not that I never had opinions on politics, but that I wanted a chance to write about them, and develop them into what I would hope to be a coherent, practical, but unique viewpoint.

As I’ve always been a little different, I wanted to stand apart from the Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives.

I came up with the term “New Libertarian Socialist.”

Now this is a bit of a paradox in itself as Libertarianism and Socialism are polar opposites regarding the role of government. But like Libertarians, I wanted to emphasize the importance of liberty and the individual’s ability to be unique and think for herself/himself. Like the Socialists, I feel a strong need to be concerned for others, particularly the less fortunate.

I added the word “new” as there is a long history of Libertarian Socialism, whose advocates were often considered anarchists. Generally, all the thinking along these lines (if you Google libertarian socialist) was by dead white guys in Europe. But a political philosophy has to be alive which means it can’t depend on the thoughts of the dead, but must be invigorated by the thoughts of the living of our time.

I’ve added a summary of my political philosophy to the banner of the blog:

• Preserving freedom
• Respecting human rights
• Government is a tool of the people
• Preferential concern for the poor
• Concern for the poor should be a joint effort of individuals, non-profit groups and government
• Ideology should not stand in the way of common-sense and practical solutions
• Fiscal responsibility in government: revenue that matches spending
  

Time to Choose a Candidate for President

Well, the Sarah Palin frenzy is dying down and time is ticking until we have to choose a candidate. No matter what your politics, it generally boils down to a choice of the big two. Yep, there are the minor party candidates including Bob Barr and Ralph Nader. But most will choose between McCain and Obama.

So, what’s the view of this New Libertarian Socialist on the candidates?

It’s time to dedicate a few blogs to looking at the issues, positions, experience and my expectations of the candidates.

So here’s my method:

• Look at the major issues of international and national importance, with emphasis on the preservation of liberty at home.
  
  
• Look at the candidate’s baggage (their party’s advisors, platform positions, campaign contributors, and others with an insider’s influence)
  
  
• Look at the candidate’s experience in and our of office:
  
  o How competent is the candidate as a decision maker?
  o Have the candidate’s actions in office been consistent with the campaign promises?
  o Does the candidate work “across the aisle” to get things done?
  
  
• Think about what it would be like to have this candidate in office.

On this last point, I’ve used the example of buying a dress. See http://rachy-viewsofalibertariansocialist.blogspot.com/2008/07/choosing-candidate.html. (Sorry, guys, if you don’t understand this example, but it’s not the same for guys buying a suit.)

Even after you’ve thought about what you’d like to buy (style, color, length, etc.) and you’re lucky enough to find a dress that you think you’d like, you may try it on you say “I’m not going out in public in this!” Then, you might stumble upon a dress you didn’t expect, and try it on and like it.

It’s the same with a candidate. They may say everything you want them to say and you might like their record. But when you take all this together with their personality, judgment, and interactions with others, you realize “I don’t want this person as President representing my nation to the world.”

How many Presidents have acted differently in office compared to their campaign promises and rhetoric? Who would have expected the anti-communist Nixon to open up normal relations with China? Who would believe that Bill Clinton was perhaps the most fiscally conservative President of the last 20 years? The office of President can produce surprising results. This is why the final and deciding factor needs to be this unquantifiable quality.

The Sarah Palin Chronicles - Volume 3

The Sarah Palin phenomenon has finally peaked, so maybe now we can figure out who she really is and do we want her for VP. We have just under 2 months of this ongoing job interview, where the nation’s voters can evaluate which pair of candidates are best for the job openings in January 2009.

Is She Ready?

Clearly Sarah is and has always been ready for almost anything. Growing up in Alaska, she has learned self-reliance and has developed both poise and self-confidence, needed for any position of public leadership.

In reality the US VP is like a “minister without portfolio” – clearly an advisor of the President, but unlike the Secretary of State or Defense, the VP is without a specific role in the Administration. As such, she seems to be the kind of person who could do whatever McCain would ask of her. But she doesn't have years of experience to provide the insight and wisdom that other more experienced politicians could give.

Being a heart-beat away from the big job, is she ready for that? Clearly, she has the self-confidence to step up to Chief Executive. But does she have the knowledge, experience, perspective, and judgment to be President?

That’s what we need to think carefully about.

Let me go over what I know about Sarah and how a New Libertarian Socialist would evaluate her for the job of VP.

What about her religious beliefs?

As a Libertarian, I believe we are all entitled to whatever religious beliefs we wish to uphold. And I would not discriminate for or against her based on these beliefs. Yes, they may influence her political philosophy and decisions she may make in office. But I look to her record in office to see how religious beliefs have or have not impacted her actions.

My review of her terms as City Councilor, Mayor and Governor does not reveal any actions that emanate from her religious beliefs. As Councilor, she supported allowing bars to stay open late, even though her denomination opposes the use of alcohol. Yes, there was a controversy about banning of books, but no books were actually banned. Yes, there were times she invoked the name of God in relation to the war in Iraq, but she has explained the context of that quote.

So, what about her pro-life stance? As a Libertarian, I do not believe the state should limit the access to safe abortion. While Libertarians are strongly for life and liberty, I don’t believe that politicians or state/federal bureaucrats have the moral authority or wisdom to draw the line between when abortion should be legal and when it should be illegal.

All that said, my evaluation of Sarah considers what a VP would do about abortion of other pro-life issues. The answer: probably nothing!

Republican VPs Bush, Quayle, and Cheney, though elected on a pro-life platform, did absolutely nothing in any official capacity to limit abortion. Only another Supreme Court decision or a constitutional amendment would fully reverse Roe v. Wade. So there is little chance she might every do anything that would change the availability of abortion in the nation.

My conclusion: her religious beliefs will have no significant impact on her performance as VP.

What about her knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs?

Clearly, her experience as Governor gives her an understanding of the oil industry and environmental issues. But on other issues from health care to the national economy to foreign affairs, she still has much to learn. As VP, she’ll have time to learn on the job. If she has to move up to the Oval Office, she would have to be dependent on advisors to develop both positions and policy, at least initially.

On the other hand, our current President is not exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Clearly, Cheney and the Cabinet are creating policy and making most of the decisions. If GWB is the benchmark, Sarah at least can talk coherently and run circles around Bush as a communicator!

My conclusion: not quite ready for prime time, but willing and able to learn. If nothing else, she can communicate effectively with the American pubic.

What about her decision making? Her ability to work with the legislative branch? Her skills in executive office?

Here we’ve seen some mixed results. As Mayor, she was able to cut some taxes and use bonds for public works (road, sewers, bike paths), but also created a new tax for a sports complex. As Governor, the gas pipeline deal shows an ability to work across party lines and made more progress than previous administrations.

The “bridge to nowhere” illustrates a flip-flopping. She was pro-bridge in her run for Governor, but 8 months in office, she cancelled the project when gained national fame as an example of pork barrel spending. Then, there are reports in the New York Times and USA Today about vendettas, firing of officials who crossed her, valuing loyalty over competency, and blurred the line between government and personal grievance. That are disputed interpretations of these events is evident of partisan interpretations.

Running for Governor, she championed ethics reform and was to enact a bipartisan ethics reform bill.

My conclusion: Hmmm. Can be effective with bipartisan legislation. Sometimes changes opinion with the political winds. Overall, she is all over the board on taxes (she’s cut some, raised others), and her bipartisan effectiveness also blurs her actual opinions. But not following any strict partisian pattern could be a sign of someone who can think for herself – thinking for oneself gains points with me. Now the controversy over alleged vendettas and cronyism is somewhat par for the course for many a politician. But anyone who values loyalty over competency looses points with me.

Overall Grade: B-

What about Sarah as Sarah?

Despite many differences in political and religious views, I have to say I still like Sarah. I have to respect her for being one of those women who can do a good job of balancing work and family. Though an urban creature, I am fascinated by the wilderness and sheer beauty of her native Alaska. And like me, she is a mix of English, Irish and German. And I just love that cute little Piper Palin! So, I’m still fascinated by this VP candidate.

Would I Vote for her?

That’s the big question. Unless we’re convinced that McCain isn’t healthy enough to last a full term, we’re really not voting for or against Sarah – we’re voting for McCain or Obama. And with either candidate, we also more or less get their party platform, policies, and advisors.

So, I get to escape without answering the question. My decision will be based on the policies of McCain and Obama and how I think each would govern. That’s something for another blog entry.

[But here's a hint: I can't trust McCain 2008 -- is he the "old" McCain who boldly opposes torture or the "new" McCain who would continue the Bush era erosion of our freedoms? Sorry, Sarah. I think you're a pretty good Governor for Alaska, and, for now, we'll be better off if you keep you current job.]

The Litmus Test in Politics

Senator McCain and the Republican Party are not free to pick the best candidate for Vice President.

You see, there is a self-imposed litmus test. The Vice Presidential candidate must be pro-life. One might think that qualifications for a candidate may include experience in elected office and knowledge of major policy issues, such as foreign affairs, energy, commerce, and education.

But not in the Republican Policy. They do not have the freedom to consider candidates first on their qualifications for office. Rather, their first consideration is the abortion litmus test. For those who do not pass this test, there is no chance to have their qualifications for office evaluated.

Yet another example of what our call our “fear of freedom.”

The Role of Government, or What’s Just Plain Wrong with the Libertarian Party Platform

In other blogs, I've criticized the conservatives and state socialism. This is my chance to criticize one of the things I think is wrong with the Libertarian Party Platform. The issue is: what is the proper role of government?

Generally, the Libertarian view is that to be truly free, there should be as little government as possible. This is in part left over from the days of monarchy in Europe, yet partly reinforced by the role of our federal government in things like land management in the West. And there are many examples of government incompetence, corruption, and the general failure of various agencies to do what they are supposed to do.

Still, the problem with the Libertarian Party is that they take an insistence on small government as some kind of religious tenant -- a “doctrine of small government” -- a “given” that can’t be questioned and therefore is central to all policy formation.

Fundamentally, once you hold a doctrine as sacred, you’re really limiting your own freedom and the freedom of others. I believe we are intelligent creatures and we need to think freely, unencumbered by such bondage as this “doctrine of small government.”

This is where I disagree with both traditional libertarianism and traditional socialism! (Hence, “the new Libertarian Socialist”)

The libertarians tend to say government is never the answer; the socialists tend to say government is always the answer. I say both are wrong!

My view: government is a tool of the people.

We live in a democracy, right? Government by the people, right?

Then government should be as big or small as it needs to be to serve the people.

We need to look at each function and program of government as ask:
· Is this the best way to do it?
· Is there a better way?
· Does government in this role make me freer or restrict my freedom?

If government is doing a good job and, from a management perspective, where government is the best way to accomplish a task, well let government do it.

Take our national highway system (as a transportation engineer, this is something dear to my heart). The prosperity and mobility of the American public is due in large part to having one of the most extensive and best highway systems in the world. And it’s a product of federal and state governments.

Is the government the best agent to build and maintain our national highways? If not the government, should it be sold to private investors to create a network of privately held toll roads? Granted bridges have fallen and some roads are poorly maintained, but looking at the big picture, is there any agent in the roadway business that would be more effective than government?

For national defense, the treasury, foreign policy, even the Libertarian Party agrees the government should be in this business.

Given the poor record (e.g., incompetence at FEMA, snooping on international phone calls and e-mail, etc.) of Homeland Security, I wonder if we’re better off taking care of ourselves! (See my blog: Are the Bush Republicans Really Maoists at Heart?)

As we think of the other hot issues of the day: how to pay for health care, our energy future, global climate change, etc. – I propose we use the same model I have above. Let’s assume that government is neither good nor bad. Then let’s think rationally about which is the best way to accomplish the goal.

Sometimes government may prove the best tool for the people. Sometimes it may be the worst.

But let’s not be so constrained by assuming that government either is or isn’t the solution.

How Do You Tell a Libertarian from a Conservative?

I suspect there are a lot of conservative politicians pretending to be libertarians. But there’s a simple test to tell the real supporters of individual freedom from the imposters:

• A libertarian believes in freedom, but lets you decide what to do with it.
• A conservative believes in freedom, but likes to tell you how to use your freedom.

You can weed out the “conservatives in libertarian clothes” with the wedge issues such as immigration, abortion and gay marriage.

Take immigration. The pure libertarian view is based on the free movement of people: that people should be free to live and move where ever they want. Even the somewhat timid 2008 Libertarian Party platform in item 3.4 says “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.” (http://www.lp.org/platform)

Contrast that with any conservative politician or talk radio host advocating for tight borders, limited immigration, and the prosecution of illegal immigrants. Thanks to conservatives, we now have to prove we are US citizens when we start a new job. Like many of you, I was born here and lived here all my life. Why do I have to prove I’m a citizen? This type of conservative-supported harassment of US citizens is only worse if you a citizen who happens to look like the current wave of immigrants (e.g., if you happen to be Hispanic, for example).

When it comes to immigration, as with homeland security, the conservatives will always pick “security” at the cost of personal freedom.

With abortion and gay marriage, there is a huge disparity in the opinions of citizens nationwide. In many cases, personal opinions are strongly held and based on deep religious convictions, beliefs that must be respected if we choose to support personal freedom. Like you, I have my own opinions on these issues. But a national consensus is impossible. So, it is best that government (particularly national government) just stay out of these issues.

In particular, I think that government has no role in defining what is or isn’t marriage. Definitions and traditions of marriage are deeply seeded in religious and cultural heritage. And these traditions evolve – fewer cultures retain arranged marriages today, whereas this was the norm in many cultures in centuries past. Let religions and cultures define what marriage is. Let government help couples make the legal arrangements related to such issues of joint property, inheritance, and consultation in medical matters.

Of course, I don’t think there’s a conservative politician who does now want to impose her/his definition of marriage on us all.

So that’s the test. If a politician prefers security over freedom or really wants to tell you how to use your freedom, she/he is not a libertarian!

What is a libertarian socialist anyway???

What is a libertarian socialist anyway? A libertarian wants individual liberty and less government. A socialist advocates for more government to the point that it controls even the economy, with a concern for the welfare of all citizens. So it sound like a contradiction in terms?

But where's the fun in life without contradictions?

Now in the past many had equated libertarian socialism with anarchy or the rejection of government. I don’t reject government or want anarchy. But I do hope for a social order that combines much personal freedom with the social fabric of concern for others.

So, here’s how I reconstruct the term “libertarian socialist.” The libertarian part of me says we should have as much personal liberty as possible. The government should not be telling me how to live, what to wear, where I can or can't go, what language to speak, what color to paint my house, and it should stay out of the bedroom and out of my body. I don't think we should have this wholesale intrusion into personal liberty in the name of security.

But the first shortcoming of the pure libertarian philosophy is that the unchecked pinnacle of personal freedom is pure egotism – it’s all about me and my life and my choices and my money and my possessions. What about anyone else? I believe we have to integrate liberty with our concern for others.

The second shortcoming is the tenant that less government is always better than more. Government is not inherently good or bad, helpful or harmful. Rather, government should be a tool of society. Like any tool, it is good for some things and bad for others.

My socialist side is the need for society to care for each other and that the welfare of all is paramount. Unlike theoretical socialism, I don’t say that government need be the only tool of society to care for all. This is an individual responsibility – something to give back in thanks for living in a land of individual liberty. But we can accomplish the goals of care for others also through charities, religious organizations, as well as through government.

Also, the failure of pure state socialism in the Soviet Union and even China tells me you can’t franchise out the socialist ethic to government – the social concern for others should permeate all sectors of society including government, family, religious and non-profit organizations, and individuals.

This is the jumping off point for my other blogs. I will explore why, in a land of freedom, so many want to self-impose rules, regulations, norms, social pressure, etc. And I will discuss, how an engineer like me, realizes that most of the frenzy over security in the post-9/11 world really stems from a poor understanding of the laws of physics!

(Updated 7/13/08)