Über die Freiheit / de libertate

I suppose he’d argue that he’s merely looking for honesty and commenting thusly. However it seems odd that he’s focusing on liberal talking points and not really addressing any falsehoods on the side of conservatives.

First he criticized Obama’s community organizing. Then defended Palin against being a creationist. Then he defended Palin’s “message” from God statement. Then he criticized Obama’s tax plan, twice. Then he defended religion and by association Palin’s evangelicalism. And most recently he defended McCain’s kindergarten sex-ed ad.

I see only two instances where he has spent any time criticizing McCain/Palin. Once on her general false stance on earmarks, which he promptly defended as “what one would expect of a governor” and that “her general style suggests the sort of politician who would be willing to fight, perhaps able to win, against a variety of entrenched interest groups.” Second he uncritically linked the open letter that made the rounds.

Now obviously Friedman is allowed to blog what he wants. Hell, he might even be correct in all of his criticisms, but I wonder why he has expended so much effort on one side of the issue. As a radical libertarian I would assume he finds little to like in either campaign, yet he seems to be focused more negatively on one side. Am I missing something?

I’d also like to focus on his most recent defense of what he calls ‘kiddie sex ed’. Friedman’s argument is basically this: the bill Obama voted for literally says “comprehensive sex education” and that ”K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”

Friedman does point out that “It’s true that the bill also says all instruction is to be age appropriate. Precisely how one provides age appropriate instruction in the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV to kindergartners has not, so far as I know, been explained by either the Obama campaign or anyone else.” Of course, an anonymous commenter promptly comes up with a logical and reasonable response:

Okay. That one is easy (you must not have experience with five year olds). “Children, when someone else is bleeding, don’t lick their blood, use it as finger paint, or touch the blood. You can get sick from touching other people’s blood sometimes.”

The commenter is wrong, Friedman does have experience with children–he has two. Of course they’re long past five, but nevertheless. I see absolutely nothing wrong with introducing such education at kindergarten. Obviously a long winded explanation of HIV is not going to be useful but, keeping in mind the “instruction is to be age appropriate” part that Friedman blithely dismisses, does not mean we can’t introduce public health concepts to young children.

Another commenter at Friedman’s blog points out another issue. Looking at the bill online shows the changes between the old and new bill that was voted upon. The commenter states: ”If this means what it seems to mean, then to vote for the bill is nothing more or less than to vote for the changes.”

If you look further down the bill, rather than merely skimming the top, you can see where the real changes happened. Specifically if you look at section 4 (and two lines up), lines 1-19 you can see exactly what Obama and his defenders are referring to:

33        Course  material  and  instruction  shall
34        teach  pupils  to  not  make unwanted physical and verbal

                            -4-      LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1        sexual advances and how to  say  no  to  unwanted  sexual
2        advances  and  shall  include  information  about verbal,
3        physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without
4        limitation nonconsensual sexual  advances,  nonconsensual
5        physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The
6        course  material and instruction shall contain methods of
7        preventing sexual assault by an  acquaintance,  including
8        exercising  good  judgment  and  avoiding  behavior  that
9        impairs   one’s   judgment.   The   course  material  and
10        instruction shall emphasize personal  accountability  and
11        respect  for others and Pupils shall be taught that it is
12        wrong to take advantage of or to exploit another  person.
13        The  material  and instruction shall also encourage youth
14        to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and
15        instruction shall inform pupils of  the  potential  legal
16        consequences   of  sexual  assault  by  an  acquaintance.
17        Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
18        to touch an intimate part of another person as  specified
19        in the Criminal Code of 1961.

Now obviously here you are going to run into the ‘age appropriate’ issue again, but there is no reason that a five year old can’t be taught about appropriate and inappropriate touching in a useful manner.

Thus, I think Friedman is completely and utterly wrong in defending the ad even if he says “I doubt Obama is in favor of explicit sex-ed for small children, which is what the McCain ad implies. But he did vote for the bill, and so is in a poor position to label a truthful description of what was in it as a lie.”

The problem, Dr. Friedman, is that it’s not a “truthful description”. It’s entirely possible to have a disgusting and wrong ad while quoting the wording accurately. If I take a random quote from the Old Testament describing god’s vengeance it might be an accurate ‘description’ but still a lie in regards to the overall message of the Bible. So no, the reporters have it right: the McCain ad is a lie.

I think commenter Joe best sums up Friedman’s recent psychology: “This contrarian game sometimes leads you off into the weeds.”

The American presidential race is officially a farce. John McCain is a spineless weasel and the right-wing needs to be bitch slapped.

My personal ideology is hard-core libertarian that is to say, a radical individualist. (Though David Friedman and Will Wilkinson have convinced me to question the Rothbardian deontological libertarianism and look more closely at the consequentialist approach, though I am too much of a utopian and don’t think I’ve come to the point of joining the “libertarian bargainer” position quite yet.) As Reason magazine sums it up aptly, I believe in Free Minds and Free Markets.

With this in mind, I have no particular love for either major American political party, both are ready and willing to increase and size and scope of government at a moment’s notice. Overall the Republicans are eager to control your life socially: marriage, homosexuality and the like. The Democrats on the other hand, are interested in controlling your economic lives through increased taxation and harmful regulation. Even with this distinction it’s not entirely accurate since both parties continue to regulate both aspects of modern life.

Nevertheless, I think that at this point with all of the lies and distortion that are being pumped out by the McCain campaign, especially about Sarah Palin, it’s time to abandon the Republican Titanic.

With the selection of Sarah Palin McCain’s true nature comes out as does the vile rhetoric of conservatives, especially the religious right. I actually don’t think Palin, when looked at in the abstract, is that bad a pick for vice president. As Radley Balko has said, “Palin is about the best libertarians could hope for from McCain.” I do like the idea that Palin is “outside the Beltway” and that she did take on some corruption. Additionally, Sarah Palin appears to be in support of jury nullification. She’s also basically likeable ignoring her policies (or lack thereof).

 That said, the last two weeks have done more than enough for me to consider her and McCain dishonest and unworthy of support:

1. Reformer/Earmarks: That fact the campaign continues to maintain that she opposed the famous Bridge to Nowhere, despite the fact that she initially supported it only to opposite as political opinion changed, but then took the money anyway.
2. Community Organizing: Rudy Giuliani and Palin’s childish and disgusting mocking of Obama’s three years as a community organizer. Though I agree with Michael Steele on Real Time with Bill Maher that community organizing certainly has a political aspect to it, such as convincing people to vote for liberal causes, that’s not the entire story. The Catholic (!!) organization Obama worked with also assisted with job training and tutoring. Conservatives argue for grassroots, individual help and mocking it shows how shallow the Republicans are.
3. Experience: Palin has none. “Executive” experience is not merely gained by being a governor. Being a mother doesn’t give you extra power. If the McCain campaign hadn’t made such a huge deal out of Obama’s supposed lack of experience, it wouldn’t be a big deal.
4. Book Banning: She asked the librarian “”how she could go about banning books”. Though it appears that no books were ever actually banned, I don’t for a second believe the conservatives talking points which argue she was just asking for ‘information purposes’.
5. Foreign Policy: That people, and McCain himself, would argue that living next to Russia gives Palin foreign policy experience is ludicrous and insulting. Hell I visited Berlin once, I supposed I’m qualified enough to become ambassador to Germany!
6. The Bush Doctrine: Palin’s response to ABC’s Gibson is absolutely ridiculous. Yet I’ve seen two vigorous defenses of Palin’s response. One by phrase originator Charles Krauthammer and one by the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund on Real Time with Bill Maher. Both argue that Palin is ok not to know because the Bush Doctrine has many meanings and has evolved. I don’t deny that the Bush Doctrine is somewhat more complex in totality, as Wikipedia shows. However, if you actually watch the interview, you can clearly see that this is not simply a matter of disputing that “[t]here is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine”. And no Dr. Krauthammer, “In what respect, Charlie” is in no way a “quite sensibl[e response] to a question that is ambiguous.” The video shows a textbook attempt to avoid the question. The way she pauses and says “In what respect, Charlie” is a definite attempt at getting it explained to her. Likewise, she continued afterwards with some generic response about fighting terrorists but admitting mistakes. That is all clearly an attempt to avoid a question she did not know. It’s something I would do in a seminar class when I don’t know the answer. If, as Krauthammer and Fund argue, there are various meanings and Palin just didn’t know to which one Gibson was referring, then it still doesn’t work because she didn’t respond with “which part of the bush doctrine” but rather she rambled on generically exposing her glaring lack of knowledge. Indeed Foreign Policy magazine’s Blake Hounshell’s says in her rambling Palin described pre-Bush Doctrine policy.
7. Sex Education: This perhaps the best example of the McCain campaign’s outright lies and distortion. To take one policy educating children about sexual predators (despite Penn and Teller’s argument that ‘stranger danger’ is Bullshit!) and twisting that into ‘teaching 5 year olds about sex’ is completely abhorrent.
8. Religion: I’m tired of the religious right and their intolerance. The fact the McCain is pretending to be a right-wing Christian shows his complete lack of backbone. I am willing to accept that Palin did not prescribe creationism to be taught in the schools. I also agree that her “mission from God” statement has been misinterpreted . However, she is a member of a pentecostal Assembly of God church which proscribes to the ridiculous theology and instills a belief in creationism and a view that that God’s will is present in all of life, including war. Though I’ve yet to read any truly damning quotes, I don’t doubt for a second that she believes both contested propositions. As for the charge of anti-semitism, I’m not sure. I certainly don’t like the Jews for Jesus movement, but I’m not sure how bad it is. David Berstein has described the sermon at Palin’s church as “midly offensive” and points to Palin’s interactions with the Jewish community in Wasilla. To be fair I should include Ilya Somin’s argument that creationism as compared with other Christian beliefs (eg. virgin birth, the great flood, ressurection) is not that different. All are false, but we focus too much on creationism. Kerry Howley, interestingly, doesn’t care which “fairy tale ought to disqualify Palin” because she “assumed her professed belief system was strategic rather than sincere, but perhaps only male political figures are allowed to operate on more than one level.” Now, obviously it’s impossible to get inside Palin’s mind, but I think this is an unfounded feministic snark. McCain’s “faith” is contrived, no question. Obama’s public faith is most likely highly motivated by politics. But Palin’s definitely seems sincere. To counter the feminist critique I’d say that Nancy Pelosi’s Catholicism is strategic and she’s “allowed to operate on more than one level.”
9. Abortion. I’m most certainly pro-choice, though like 99.9% of people I don’t like abortion. That she is against abortion in cases involving rape and incest is ridiculous and offensive. Likewise McCain arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned shows how much he’s sold his soul to…the Christians.
10. Sexism and Hypocrisy. As Balko said, “When did the right become a bunch of politically correct whiners….Either Sarah Palin is a pit-bull, or she’s a fragile woman with delicate sensibilities whom we’ll all need to tiptoe around for the next four years. She can’t be both.” Conservatives have been complaining for the last 4 decades about liberal political correctness and cries of ‘sexism’, yet as soon as it’s politically convenient they hop on the bandwagon. For years Dobson has repeatedly stated that mothers should stay at home or else their children will be ruined. Yet he gleefully supported Palin: “Sen. McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is an outstanding choice that should be extremely reassuring to the conservative base of his party.” Despite having a 5 month old baby and a young child. Likewise Phyllis Schlafly long argued that a woman’s primary role is as mother but she also gleefully accepted Palin.

Obama, by far, is the superior candidate, especially intellectually, which is the most important thing to me. (Interestingly Canada’s election is being headed by three former academics.) There is, in my mind, only one conflict of interest. As Kevin Grier over at KPC has been hammering (here , here, and here) on about, gridlock is good for government. On the other hand, Alex Tabarrok makes a good case:

First, war. War is the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy of consent, voluntarism and trade.

I have no doubt that if Obama is elected there will be significant changes in the United States. Combine a Democratic White House with the Senate and House and there is bound to be a left-ward shift in economic policy-none of which will be in itself beneficial. Regardless I think getting out of Iraq and avoiding confrontation with Iran and Russia is important.

Having lived in Canada my whole life, I can say that a larger government does not mean the end of the world. I would argue that Canadians are nearly as free as Americans. Opening a business is simple, indeed according to the Heritage Foundation it takes only three days to start a business, compared to the United State’s six days. Additionally Canada ranks 7th in economic freedom by their rankings and the Fraser Institute ranks it 5th, tied with the United States. The two main shortfalls of Canada are a less rigidly enforced freedom of speech, though the constitution includes “freedom of expression” it lacks the clout of the First Amendment. Secondly, Canada’s health system fails many citizens despite being universal and tax funded.

Essentially, if the United States was to become somewhat more like Canada, it wouldn’t bother me that much. This is effectively what I see Barack Obama doing if elected. I see a shift towards universal healthcare (though more likely through tax funded health insurance rather than direct government run healthcare as in Canada and elsewhere) and an acceptance of homosexual marriage. I believe that Barack Obama, despite publically claiming otherwise, believes that homosexuals should have the right to marry, not just have civil unions.

But let’s be clear: I would much rather see a freer economy (less regulation, lower taxes, the end of corporate socialism, abolishing the death tax), the end to unjust wars and torture (Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and perhaps even Afghanistan) and expanded personal freedom (marriage, sex and the drug-war). But I’m also realistic (cynical?) enough to realize that I’m not possibly going to get what I want. Thus I think taking a utilitarian and individualist approach requires me to give greater clout to the human death and destruction that the war in Iraq has caused and accept more economic regulation as a trade off.

I pray to Darwin that Obama wins and lives up to expectations.

Will Wilkinson is in love.

Edit: Commenter Azed has the best of all possible summaries:

Dude, that was the longest and most profound explanation of the statement “I’d hit that” that I’ve ever seen.

It tells us what we already know. McCain likes younger women. [Link]