Privilege of property

I fi nd the assertion made by Rand Paul and repeated by many in the "tea" movement that the only legitimate functions of government are protection of property, protection of borders and enforcing contracts. They seem to consider these so self evident that they do not justify why these, above all the other rights claimed over history. Some claim a Right such as a "Right to health care" is an obligation on someone else to provide you with this care and is a seizure of power over this person. The Right to own property is exactly the same. A Constablary is established to help you retain/ get back your property, a court system with punishments re-enforces this right. If we are truly responsible for ourselves, why so much support? Every one should be armed and know how to defend themselves. Wealthy people would have to act like they have throughout history and today in much of the world and hire security. I say only wimps need a Nanny State to protect property. I prefer guns and dogs. However health care seems like a reasonable right to have, at least to patch you up after fighting off intruders!

some rights are righty-er than others

I have been examining libertarian thought lately. I must admit that when I was young and living in New york city I flirted with Anarchism. Manhattan makes you an anarchist because everything good happens in opposition to City government. A big difference between self identified anarchists and self IDed libertarians is the attitude towards Corporations. Rightist libertarians have a blind spot for corporations. If they think about abuses they always come from business manipulating the over powerful governments ability to grant favors. Un fortunately this is not the only case of private tyranny we find throughout history. This present Gulf oil disaster leaves libertarians speechless because a solution to such a huge problem is not possible without the command and control of a government unburdened by fiduciary concerns. A mixed economy is not nearly as sexy as No Government or a Revolutionary government, but it does seem like really the best way. Our way leaves big holes that are being filled with crude everyday

How to fight the Tea party

Any one who knows history knows that the semi Libertarian/ tea party agenda has already been tried in this country. It was called the 19th century and it was bad enough that our nation united to pass the Progressive legislation that gave us child-labor laws, inspected food ( how ever imperfectly) and what Natural , protected land as exists in our national parks and monuments. We had an activist Supreme Court that struck down any law passed that helped workers until Roosevelt forced some sense into it with his court packing plan. Would the Tea activist argue it was better then? I think for women, Blacks, First Nations and anyone who worked 18 hours a day in the factories with no safety net if one got injured, it was maybe not the good old days.

One fundamental divide

I am always interested in the deeper assumptions that inform ideology. One i have noticed is an attitude toward killing. The left either has the illusion that violence is not a fundamental form of human communication or ( this was more true in the USA in the 20th Cent) deaths can be excused if they are part of a struggle for liberation or a struggle to make the world more equitable. The Right seems to think that these motivations are among the worst. Until the rise of Bush II Rightism was anti-utopian. Deaths occurring in the pursuit of national glory or profit are acceptable collateral damage. Death from a struggle for liberation ( excepting of course the bourgeois revolution of the US) is dangerous and sinful. The attitudes of the Left toward violence would make a good study, though the first obstacle is definition: who is Left. the Right seems to have fewer conflicts about which deaths are acceptable.

Right of conquest

It seems a fundamental paradigm split is over the right of conquest. This was unquestioned basically between nations until WWI but it is also univ ersally prohibited among members of a society. Assault and theft ( "mugging") is against every social code binding all communities i have heard of. evn groups that prey on others violation within the social group is prohibited. What do we accept this so easily? If a nation has the right to use force why not an individual? Could it be the true Original Sin; ethnocentrism/tribalism/racism? Violence is allowed if it is against the outsiders. Or could that be an adaptation to allow the group to survive? if that is the case humans evolve in groups which is quite a bit different than our self image but easily observable in other organisms. The Left has issues with conquest and power. the right is all about power and grouip solidarity, holding Universality to be a lie used by totalitarian utopians ( as all utopians must be according to conservatives.) The true issue in the Middle east is rights of conquest, both by the Muslims in the 7th and 8th centuries, the Israelis both in ancient times and in the 20th century. The formation of nation states out of the provinces has been bloody. History does matter.

Tea party and government

If the Tea partiers had the real courage of their convictions they would advocate for the abolition of ALL government, noit just the parts they don't like. Like Police. Why should True Patriots need a Nanny State to protect them selves. MY .45 and dogs protects me. Or for true Market oriented health care abolish all licensing and prescription laws ( except for anti biotics!). It worked for th 19th century. In fact qe already tried the Teabaggers way . It was call ed the 19th century. Look to election of Teddy Roosevelt and the Trust busting as too how well that went...

call their bluff

It is an article of faith to the "Tea Party" followers that government is bad. Of course a disinterested observer might notice that the parts of government they are thinking of are the programs that do not benefit them. Roads, courts to enforce contracts, a police/court property protection system the list goes on. The idea that government should only do defense, civil order and enforce contracts seems less commonsense and more about endorsing the parts of government that benefit themselves. Why should health care be considered a persons own problem but property protection is hallowed? A case could be made that relying on a "Nanny State" to protect ones property is asking the government to do something people should do themselves. I have a gun and big dogs. I don't consider the police the be an integral part of my property protection plan. Conservatives say what separates their conception of rights from a progressive one is the obligation to provide. Negative legal proscriptions against government interference require no public expenditiures. but property protection certainly requires public expenditures and the provision of this right by public servants. The difference btween that and health care is what exactly...?