Tyranny and Negative Liberties

Many people hear all of the ranting from those of us who are libertarians and they just hear politics.  When you mention Barak Obama in a negative way they figure you are either trying to win the next election for your side or you are a racist.  Not everybody, but a lot of people.

When Rush Limbaugh said he hoped Barak Obama failed, a lot of people were outraged because they could not understand why anyone would not want the president to succeed at what he was attempting to do.  They wrote Rush off as just being highly partisan (which he is) but they missed the essential point.

I do not agree with Barak Obama's basic philosophies.  He and I do not share core values.  I admit I think he loves his kids and wife and doesn't believe in rape or murder or stealing, but I am talking about his philosophies on government and society.

The folks who founded our nation took the time to carefully read all of the great philosophers that came before them, and then they discussed and debated and disagreed, and finally put together a set of principles.  Those principles became the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and Bill of Rights, and all of the great supporting documents like the Federalist Papers that explained what they wanted this country to be.

They forsaw a country built on a set of principles that was pretty unique in human history.  No king, no dictator, just free people going about their business, pursuing happiness without government dictating their every move.  They came from a place, and broke away from a King, who wanted to do just that.  The Monarch didd not like the colonists going about their business and not paying his taxes and doing what he said.

Communism and socialism are legitimate concepts, advanced by Marx and others, but these are not the concepts upon which this country was founded.  Hitler actually espoused fascism, and thought it would work well, so long as he was in control.  But we do not embrace fascism. 

The United States was founded on the concept of limited government.  It is the bedrock of who we are.  They went to great lengths to specify that the power of the federal government was to be limited, and spread out among three branches so that power would be diluted.  Yes, they feared Tyranny because they had experienced it.  They launched the Great Experiment, one where Democracy, Free Market Capitalism, Individual Liberty, and Limited Government were the cornerstones.

Some people don't like the system they set up.  Some people would like to live in a socialist, or fascist, or even a communist system.  And some people are not happy that our constitution is a document of "negative liberties", that is, the constitution tells the government what it CANNOT do.  Congress shall make no law resistricting our rights to free speech, free press, etc.  Some people feel that this was a big error in judgement on the part of the founders.

Who, you ask?  Barak Obama, who is an "expert" on constitutional law.  From an interview;

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

So, yes, we disagree on core principles, and I want his ideas on redistribution of wealth to fail.  I am one of the people who see Tyranny lurking around every corner.  And I will point to the recent scandals as proof that this administration wants more power and does not see the Bill of Rights the same way as you or I do.  The Affordable Care Act is a massive expansion of government power. 

I think the founders would be horrified, and tea would be going into the harbor.

Climate Change

I often hear people say, and I have said it myself, “wow, it’s awfully cold for May, so much for global warming”.  Of course I recognize the logical fallacy there.  Weather and climate are separate things, and as a meteorologist described it, weather is your mood, and climate is your personality.  Single days or weeks of weather, or single weather phenomena, do not describe climate, or changes to it.

For example, the Oklahoma tornado, or Hurricane Sandy, do not “prove” climate change, any more than cold weather in the northeast disproves it.  To connect them is not a sound logical argument, and given that they are tragedies where humans lost their lives, we should keep political discussions out of it, which for the most part we all did.

So I suggest we look at data.  The weather people have been collecting data for some time and CO2 levels have risen from the low 300’s ppm to crossing the 400 ppm just recently.  Likewise global temperatures have risen 1.5 degrees, I think they said in the last few decades.  I do not argue with people who have sound empirical data.  Global temperatures and CO2 levels are rising.  Likewise, glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising.  Again, we should not argue with facts.  And as one of the meteorologists put it, 1.5 degrees doesn’t seem like much but your body responds when your temperature rises that much, and so does our climate.

I have heard people claim that these changes are entirely due to man and his activities, and I have heard people claim that they are not due to man and his activities.  Both sides often seem to be quite sure and they are strident, and want to convince you of the correctness of their assertion.  Most of the time these people are not scientists, do not present data, and are not convincing.  If you listen to the real scientists, the pointy headed meteorologists, they are much more careful with their language.  They will point to data, and they will always say that lots of factors go into the climate, such as man burning carbon fuels to raise CO2 levels but they are careful to point out that volcanoes, forest fires, sunspots, and even the gas emitted by cows can have an effect.

I will not list it here but there is certainly data being collected that supports the idea that our burning of fossil fuels contributes to the rise in global temperature.  It is at the very least one factor.  There is also ample evidence that all of our efforts in this area are paying off, at least a little.  Increased mileage standards for automobiles, better technology for coal plants to create electricity, and changes to things like the solvents that can be used in paints have all made a difference in US carbon emissions.

I do know a little about the last one.  Through things like the HAPS list and various regulations, industrial painting has become much more eco-friendly over the past few decades.  We have reduced the level of solvents in our paints dramatically.  As a side note, there are always unintended consequences.  Three decades ago we never worried about bacteria growth in paint systems but as we lowered solvent levels this became an issue and we had to start using biocides to control bacteria, and then we had to refine the biocides we were using and how we used them so we did not wipe out local water treatment plants when sending liquids to drain.  We now send almost nothing to drain that has any solvents in it.  Progress has been made, but we have challenges to overcome along the way.

With the discovery of fracking we have opened up new sources of energy, and also new concerns.  Certainly we have all heard the stories of people turning on a water faucet and getting, well, not water from their faucet.  This is a problem, but one to be overcome, not an excuse to abandon fracking.  Likewise nuclear energy has problems to be overcome but that is not an excuse to not build any nuclear plants for 20 years.  Remember, electric cars are great but electricity is produced by and large by burning COAL.  In my opinion everyone needs to have an open mind and realize every solution comes with it’s own set of unintended consequences, but the greatness of our country lies in the plentiful number of smart people who can overcome these challenges.

So, it is in this context that I introduce one Al Gore, supposed champion for all things green.  Mr. Gore presents himself as the champion of reducing carbon emissions, but I would like to make the claim that Al Gore has set back his own movement more than anyone else in history.  I say that because most of the opposition to moving forward with change was generated by the former Vice President’s rather unique approach to the problem.  He set up a corporation and introduced the idea of Carbon Credits, which involve people being charged for their personal use of carbon fuels, and his little company was poised to have a role in the scheme, which would make Al Gore a lot of money.

Rightly so, those who saw climate change as a hoax saw right through Al Gore and declared the whole thing phoney baloney.  Obviously Rush Limbaugh being the chief among them.  And I think the criticism of Al Gore’s plan was justified.  It involved being able to purchase credits from someone else who had a smaller carbon footprint for money, or selling those same credits if you did not need them.  I must say this is bizarre and self serving, and Al Gore does not deserve my respect for this ridiculous plan.  Lots and lots of people just clicked off their brains at that point.  As I said, he set back his own movement with an obviously self serving plan.

Rational people agree that belching smoke from a factory is a bad idea, and rational people are already making changes.  We need more changes, whether climate change is primarily man made or not.  Some things that make sense: Oklahomans should build storm shelters.  People should consider whether to build their homes right on the beach.  Californians should clear a safe-zone around their homes to help prevent wildfire damage.  We should build more nuclear power plants.  Everyone should buy more fuel efficient vehicles, if nothing else to save money.  And companies, like for example paint companies, should tout their eco-friendly products when selling them, which they certainly are already doing.

And we should talk to the Chinese, who are, sadly, going the wrong way and increasing their carbon emissions at an alarming rate.  Just don’t send Al Gore over there, we don’t need any more setbacks.