There’s been a national discussion about the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law in Indiana and pending in Arkansas.
What is interesting to me, and which has not to my knowledge been mentioned elsewhere, is that I have heard the logic used to defend and justify this law, and the ‘need’ for it, before. It was not well articulated, but you can hear the underpinnings of the reasoning there.
I first heard them almost 5 years ago.
It was in a famous – some might say notorious – interview that Rand Paul gave to Rachel Maddow when he announced his candidacy for the Senate seat from Kentucky. You can see and hear it here: Rachel Maddow’s interview with Rand Paul, 05/19/10 @ 10:10 PM—Updated 11/07/13 08:56 AM
This interview led to a commentary on my third-ever radio show.
2010-MAY-24: Welcome to the Mike Honig Show: Thinkwing Radio ™
It’s hard to do a really topical show when it runs only once a week, but I’m going to start a little differently today, because I want to talk about the Rand Paul controversy, what I think it’s really about, and what I think it means.
[On May 19, 2010,] I was watching when Rachel Maddow asked Rand Paul the question about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and whether he could support that today. Continue reading →
NOTE, 2012-OCT-15: I think it’s important to note that the Rachel Maddow report which I’ve cited below was intended by her to be seen strictly as a commentary on the situation in Afghanistan at that time. The connection which I’ve drawn between her report and a what potential Libertarian future might look like in the USA is strictly my own. ~ Mike
Libertarian vs NeoConservative at a Tea Party Rally
Okay, granted the neo-conservative character is unfairly represented by a zombie avatar, but the arguments are interesting.
The Diffrence. Democrat vs. Republican [sic]
Forgive the typo in the title, and consider the context of the video itself. I think it accurately frames the difference between rightwing expression of views and leftwing expression of views, in spirit at least. Also, the stats in the map at the end, if accurate, are intriguing. (I have not done the research, but let me know if you do.)
I’ve been saying for a while now that Libertarianism is just a prettily re-branded form of Anarchism; the scourge of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
One of the Paul family — Ron, this time — again makes my point for me. Continue reading →
Battle cries are great things, because they remind us what we’re fighting for. Here are some terrific ones.
“Remember the Alamo!” “Remember the Maine!” “Remember the Lusitania!” “Remember Pearl Harbor!” “Remember Gene Cranick!”
Gene Cranick? You might remember hearing about Gene . He’s the man whose house burned to the ground while the fire department watched, because he hadn’t paid a $75 opt-in fee for the city fire department.
Remember Gene Cranick, because he is your possible future. A Tea Party future. A future of “One for me … and all for me.”
Glenn Beck likes this future. He agrees with it. And so does his producer, Pat Gray.
I’m going to play an audio clip for you. While you’re listening to it, keep in mind that the second voice is NOT Gene Cranick. It’s producer Pat Gray doing a crude and insulting imitation of Gene Cranick
Here they are in their own words, courtesy of YouTube and ThinkProgress.org:
“Those who are just on raw feeling are not going to understand,” Glenn Beck said.
“Compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion,” he mocked.
This, in front of Glenn Beck’s “Charity” poster. The thing that’s sad, that makes me angry, is the mockery. This family had just lost everything. Family heirlooms, children’s pictures, every memento they ever owned.
It’s bad enough that Glenn Beck and Pat Gray think it’s acceptable to lose your house and all your possessions, and for four of your pets to burn to death over $75. I think that’s pretty cold-blooded, but they’re entitled to their opinion.
But listen to their mockery of him!
When I saw Gene Cranick’s interview with Keith Olbermann, I was touched. I couldn’t help but be struck by this man’s dignity as he explained his willingness to accept his fate, while expressing his disappointment with the policies and people that allowed it to happen.
Gene Cranick is not a trained speaker. His accent is rural Tennesseean and he is not skilled in articulating his thoughts and feelings. And why should anyone expect him to be?
But he expressed courage and acceptance and showed great strength at a moment of terrible tragedy and adversity. [Personal Disclosure: Our house burned down on September 13, 2008. It was in the middle of Hurricane Ike, and the courageous Houston Fire Department firefighters DID try to extinguish the fire, against instructions to take shelter! – Mike]
Glenn Beck and Pat Gray couldn’t see any of that. Instead, they mocked him!
This the future that Glenn Beck and his ilk want for you. A future where firemen are ordered to watch your house burn. A future without a safety net for old people. A future without medical care for sick people. A country with opt-in fire departments.
If this is the country they envision, why do they want a country at all?
What is the point of a nation, if not to help those who need it when they need it? When Louisiana has a Katrina, 49 other states should line up to help. When Washington has a Mount St. Helens, 49 other states should line up to help. Whether it’s floods in Pennsylvania, earthquakes in California or Alaska, or tornadoes in Oklahoma, there should always be 49 other states lined up to help. That’s the whole point of being a part of a nation. It’s supposed to make us all stronger and safer. There’s no point to any kind of union or community if the operative slogan is, “Everyman for himself!”
If it comes to that, we’ll all have to become survivalists; locked in our bunkers, stocked up with food, weapons and ammo, and watching the world through gun slits.
“Remember Gene Cranick!” This is the Tea Party future of user fees, personal responsibility, and pay to spray.
“Remember Gene Cranick!” This is the Tea Party future of heartlessness, cruelty, and mocking of the unfortunate.
“Remember Gene Cranick!” This is the Tea Party that wants to take away your minimum wage, your Social Security, and your unemployment insurance, and dismember the government regulations that protect your health and safety on the job.
“Remember Gene Cranick!” This is the Tea Party country where employers can coerce you into working off the clock with impunity, because there’s nothing to say that they can’t.
“Remember Gene Cranick!” If you can’t pay the toll, stay off the road. If you can’t afford housing, go find a refrigerator box or a bridge. If you can’t afford vaccinations or medical care, hurry up and die. Or as Scrooge would say, “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
“Remember Gene Cranick!” You better go through that mail really, really carefully, otherwise the fire department might stand by and watch your house burn down. If you don’t pay the city fee, don’t expect firefighting.
“Remember Gene Cranick!” Three dogs and a cat died — burned to death — in Gene Cranick’s house while the firefighters stood by and watched. The burning question (pun intended) that has never been answered is this: What if the Cranick’s had been trapped in that house. Would the town firefighters have watched them burn to death with their dogs and cat for lack of a $75 fee?
“Remember Gene Cranick!” Because if you don’t vote, if you don’t consider the consequences of how you vote, soon you could be living in his world.
This is a very brief “let’s think about this notion”, train-of-thought essay piece. I haven’t really begun to reason it through or deeply research it, but today a light bulb went off in my mind, and I want to explore it out in the open so I can get your ideas on it. To the extent that anyone out there wishes to provide arguments pro or con, I very much want to hear from you.
About 100-120 years ago, Anarchism was the political bugaboo of the day. It’s occurred to me to think about parallels between anarchism and libertarianism. At first, that connection seemed so simple as to be improbable, but as I’ve looked into it, it seems more and more likely to me that there is at least ‘a family resemblance’.
Is it possible that Libertarianism is just a re-branded form of Anarchism, since we assume that Anarchism would never get any political traction here?
In Wikipedia (Hey, I told you that my exploration of the idea at this point has been cursory), there are in part these definitions. You can click on the links and read whole articles.
Anarchism: a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.[3] Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, “there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance.”[4]
Libertarianism: the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either “total or merely substantial”] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2]David Boaz writes that, “Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others” and that, “Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property–rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.”[3] Karl Widerquist writes of left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism as being distinct ideologies also claiming the label “libertarianism”.[4] However, many works broadly distinguish right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as related forms of libertarian philosophy.[5] Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.
Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig 