You've heard it already right? New surveillance legislation surfacing from every wing of the political aisle. More cameras, drones, and oversight for the safety and security of everyone. The broad powers granted by the Patriot Act post 9/11 are no longer sufficient, we need more. Living in today's world is just far more dangerous than anything we've encountered previously, so we need this.
People will give up any amount of freedom, money, and convenience for saftey. What if you could legislate away the entire Constitution and turn us into a surveillance state? Certainly after giving up all of that we would be safe, right?
I think the answer is a resounding, "no!" Everywhere its been tried, loss of freedom has created its own political dissidents, and its own terrorism. Russia, China, European Countries, they all have systems far more closed than ours, yet terrorism persists. If abolishing the Constitution and shifting toward a surveillance state can't abolish terrorism, what should be our response?
What is it that a terrorist seeks to accomplish? Whatever the various motivations and reasons, they have a common thread, changing our way of life. If we did nothing in response to an attack, it would defeat the purpose of the attack. However, if it instills fear and changes how we live day to day, they have achieved something great. After all, its human nature to react when hurt. However, we may need to ask ourselves a different set of questions. Our reaction may be natural, but is it helping or hurting ourselves?
Also, if we pass additional legislation with each attack, at what point is privacy non-existant? If the answer is yes, its worth it, and we're okay with the type of society we are morphing into, fine. However, let's have the conversation and not pretend this is anything short of what it is, a transition to a different type of society, and that being one we probably can't change back.
Showing posts with label Philosophical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophical. Show all posts
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Libertarianism to me
The upcoming Iowa Caucus is, as always, generating a good deal of media attention. People are eager to see who Obama's challenger will be. Although we have presidential elections every four years, it feels different as of late. Maybe we feel like we all have more at stake now with an economy slowing to a mere crawl? Or it could be the erosion of many civil liberties in just a short decade. Whatever it is, people are interested.
In the last two weeks, a number of people have approached me to ask which Republican candidate I like for president. When to their surprise I utter Ron Paul's name, they tend to give me the same kinds of responses. "He's good and honest but so extreme." Or else they'll say, "I like his fiscal sense but his foreign policy is just outdated."
Now, I'm not writing this to defend my candidate of choice, but rather to simply talk about my personal brand of libertarianism. After all, any candidate I support, I support with some reservations and some difference of opinion. The only candidate who will agree with everything you believe is yourself.
However, I consider myself to be somewhat Libertarian in my beliefs, and I'll even use the term to describe myself. To some, Libertarian means extreme isolationism. To others its a fiscally conservative philosophy that is also socially liberal. Other's view it as an anarchist philosophy that desires no law or order (drug legalization is often associated with this.)
As is the problem with many labels, a word by itself doesn't always capture that entire perspective. In fact libertarianism in itself probably has the most diverse following of any major American political perspective. I'm just going to tell you what it means to me.
To me, in simple terms, it is the ideal of using government in a way that maximizes freedom and protects liberty to the full extent possible (particularly those freedoms outlined in the Constitution.) This means that although I may personally disagree with something socially, I may still want the government to protect someone's right to do that. I say this because choice is not only important to a libertarian, but important to any free society. Without choice, freedom does not exist.
Appreciating choice, I support other nation's having the opportunity to choose and be free. This doesn't however lead me to an isolationist perspective, but simply one that is "less interventionist." Especially at the grass roots level, the people of a nation have to embrace choice for themselves. After all, if we would have asked ourselves what we could have learned from past foreign endeavors, we would already be traveling down this path of less intervention. From Korea, to Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, one would have thought we would have learned something about intervention.
If I've learned one thing concerning foreign policy from my government, its that long war campaigns not only wary a country financially and emotionally, but the inevitable prolonged collateral damage emboldens and multiplies your enemiees against you.
In very simple terms, this summarizes my Libertarian perspective. However, how philosophy breaks down into specific policies is case by case and a conversation for a different day. If you ever want to discuss more specifically, feel free to leave comments and I will respond.
In the last two weeks, a number of people have approached me to ask which Republican candidate I like for president. When to their surprise I utter Ron Paul's name, they tend to give me the same kinds of responses. "He's good and honest but so extreme." Or else they'll say, "I like his fiscal sense but his foreign policy is just outdated."
Now, I'm not writing this to defend my candidate of choice, but rather to simply talk about my personal brand of libertarianism. After all, any candidate I support, I support with some reservations and some difference of opinion. The only candidate who will agree with everything you believe is yourself.
However, I consider myself to be somewhat Libertarian in my beliefs, and I'll even use the term to describe myself. To some, Libertarian means extreme isolationism. To others its a fiscally conservative philosophy that is also socially liberal. Other's view it as an anarchist philosophy that desires no law or order (drug legalization is often associated with this.)
As is the problem with many labels, a word by itself doesn't always capture that entire perspective. In fact libertarianism in itself probably has the most diverse following of any major American political perspective. I'm just going to tell you what it means to me.
To me, in simple terms, it is the ideal of using government in a way that maximizes freedom and protects liberty to the full extent possible (particularly those freedoms outlined in the Constitution.) This means that although I may personally disagree with something socially, I may still want the government to protect someone's right to do that. I say this because choice is not only important to a libertarian, but important to any free society. Without choice, freedom does not exist.
Appreciating choice, I support other nation's having the opportunity to choose and be free. This doesn't however lead me to an isolationist perspective, but simply one that is "less interventionist." Especially at the grass roots level, the people of a nation have to embrace choice for themselves. After all, if we would have asked ourselves what we could have learned from past foreign endeavors, we would already be traveling down this path of less intervention. From Korea, to Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, one would have thought we would have learned something about intervention.
If I've learned one thing concerning foreign policy from my government, its that long war campaigns not only wary a country financially and emotionally, but the inevitable prolonged collateral damage emboldens and multiplies your enemiees against you.
In very simple terms, this summarizes my Libertarian perspective. However, how philosophy breaks down into specific policies is case by case and a conversation for a different day. If you ever want to discuss more specifically, feel free to leave comments and I will respond.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Reason, Faith, or Both?
You know that feeling of being torn? Its one of those moments where you believe two things to be true or valid, but you just aren't sure how they fit together. Our world views are important, so its imperative to examine them and evolve them when necessary.
I've been having one of those moments as it pertains to faith, reason, and politics. Reason and observation tell me that Minnesota (my home state) spends 37% of its general budget on welfare services. This is a higher percentage than any other state in the country. Observing people abuse this, I've witnessed what was once a safety net be transformed into a hammock. Subsidized housing, energy, food, and even cash are now a permanent fixture in many people's budget.
What about the wealthy? Is it fair to tax a higher rate based on "ability to pay?" What amount is fair? Is it 50, 60, 70, or even 90 percent of ones income beyond a certain point? This brings the question that if its not willfully done, is it stealing to take from one segment of a population to give to another?
I've heard many people of faith, some of whom I respect say that these are good things. At times I have wondered myself if supporting this was something a person of faith should desire. Is a nanny welfare state in the interests of my faith? Does the outcome matter if the spirit of giving and self sacrifice are present?
Its probably no secret to you, but I enjoy the works of Ayn Rand. Being an outspoken atheist, by reason alone, she arrived at the significance of liberty. Her philosophy essentially said that if men have equal value, government should not punish one segment to reward another. Man should rise and fall according to his ability. He should not sacrifice himself for another who is of no greater or lesser value than himself.
Now, that being said, there are limits to Rand's philosophy. Rand encouraged charity, but I don't think that encouragement would be very effective with her world view. Although she effectively addressed many of the economic and social problems of a welfare state, her philosophy doesn't truly inspire personal charity and the reward to be found in it.
As I continued to think on it, it became apparent to me that both faith and reason have a part to play in this.
Rand is right to think that government cannot fulfill this function. However, she underestimates the significance of faith. Faith empowers people to give of themselves in a way that is both discerning (reason) and focuses on the needs of the individual.
People of faith, have at times embraced the welfare state out of a sense of compassion. However, compassion must be accompanied by reason. A welfare state only grows because it does not have the power to transform people's lives. Although it has the power to meet immediate needs, it has left our poor and needy unwilling to go to "people" for help. Over time, this is debilitating to the individual.
Although the heart matters, we cannot and should not ignore outcomes. The results of our actions matter, and we should continually be learning from those things. I say, let our hearts be filled with all the good things the Lord has bestowed upon us, but when we act, let our actions be reasonable. Lets consider the outcome.
If you have a different opinion, I would love to hear from you. Feel free to comment at the bottom of the page. Thanks!
I've been having one of those moments as it pertains to faith, reason, and politics. Reason and observation tell me that Minnesota (my home state) spends 37% of its general budget on welfare services. This is a higher percentage than any other state in the country. Observing people abuse this, I've witnessed what was once a safety net be transformed into a hammock. Subsidized housing, energy, food, and even cash are now a permanent fixture in many people's budget.
What about the wealthy? Is it fair to tax a higher rate based on "ability to pay?" What amount is fair? Is it 50, 60, 70, or even 90 percent of ones income beyond a certain point? This brings the question that if its not willfully done, is it stealing to take from one segment of a population to give to another?
I've heard many people of faith, some of whom I respect say that these are good things. At times I have wondered myself if supporting this was something a person of faith should desire. Is a nanny welfare state in the interests of my faith? Does the outcome matter if the spirit of giving and self sacrifice are present?
Its probably no secret to you, but I enjoy the works of Ayn Rand. Being an outspoken atheist, by reason alone, she arrived at the significance of liberty. Her philosophy essentially said that if men have equal value, government should not punish one segment to reward another. Man should rise and fall according to his ability. He should not sacrifice himself for another who is of no greater or lesser value than himself.
Now, that being said, there are limits to Rand's philosophy. Rand encouraged charity, but I don't think that encouragement would be very effective with her world view. Although she effectively addressed many of the economic and social problems of a welfare state, her philosophy doesn't truly inspire personal charity and the reward to be found in it.
As I continued to think on it, it became apparent to me that both faith and reason have a part to play in this.
Faith addresses problems that government never could. A person going to their family, church, or community and asking for help cannot happen within the government. Within government, programs are created and budgets are allocated. Money alone cannot alter the mindset of a person, but charity can.
Rand is right to think that government cannot fulfill this function. However, she underestimates the significance of faith. Faith empowers people to give of themselves in a way that is both discerning (reason) and focuses on the needs of the individual.
People of faith, have at times embraced the welfare state out of a sense of compassion. However, compassion must be accompanied by reason. A welfare state only grows because it does not have the power to transform people's lives. Although it has the power to meet immediate needs, it has left our poor and needy unwilling to go to "people" for help. Over time, this is debilitating to the individual.
Although the heart matters, we cannot and should not ignore outcomes. The results of our actions matter, and we should continually be learning from those things. I say, let our hearts be filled with all the good things the Lord has bestowed upon us, but when we act, let our actions be reasonable. Lets consider the outcome.
If you have a different opinion, I would love to hear from you. Feel free to comment at the bottom of the page. Thanks!
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Sports Too Important?
Is the importance of sports crippling us? Entering the break room at work, ESPN can always be heard. Men huddle together to discuss recent box scores and fantasy numbers. Some people even schedule work around games.
Flip on the news and you will find that prime time coverage goes to local sports teams and players. Although the country faces a debt crisis, the disintegration of liberties, and a corrupt/stagnant political system, networks still love to cover sports. Who can blame them? Its lucrative and promotes the networks that broadcast the games. Furthermore, people are entranced with sports!
Don't get me wrong, I love sports. Although the baseball season is long, I grew up listening to the majority of my favorite team's games every year. No one loved the local baseball team more than I. Getting satellite TV in high school was a dream come true for a sports fanatic like myself. However, something happened to me after that.
I began to grow up. Developing concerns for civic responsibility, my church, and my family began to take root. Although I still loved sports, devoting energy and time to other priorities forced me to disengage from sports a little. I consider it maturing or growing.
However, as I look to many of my peers, I see in them the same enthusiasm for sports that I had as a kid. Sadly, some of my peers never seem to discuss anything significant at all. I am slightly concerned I may be misunderstood on this topic. Recreation and entertainment can be healthy distractions when the challenges of life weigh too heavy. However, no distraction should be permanent. Entertainment ought to be something that enhances our lives, but not something that drives it.
The recent Vancouver riots after the final game of the Stanley Cup are a current and vivid illustration of sports being taken out of perspective. Recent sports related riots also include the cities of Los Angeles, Denver, and Boston (Source). It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the valuable lessons sports once existed to teach us are much harder to find. Perspective has been lost.
Taxpayer funded stadiums are built for teams so that more money can be collected by the league, the owners, and the players. However, there is little to no economic benefit for the taxpayer. Taxes collected should provide a specific service to all those paying in. This is not the case with publicly funded stadiums. Even if you choose not to participate in sports, most states force you to fund stadiums and thus subsidize the industry. Player contracts and owner's revenues can stay at the current and staggering levels thanks to publicly funded stadiums.
However, more concerning is what we fail to observe while continually being "entertained." My blog has previously focused on the gradual corruption creeping into government. Corruption is becoming an enormous problem and probably most notably at the executive level. While these problems were growing, did we take to the streets through peaceful demonstrations and protests? Did we rebuke our public officials and demand accountability? No, we have been contented with our distractions.
Sports are not innately evil. Lets simply keep them in perspective. They are recreation, entertainment, and a temporary distraction in life. They are games meant to teach us to win and lose with grace. Let's take some time to focus on the things that are truly important.
Flip on the news and you will find that prime time coverage goes to local sports teams and players. Although the country faces a debt crisis, the disintegration of liberties, and a corrupt/stagnant political system, networks still love to cover sports. Who can blame them? Its lucrative and promotes the networks that broadcast the games. Furthermore, people are entranced with sports!
Don't get me wrong, I love sports. Although the baseball season is long, I grew up listening to the majority of my favorite team's games every year. No one loved the local baseball team more than I. Getting satellite TV in high school was a dream come true for a sports fanatic like myself. However, something happened to me after that.
I began to grow up. Developing concerns for civic responsibility, my church, and my family began to take root. Although I still loved sports, devoting energy and time to other priorities forced me to disengage from sports a little. I consider it maturing or growing.
However, as I look to many of my peers, I see in them the same enthusiasm for sports that I had as a kid. Sadly, some of my peers never seem to discuss anything significant at all. I am slightly concerned I may be misunderstood on this topic. Recreation and entertainment can be healthy distractions when the challenges of life weigh too heavy. However, no distraction should be permanent. Entertainment ought to be something that enhances our lives, but not something that drives it.
The recent Vancouver riots after the final game of the Stanley Cup are a current and vivid illustration of sports being taken out of perspective. Recent sports related riots also include the cities of Los Angeles, Denver, and Boston (Source). It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the valuable lessons sports once existed to teach us are much harder to find. Perspective has been lost.
Taxpayer funded stadiums are built for teams so that more money can be collected by the league, the owners, and the players. However, there is little to no economic benefit for the taxpayer. Taxes collected should provide a specific service to all those paying in. This is not the case with publicly funded stadiums. Even if you choose not to participate in sports, most states force you to fund stadiums and thus subsidize the industry. Player contracts and owner's revenues can stay at the current and staggering levels thanks to publicly funded stadiums.
However, more concerning is what we fail to observe while continually being "entertained." My blog has previously focused on the gradual corruption creeping into government. Corruption is becoming an enormous problem and probably most notably at the executive level. While these problems were growing, did we take to the streets through peaceful demonstrations and protests? Did we rebuke our public officials and demand accountability? No, we have been contented with our distractions.
Sports are not innately evil. Lets simply keep them in perspective. They are recreation, entertainment, and a temporary distraction in life. They are games meant to teach us to win and lose with grace. Let's take some time to focus on the things that are truly important.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Keeping Us Fearful
**Update 3- May 27, 2011- Obama officially signed and extended the PATRIOT Act early this morning. It is now apparent to all that the Obama and Bush foreign policy are one.
**Update 2- May 26, 2011- Today it was announced that both the house and senate passed the three provision PATRIOT Act extension. All that stands in the way of the zero accountability 4 year extension is Obama's signature. While Obama campaigned vehemently against the PATRIOT Act, he now stands behind it and is likely to sign it in the early morning on May 27, 2011.
The Associated Press credited Rand Paul and his vocal dissent of the extension with prolonging the Act's passage to the deadline (Source).
**Update 1- May 26, 2011- I want to apologize for failing to mention the three provisions set to expire at midnight tonight. These three provisions are among the most flagrant in the misnamed PATRIOT Act.
First, roving wiretaps that allow broad electronic surveillance from the FBI on any phone line or communications device. Second, the ability to access business, medical or virtually all other records of any suspect, regardless of the relationship to terrorism. Because of the clause "regardless of the relationship to terrorism," anyone's records can be accessed for any reason. Three, the “lone wolf” provision to allow surveillance of people with no ties to a terrorist group. This last provision essentially gives laws unrestricted power in terms of surveillance (Source).
This will be a relatively short post. A brief article from reason.com titled "Why There's No Need to Renew the PATRIOT Act" lit the fire that's burning inside me tonight.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is quoted saying,
We needed TARP or the economy would fail. Raise the debt ceiling now, or the consequences will be catastrophic. Now, the intelligence community will be greatly impeded if we do not immediately pass the PATRIOT Act for the next 4 years.
Remember, ten years ago the PATRIOT Act was a controversial and "temporary" piece of legislation constructed in the wake of 9/11? Its astounding how casually it can be renewed today. Reid is speaking of the PATRIOT Act as though its business as usual, just one more item on the docket.
Its disheartening how in 10 short years the 4th Amendment can be eroded so effortlessly. Its simple, its called the PATRIOT Act, and they say we need it or else...(fill in the blank).
Does anyone else feel a pair of hands sliding the wool down over your eyes? Can I make a suggestion? Don't relinquish one more damn freedom because you've been frightened into it. Fear is a powerful motivator, and our government plays on our fears far too often.
**Update 2- May 26, 2011- Today it was announced that both the house and senate passed the three provision PATRIOT Act extension. All that stands in the way of the zero accountability 4 year extension is Obama's signature. While Obama campaigned vehemently against the PATRIOT Act, he now stands behind it and is likely to sign it in the early morning on May 27, 2011.
The Associated Press credited Rand Paul and his vocal dissent of the extension with prolonging the Act's passage to the deadline (Source).
**Update 1- May 26, 2011- I want to apologize for failing to mention the three provisions set to expire at midnight tonight. These three provisions are among the most flagrant in the misnamed PATRIOT Act.
First, roving wiretaps that allow broad electronic surveillance from the FBI on any phone line or communications device. Second, the ability to access business, medical or virtually all other records of any suspect, regardless of the relationship to terrorism. Because of the clause "regardless of the relationship to terrorism," anyone's records can be accessed for any reason. Three, the “lone wolf” provision to allow surveillance of people with no ties to a terrorist group. This last provision essentially gives laws unrestricted power in terms of surveillance (Source).
This will be a relatively short post. A brief article from reason.com titled "Why There's No Need to Renew the PATRIOT Act" lit the fire that's burning inside me tonight.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is quoted saying,
"We cannot let this Patriot Act expire. I have a personal responsibility to try to get this bill done as soon as possible...The time has come for me to take some action."Another statement from the Hill echos Reid pleading,
"The expiration of the law before the passage of an extension would create an upheaval in the law enforcement community, which relies on its authority to track suspected terrorists."Have you noticed how dramatic politicians are? Whenever the powers that be don't wish to procure an honest debate about something, they hype the consequences of not passing the measure immediately.
We needed TARP or the economy would fail. Raise the debt ceiling now, or the consequences will be catastrophic. Now, the intelligence community will be greatly impeded if we do not immediately pass the PATRIOT Act for the next 4 years.
Remember, ten years ago the PATRIOT Act was a controversial and "temporary" piece of legislation constructed in the wake of 9/11? Its astounding how casually it can be renewed today. Reid is speaking of the PATRIOT Act as though its business as usual, just one more item on the docket.
Its disheartening how in 10 short years the 4th Amendment can be eroded so effortlessly. Its simple, its called the PATRIOT Act, and they say we need it or else...(fill in the blank).
Does anyone else feel a pair of hands sliding the wool down over your eyes? Can I make a suggestion? Don't relinquish one more damn freedom because you've been frightened into it. Fear is a powerful motivator, and our government plays on our fears far too often.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
The War On...
Beginning this blog I wanted to discuss the war on drugs and the digressive viewpoint concerning their legalization. However, as I began writing, it seemed prudent to broaden the discussion out and discuss the "presidential wars" first. I will save the "War on Drugs" for another time.
Can you count how many times you've heard "The War on..." throughout your lifetime? Regardless of what generation you come from, you've likely heard those words often. The War on poverty, drugs, tyranny, and terrorism. One fact is certain, our leadership is not shy about declaring war.
You see, declaring a war on something initiates multiple things. First and foremost, the word "war" immediately elevates the circumstance to a crisis level. Presidents will declare a war on something because the term "war" suggests a situation is pressing or urgent. It is a situation that demands every one's immediate attention. Often these wars become a distraction for the media, for you, and for me.
Second, because the situation is a "Crisis" requiring immediate action, all funds necessary for carrying out the "war" must be allocated. "Emergency" circumstances alleviate the pressure for balanced spending. Therefore, presidents have been able to spend on these wars without concern for the sources of these funds. Presidents declaring war on something applies a high level of political pressure on congress to fund the war as being "essential."
Third, declaring war quickly erodes liberties and enhances executive power. As someone who has worked closely with law enforcement, I know that red tape is frustrating. Imagine being as powerful as the President of the United States is, and you are bound by the Constitution. As the president, Article II of the constitution has some formidable restrictions for you.
Declaring war on something seems to make a great many of those restrictions go away. Also, people are willing to give up numerous freedoms during war time. Many of you have probably noticed that war has been perpetual since World War II. When the United States has not been engaged in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Libya or the multitudes of other countries U.S. forces are now in, we've always had domestic wars raging.
Of course the War on Terror is the most recent and one of the most obvious forms of unending expansion in executive power. Prohibition and the war on drugs began decades earlier and has cost countless lives, dollars, and of course time. Important issues like border control, fiscal balance, and preservation of liberty for future generations have all been brushed aside.
We are allowing ourselves to be distracted by the next "War on...(fill in the blank)", while our country is in deep need of major reforms/repairs. The presidents I respect the most are the ones reluctant to use the words crisis or war.
Is Libya really a crisis for the U.S.? Alcohol was once a "crisis" in the states., is marijuana? Can the government adequately fight a war on poverty? Is Afghanistan more a national defense interest than the violence erupting along the Mexican border?
My thoughts are, be cautious when you hear a politician declare war on something. Because of constituents, there are many pertinent issues that politicians are unwilling to face. Don't become too distracted by "their" wars. For the politician, fighting wars are much easier and have far fewer political repercussions than attempting to manage things like entitlement reform. However, the costs of these wars to us are staggering. Costing more than dollars, these wars also cost us liberty.
As always, I would love to hear from you. Feel free to comment and thanks for reading!
Can you count how many times you've heard "The War on..." throughout your lifetime? Regardless of what generation you come from, you've likely heard those words often. The War on poverty, drugs, tyranny, and terrorism. One fact is certain, our leadership is not shy about declaring war.
You see, declaring a war on something initiates multiple things. First and foremost, the word "war" immediately elevates the circumstance to a crisis level. Presidents will declare a war on something because the term "war" suggests a situation is pressing or urgent. It is a situation that demands every one's immediate attention. Often these wars become a distraction for the media, for you, and for me.
Second, because the situation is a "Crisis" requiring immediate action, all funds necessary for carrying out the "war" must be allocated. "Emergency" circumstances alleviate the pressure for balanced spending. Therefore, presidents have been able to spend on these wars without concern for the sources of these funds. Presidents declaring war on something applies a high level of political pressure on congress to fund the war as being "essential."
Third, declaring war quickly erodes liberties and enhances executive power. As someone who has worked closely with law enforcement, I know that red tape is frustrating. Imagine being as powerful as the President of the United States is, and you are bound by the Constitution. As the president, Article II of the constitution has some formidable restrictions for you.
Declaring war on something seems to make a great many of those restrictions go away. Also, people are willing to give up numerous freedoms during war time. Many of you have probably noticed that war has been perpetual since World War II. When the United States has not been engaged in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Libya or the multitudes of other countries U.S. forces are now in, we've always had domestic wars raging.
Of course the War on Terror is the most recent and one of the most obvious forms of unending expansion in executive power. Prohibition and the war on drugs began decades earlier and has cost countless lives, dollars, and of course time. Important issues like border control, fiscal balance, and preservation of liberty for future generations have all been brushed aside.
We are allowing ourselves to be distracted by the next "War on...(fill in the blank)", while our country is in deep need of major reforms/repairs. The presidents I respect the most are the ones reluctant to use the words crisis or war.
Is Libya really a crisis for the U.S.? Alcohol was once a "crisis" in the states., is marijuana? Can the government adequately fight a war on poverty? Is Afghanistan more a national defense interest than the violence erupting along the Mexican border?
My thoughts are, be cautious when you hear a politician declare war on something. Because of constituents, there are many pertinent issues that politicians are unwilling to face. Don't become too distracted by "their" wars. For the politician, fighting wars are much easier and have far fewer political repercussions than attempting to manage things like entitlement reform. However, the costs of these wars to us are staggering. Costing more than dollars, these wars also cost us liberty.
As always, I would love to hear from you. Feel free to comment and thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)