A Bit of Second Amendment Debate

I was cruising Yahoo! Answers today, as I tend to do when I get even I understand that my fantasy baseball obsession is bordering on unhealthy, and stumbled across the following question.

Why do gun control advocates always bring up hunting and/or "sport" when talking about gun rights?

I keep looking through the 2nd amendment, and I don't see anything about "hunting" or "sport" mentioned.

Maybe by "sport" they mean "violent overthrow of a tyrannical government"?

Where do they get the idea that the 2nd amendment is there to protect our right to hunt, or for "sport"?

This is a valid question. The text of the second amendment is quite amu ous (ambiguous, lol) when one insists on confining its intention to a narrow specificity. When interpreting the amendment, one must take into account the circumstances of the founding fathers.

We must bear in mind (as well as arms) that the framers of the constitution were the leaders of a violent revolution, unprecedented in its era. Therefore, the foremost goal of each word written by our initial leaders was to ensure that government remain limited at all costs.

In this sense the question is spot on. The primary purpose of the amendment is to prevent, or in the case of its establishment, reverse tyranny. The 2nd Amendment is crucial as a guarantee that government would be held accountable if it were ever to overstep its logical boundaries by declaring illegal, unadvisable wars, essentially nationalizing the financial and automotive industries by privatizing profit and socializing loss, instituting ludicrous restrictions on substance use among other personal choices, and using national security as an excuse to pulverize all reasonable conceptions of privacy. This is all purely hypothetical, of course. ;)

Regardless, the amendment's diction suggests that providing the public with a means to check the government was its intent.

Today, however, conservatives and bumper stickers insist that the amendment should hold an entirely different meaning. Instead of seeing the ownership of guns as the assurance of a capable militia, most ardent supporters of the provision believe that they are meant for personal protection, or as the question states, recreation.

Here's the reality. I'd love to say that the second amendment was written to grant every individual the right to bear arms for whatever reason they choose. But it wasn't.

Wait! NRA cardholders, don't delete us from your blogroll just yet! The rest of the reality is that any government which abridges the right of its citizenry to own or operate arms in a peaceful manner is excessively authoritarian. Yes. Exactly, that makes them tyrannical. What did we learn earlier about tyrannical governments?

That's right. The statists can't win this one. Either the government allows all citizens to bear arms via the second amendment, or, by its own decree, it has declared itself fit to be overthrown. So a technicality invalidates the most popular interpretation of the second amendment, but, by an entirely different premise, that interpretation's conclusion is correct.

ous (ambiguous, lol) when one insists on confining its intention to a narrow specificity. When interpreting the amendment, one must take into account the circumstances of the founding fathers.

An Examination of Libertarian Values

In a political climate seemingly monopolized by specialized punditry and highly technical policy arguments, the values which drive these debates are often overlooked. A loyal reader commented on last Thursday's post that she had never considered my comment that "non-aggression is the cornerstone of Libertarian thought".

Many, if not most of us, develop in a household or community which espouses a particular system of values and promotes the corresponding social, religious, and political institutions. Once these preferences have been inculcated in our minds, we make judgments easier on ourselves by relating new ideas and phenomena not to our value systems, but to the institutional inclinations we have based on those values.

Shortcuts are excellent. They save us time and increase our productivity as a result. But eventually these mental shortcuts begin to impede our reasoning processes by attempting to substitute an incomplete and finite part of the whole for the whole itself. I am frequently guilty of this myself. Because I agree so totally with the moral motivations of Libertarianism, I sometimes defer to their specific policy positions and agendas, assuming that they satisfy my values.

As tempting and facile as this chronologically conservative (in the sense of "conservation") device is, free minded individuals must eschew the blind and dogmatic deference to institutions that is necessarily effectuates.

Perhaps a delineation of what I believe to be the operative principles of Libertarianism will help some readers both recognize the motivations of the movement and inspire a politically, or even morally, oriented introspection.

1. Freedom. This should be no shock to anyone politically knowledgeable enough to know that Roe v. Wade was not a boxing match, but this value's importance to the ideology cannot be understated. In fact, any particular political position of the Libertarian movement can ultimately be traced back to the concept of liberty (hence the name). Although few of the politically conscious would claim to be anti-freedom, the controversy here lies in prioritization. For example, statists might claim that liberty is granted once one's social obligations have been fulfilled.

So paramount is the Libertarian emphasis on liberty, that the other values identified here will be defined in its context- as applications of the philosophy's eminent principle.

2. Social Liberty. I cannot speak for all Libertarians here, but the fundamental premise which leads me to the political conclusion of Libertarianism is that no human holds any inherent authority over any other. This premise also yields the inference that authority can be obtained only via contractual agreement. To me, the only acceptable reaction to the recognition of this premise as truth is to oppose laws prohibiting or limiting marriage, abortion, and drug use or ownership among others. E.g. since a homosexual couple seeking marriage obviously does not grant the government the power to restrict that option, the aforementioned premise rejects the legitimacy of the government statute which restricts the action.

3. Financial Liberty. I could argue all day about the merits of a state in which the only collected tax was one on the unimproved value of land, but in this post I would like to focus on why I, along with other Libertarians, have selected this as a governing body's best option. Following the previously presented line of thought, I believe no individual or institution has the authority to expropriate another's posession barring contractual permission. If any economic participant does not support a government operation, therefore, the wealth they create should have no part in its financing.

4. Personal Liberty. The use of force is condemend, just as usurpation, expropriation, and unjustified restriction have been by my rejection of compulsory obedience to authority. Unlike the other applications of liberty to political values, however, this one generates a need for the presence of the state. The defense of personal safety and property cannot always be conducted by the individual, and a society which ignores the rights to life, liberty, and property is indistinguashable from primitive barbarism. Thus the state is required to defend these liberties and establish justice in the event of their violation.

Hopefully this summary has helped explain what the most basic of Libertarian perspectives include, and perhaps why they are held.

The False Stigma of Libertarian Radicalism

Political factions incessantly accuse the media of a liberal or conservative bias, creating an excuse for a lack of popular support. When one considers the entire realm of political thought, however, it becomes clear that media and society are overwhelmingly dominated by centrism and compromise. Frequently the more reservedly concerned describe their political preferences as "moderate", but one rarely advertises them self as "immoderate".

Radical divergence from mainstream thought carries an inflated and incontrovertibly unjustified stigma similar to those of atheism or illicit activity. Anarchy, perhaps the terminus of Libertarian thought, is frequently associated with the violent revolts and utopian-socialist intentions of its late 19th century campaign. However, the absence of government neccessarily implies no such methodology or ideaology.

Although I have found no satisfactory answer for the media's poor or nonexistant portrayal of third party (including Libertarian) beliefs, the most realistic explanation is that news media corporations operate for profits which are maximized by the creation and distribution of content which favors the opinions of its consumer base. Despite the proclivity of many stations and programs to eschew subjective coverage, all news is unavoidably subjective based on the inclusion or exclusion of content. Choosing to do or not to do a story alone implies the subjectivity of commission/ommission.

Perhaps this is a reflection of the fatuous satisfaction of the American public- one which clearly prefers the acedia of ignorance, conformity and mental shortcuts to the thought required of political participation. It is this same ignorance that misinforms many and ultimately unfairly and innaccurately depicts the politcal viewpoints and and underlying values of radical movements.

Libertarianism in particular is victimized by this pattern. The irrational yet prevalent stigma of radicalism carries connotations of violence, destruction, and chaos. Libertarianism directly reduces violence and destruction through policy agendas, and entails no policies which should induce chaos.

Non-agression is the cornerstone of Libertarian thought, in fact. The only difference between the peaceful priorities of Libertarians and more mainstream peaceniks is that Libertarians hold government to the same standards of civility and ethical behavior as they do individuals.

Ultimately, the Libertarian political philosophy is a casuality of a lackluster PR campaign and a series of unfortunate associations. When considering the movement's actual political agenda, however, one has no choice but to recognize the error of these stigmas and define Libertarianism independent of its fellow radical ideaologies.

Just Admit it: President Obama's Policy Imitates Free Markets

President Barack Obama has been quite vocal of late in support for a system of merit pay for teachers. The obvious operative principle here is one of incentive- a monetary bonus encourages teachers to excel, resulting in a higher quality of education across the board.

Funny, but this is exactly how free markets would construct an educational system. Schools would compete for elite teachers, offering higher salaries for the most competent, and lower pay for those less capable.

The President's potential policy attempts to emulate this almost precisely, as teachers would similarly be motivated to maximize their performance through the promise of monetary gain.

So what's different about Obama's policy as opposed to the free market system? The fundamental difference lies within the firms that would, in a pure environment, be bidding for the instructors' labor. A system of public education unjustly forces uninvolved parties to finance the service of teachers at certain school, and vice versa.

Secondly, although the incentive concept is successfully replicated through the merit pay proposal, an additional burden is levied upon taxpayers through the publicized system. Where private schools nation wide would be of cost to the families of participants, the funding of public school employees is of cost to every taxpayer, and since the federal government has already decided to undertake an unprecedented, unjustified spending spree, the money will be borrowed from abroad.

Not only can we see that the "merit pay" is collected unfairly from sources which may not recieve the benefits of the funding (as they would according to free market principles), but we also see that holistically the country is disadvantaged as the funds will eventually have to be paid back with interest- ultimately costing taxpayers even more, unequally expropriated cash.

Imitation may be the most sincere form of flattery, but if President Obama could swallow his pride and implement a true market-based educational system instead of attempting to benefit from its emulation, all parties would clearly benefit.

FY 2009: Hard Evidence of Federal Falsehood via Fiscal Foolishness

Double check those Chinese calendars. 2009 was supposed to be The Year of the Ox, but all indications show that Washington is still partying like it's 2007: The Year of the Pig.

CNN reports that the House has recently passed a $410 Billion dollar spending bill. As with any "spending bill," each Congressional district helps themselves to the Pork Buffet supplied and stocked by American taxpayers.

Egregious sums of swine consumption are nothing new from the Capitol, but this particular bill- one that features a "Tatoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Project" (I mean that's how most fights I know of have started) and funding for "Maine lobster" (an ambiguous project, but one of dubious neccessity) among other superfluous expenses- casts an ominous cloud of suspicion over nascent executive Barack Obama. Obama, who signed a petition during the heat of his presidential bid vowing abstinence from pork related propositions, has turned a blind eye to continued abuse of taxpayer money.

Obama's presidential campaign expressed the sentiment that "Washington [must take] responsibility for every dime that it spends". Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering if Washington (which includes the President) has indeed taken responsibility for spending on a deep-sea voyaging fund for native Hawaiian youth?

This line of thought leaves Washington with three options:

1. Eliminate Pork, thus eliminating hypocrisy and proving the responsibility required of public servants.

2. Consider Pork Acceptable, this proves legislators' responsibility, but also their incompetence, as previously listed projects are indisputably unacceptable.

3. Disregard Pork's Unnacceptability, this is, unfortunately, the apparent modus operandi of our legislators. Assuming (generously) that they retain a modicum of intelligence, those responsible for this outrageous load of earmarks recognize the atrocity of their spending habits, and are unconcerned with the implications this has on the tremendous moral trust bestowed on them by their constituencies.

Regardless, such obviously unneccesary pork projects are abusive and abbhorent. Although the Senate will surely pass this unsavory legislation, Super Libertarian urges you to point out the discrepency between the Chinese Zodiac and Washington's spending habits by pushing hard for a Philibuster!

Intellectual Property: A Schism Among Libertarians

This is one's a toughie. Libertarianism is all about the protection of personal property. But its also all about the minimization of government. Is the free market solution (devoid of copyrights and patents) preferable to government intervention (made in defense of property rights)?

This is a question that has plagued Libertarians for some time. Separating followers of Ayn Rand from those of Murray Rothbard is no small task, but IP arguments are just irritating and divisive enough to do exactly that.

Most intellectual property laws were enacted near the beginning of the 20th Century. Obviously inventions and the arts flourished before this time, so protective laws are not necessary for their innovation or creation.

However, a world entirely devoid of intellectual property laws could admiss people duplicating books, music, and fine arts creations and passing them off as their own. Surely it would seem odd if a stranger brought a copy of Canterbury Tales to a publishing house, and legally passed it off as his own.

Although most of us would consider this an extreme case, that is exactly Rothbard's argument against IP laws. He claims that government's involvement necessitates arbitrary judgments in application saying,

"By what standard do you judge that research expenditures are 'too much,' 'too little,' or just about enough?" By what standard do you judge that research expenditures are 'too much,' 'too little,' or just about enough?"

On the other hand, products made in imitation of successful models could potentially corrupt the reputation of the original, an offense that could be considered fraud and, as such, indisputably denounced by libertarians.

This subject remains perplexing to me, and I would love to hear any additional arguments via the comments thread.

Politician Profile: The Savvy and Salacious Yulia Tymoshenko

Although most of Superlibertarian's news and commentary relates to American issues, we recognize that the fight for liberty is a global one. In this light, it is our responsibility to remain journalistically objective to nationality.

That was the best excuse I could think of to talk about Yulia Tymoshenko. She a Ukranian politician, currently serving as Prime Minister. In fact, she brings new meaning to the title "Prime" Minister.

By emphasizing (via quotation marks) the word "Prime", I am of course referring to her anti-socialist political reputation. The Wikipedia article is very clear on this. If you made it past the picture, you may have read that the Ukranian parliamentary election of 2007 proved victorious for the remarkable subject of this post. Apparently her main opposition was a perfectly respectable (or so we were led to believe) Ukranian gent named Yanukovych. The articles then continues,

"... one of [Yanukovych's] coalition allies, the SOCIALIST PARTY of UKRAINE... "

Clearly, Tymoskenko's fortunate election saved the Ukranian's from the nefarious throes of a socialist state. Not only that, but rumor has it that she owned Miss Teen South Carlolina 2007 in the talent portion.

The least we can do to (for lack of a better phrase) show our appreciation to Mrs. (Ms.???) Tymoshenko is salute her with a classic Seinfeld reference,

"THE UKRAINE IS NOT WEAK!!!"