Freedom needs more than simply removing a dictator

Egyptian leader Mohamed Morsi is gone, and his supporters aren't happy. There have been clashes between them and the authorities who replaced Morsi for several days now, and it appears they will continue, with much loss of life. Meanwhile, a civil war continues to rip apart Syria, and unrest threatens the peace in Gaza. All of this while the Middle East is still under the shadow of the vaunted Arab Spring which was supposed to move that area into the fold of supposedly enlighten democracies.

It's a dose of reality which, one would hope, might cause western liberals and libertarians to rethink themselves and their positions. They simply don't want to accept that merely removing a dictator doesn't mean that better days are ahead. Indeed if history teaches us anything, it teaches that, far too often, it simply puts in place another dictator.

The supporters of the Arab Spring are little different than those who cheered the fall of the Shah of Iran in the late 1970s. But what was left in its wake? An Iran under a far greater tyranny which lasts until today. An Iran which, you may notice, was strangely unaffected by the protests within other Arabic nations.

So while there appears to have been some progress towards more democratic societies in the Middle East, the steps taken have been small and uncertain. And that's where there has been no widespread violence or upheaval. Only the richer nations seem to be weathering the storm well.

That says something, something the left and libertarians don't seem to recognize. There are two factors at play here. The first is that popular uprisings or popular movements generally only work out in the long run where there is a reasonably educated leadership. The transition from apartheid in South Africa to a reasonably stable democracy was fueled by a body politic which had leaders who respected the people and had some idea of how to lead and where to lead them. What they sought was accomplished over much time, and with the needed patience necessary to the long term health of the movement and its host nation as well. The second is that of prosperity. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis made reforms because, while the demand for change was extant, there was a corollary understanding that they were reasonably well off anyway. No one wanted to rock that boat too harshly, lest it list and eventually sink.

You can't just throw out a dictator without a solid alternative available. Even then, that alternative must be reasonable; far too many people have the idea that the solution to a dictator is merely his removal. We see in Egypt that that is nothing less than shortsighted. At worst, it will lead to a worse dictator, or even something worse than that. It could well lead to a civil war which will only put a nation light years behind attaining a true and good democracy.

Trickle Down Works: Obamacare Proves it

According to NBC News Online this morning, businesses across the United Sates are cutting employee hours down to 29 per week or less in order to avoid the requirements of Obamacare. Small businesses tend to have narrow profit margins, and the cost of providing health care for their employees is simply too much of a hardship.

This will hurt the very people whom the left and the Democratic Party claim to hold in such esteem. They're the ones for the poor and underemployed. They're the ones for the little guy.

The looming Obamacare regulations are hurting that guy in precisely the same way as the Cash For Clunkers program hurt him. Cash For Clunkers destroyed the used car market precisely because it required old models to be destroyed. Consequently, what used cars there were became higher priced. It's simple supply and demand: high demand plus fewer resources make the cost of the resources jump. And who does that hurt most?

The working poor, the lower classes. The same ones who are going to be crunched by Obamacare.

Trickle down economics does work, and in both directions. Reagan proved in a positive way, leading the longest sustained period of peacetime economic growth in our history. President Obama is proving it in a profoundly negative manner, and it is hurting the folks who most need help.

It's Okay to Stand Your Ground

The Ann Arbor City Council wants to see the repeal of the Michigan Stand Your Ground law. But why?

Is self defense wrong? Because if it is, it won't be long until the criminals rule the roost. If an assailant of any type knows that you cannot fight back without endangering yourself before a more omnipotent force (which is the law), he will press harder and become bolder. Common sense tells us as much.

Because of Trayvon Martin? Zimmerman was found not guilty, folks. If anything, the case supports stand your ground.

Because some people will push the law to the limit? Yet that can happen with almost any law; if such is the basis for repealing laws, then repeal them all, for they all might be abused.

We will readily concede that there are times when common sense tells you to back down, to retreat, even, if circumstances demand that. We will even concede that some folks will make poor judgments which could lead to escalating rather than diffusing a situation. Yet we will at the same time assert that poor judgment by others doesn't mean a law, and that means any given law, is bad.

People do bad things; they make mistakes. If human perfection is your demand in anything, whether law, morality, or practical matters, are decided upon, you were born in the wrong universe. Humanity is not perfect; neither with its laws be. You simply cannot tie the hands of the reasonably rational majority for the sake of the stupid or evil. At that point, stupid and evil win.

A Write-in Candidate Wins in Detroit

Say whatever you want about the real value of elections. Say what you will about how one vote doesn't count. Sneer, even, at the entire election process. Because no matter what you say, think, or do, what happened yesterday in the Detroit mayoral primary is impressive and significant. A write in candidate not only won a spot on the general election ballot this November, he also came in first.

Mike Duggan was the top vote getter in yesterday's primary, and not by a small margin. He won almost half the ballots, and as a write in candidate. He was forced to do so after a court had rejected his spot on the ballot. This is more than a historical footnote. It's almost unthinkable.

True, Duggan had name recognition. True, too, that he had the support of both major Detroit newspapers, the Free Press and the News. True as well that he may have been helped by having been unceremoniously ordered off the ballot. The fact is that voters are a rather lazy lot. Yet over 44,000 of then in the city of Detroit took the time to write someone's name on their ballot.

It may well mean than the November election is a foregone conclusion. Benny Napoleon was supposedly the front runner yet was beaten by 16 percentage points. He already, arguably, has about half the electorate against him. Duggan needed barely four percent more voters for a majority yesterday; how can he not gain that much two months from now?

Okay, it's not over til it's over. Officially. But this one's over, folks. Mike Duggan will be the next Mayor of Detroit. We'll talk to you again about it on November 6.

Should Detroiters Bother to Vote Tomorrow?

There is a primary election in Detroit tomorrow, and it may be either the most or least important one in the city's history.

Seeing as Detroit is under the power of Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr and the people running for mayor and city council will be virtually powerless for at least the first year or so of their terms, any election right now seems unimportant. Even when they get real power, the bankruptcy which Detroit is facing may well determine what they can and cannot do for a few years after that. About the only really interesting aspect of the vote is Mike Duggan's write in candidacy for mayor. It would be an interesting side note to our history should he pull that off successfully.

Too, for the first time Detroiters will get to vote for council members by district, with two others elected at large. It is hope that, in the long run, this will give more power to the city's neighborhoods. That does make sense, but only time will tell.

ll that said, we can't shake the feeling that tomorrow's primary is a pointless endeavor. Why not wait until the EM is gone and save Detroit that much cash in salaries and benefits? But we may be missing something important with that question and will not insist upon it.

So, go ahead and vote. We suppose it must be worth something or they wouldn't be holding and election, right?

Whither Liberty?

The gay marriage issue appears settled, in both the United States and much of the western world. That's not surprising, considering the widespread application of 'liberty' we have seen over the last few decades. We have no problem with liberty per se, of course; a well regulated liberty is to be sought and prized. But we wonder how many folks actually consider what a well regulated liberty means.

It surely does not mean that we can do absolutely anything we want. Were that to be the case, then we would be supreme hypocrites to call any action by anyone else wrong. It would impossible to call the terrorists, not to mention the murderers and rapists, wrong. So there are barriers to liberty. Or, at least, as any rational observer would say, that we are not at liberty to do ill to others.

The next question becomes, then, are we at liberty to do anything we want with ourselves? This question involves the aspect of liberty which calls on us to be self regulating, and, interestingly, it is also the aspect of liberty most libertarians, we think, anyway, wish to avoid. We cannot help but feel they would like if it did not exist at all, for it demands of the individual that he, perhaps, should not do things he may very well wish to do. Regulating the self means telling the self that some things may be wrong even if they don't, on the surface, violate that old libertarian bugbear of not doing violence. It may mean being forced to admit that violence against another is more than an overt act. It may mean having to conclude that violence against another may constitute actions which seem wholly personal but in fact still harm the body politic as well as the person.

It goes almost without saying, though it must be said so that everyone hears, when you do wrong, it may encourage others to do wrong. That's simply the other side of the equation which involves doing right; if we lead best by example, as is so often said, then examples of doing wrong surely encourage wrongdoing. Even when the wrongdoing 'doesn't hurt anyone'.

This puts the civil libertarians in a pickle. They must either argue that we don't need to be self regulatory, or they must argue that certain (presumably nonviolent) acts almost universally accepted as wrong (before now, anyway) are in fact right either on their own standing or, as the supporters of gay marriage and the like argue, if the person or persons involved think so.

The obvious problem is that, should such be true, then all any person would need to do to justify doing wrong is to assert that it's right for them. What we have here in the long run is a recipe for the end of all liberties, real or imagined. If we are not obliged to be self regulatory, if we are not obliged to ask ourselves whether we should commit an act or not even if it seems to affect no one else, then we have no obligation at all. And if we have no such obligation at all, any talk about freedom and liberty is spurious.

We have said before that we believe libertarians to be moral relativists. We stand by that assertion. This is why.

Zimmerman is the Devil!

We notice this morning, in a headline on AOL, that George Zimmerman was pulled over for speeding. Further, he had a gun in his car (which he admitted to police shortly after having been pulled over). Further still, he was (gasp!) going nowhere in particular. Oh dear.

Give it up, mass media. The man was found innocent. Every detail of his life simply is not nor ought to be public knowledge. Why are you continuing your attempts to hang him high?

Because the media has to stir the pot. Also, the media can't be wrong. With the entire Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin ordeal, we have examples of both. There is the sensationalism which drives modern journalism hand in hand with the need to find Zimmerman guilty of something. As a result, he won't be left alone for a long, long time. He's evil, and it must be shown.

Yet who is really the evil one here? The man found innocent of a heinous crime, or the paparazzi of what Rush Limbaugh so rightly calls the drive by media?