Who is Liberty?

Racism and Libertarianism Time To Fight For What’s Right Part 1

Posted in happiness, nationalism, Racism by Christopher Sarda on February 25, 2011

In this quest to find out who or what liberty is and how much or how little is best I often run into small problems when I apply them to real world issues. A lot of what’s read on this blog will seem to be libertarian (not Glenn Beck libertarian I hope, more Robert Nozick). I can say that there are many things that annoy me about libertarians, the libertarian party and especially the ‘The Tea Party’.

Today is one of those days where I’m going to hang to people that are ‘liberty minded’ like myself and to a certain degree side with the dreaded socialists. The topic is racism and civil rights.

Their racism is hidden behind abstract ideas like traditional values, the national religion and even small government.


Not taking into account the tax system, the power of the state and a myriad of other political and economical issues, historically and generally, when it comes to civil tights the socialists have been correct. The conservative forces that have historically fueled segregation, racial nationalism, minority oppression, slavery and a lot prejudice in general have been shown by history to be wrong.

They’re hidden behind abstract ideas like traditional values, the national religion (or at least the contemporary understanding of the national religion), and even small government. When a politician says they are for preserving traditional values, a bell should ring in your head that the man or woman before you is supporting an idea too general to analyze or criticize and therefore is at best saying nothing of importance and at worst is using the phrase to mask another agenda. Often times that agenda has been nationalism or racism. The national religion idea is simply a falsehood, it’s the cousin of traditional values.

When the situation calls for a more secular tone, a partisan person only has to replace the phrase: “my religion” with the phrase: “traditional values.” Hiding prejudice ideals behind the banner of small government is the one that irks someone like me the most, the use of the idea of a smaller less intrusive state (or in the U.S. the idea of states’ rights) to advance oppressive ideals is the dirtiest form of hiding one’s prejudice.

It’s a testament to how far we’ve progressed as a society that the thought that a state in the US would try to limit the freedom of an African American on the grounds that it’s a “free state” and it should be allowed to oppress other human being independent of the federal government is now thought of as crazy. At least it sounds like a crazy argument to me, maybe not so much to you.

There’s so much more to say on the issue and I’ll continue with separate posts going into anti-racist movements and their compatibility with the liberty minded, how the right hijacks Martin Luther King Jr’s movement but does nothing to advance the very liberty oriented cause, and few other subtopics I’ve been mulling over. My main point is to emphasize that any oppression of any group is not who liberty is.

No duh right?

Advertisements

The Tea Party and American Nationalism Part 1

Posted in nationalism, Tea Party by Christopher Sarda on December 12, 2010

The Tea Party political movement is in danger of becoming a nationalistic psuedo-racist and fascist movement. The majority of off center political activists eventually return to their centrist roots after disappointing election results, as has been shown in past third party movements. The Tea Party movement already has a racist element and stigma hanging over it which journalist Christopher Hitchens calls “white fright.” The Tea Party’s already built infrastructure would allow extremists to take over if the majority of adherents return to the center. If such a movement were to come about, the First Amendment would protect it and counter protest would be the only way to combat such a movement.

There have been many examples in American history where third party issues have been marginalized by the major parties. These practices often knock the air out of grassroots and third party movements. People who were either apolitical or had anger at what they saw as the status quo, either return to their non-political lives or are enveloped into the centrist party that is closest to their belief system, or that appears to accommodate the off-center movements ideals. The examples in later posts will show how in the history of the United States third party movements were disrupted due to major party marginalization. Another factor that is evident and that make people make the transition from off-center movement back to their centrist roots are official election results. People excited by ideas that will bring about change are more likely to vote and answer the pre-election polls.

When official election results come in for third party movements, they almost always result in the excited activists returning down to Earth from their campaigning highs. People within the most successful off-center movements have had to find contentment in the consolation prize of “at least we affected the outcome of the election.” Failure or subtle success, mixed with the marginalization from the center parties is often enough to thin out even the largest and successful off-center movements.