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?

How to Be Against Gay Marriage and Still Be Socially Liberal

Posted in Gay Marriage by Christopher Sarda on August 26, 2010

There is a way believe it or not, to believe that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry and not lose any socially liberal credibility. In my apparently psycho head, I can agree with someone that says: “Marriage is something that can only be between a man and a woman,” if that’s what their religion says, then so be it. I’d probably disagree with the religion as a whole anyway. In my understanding of the history and point of marriage, is that marriage is a religious institution, and since it is, why do and why should the US government and state governments recognize any marriage officially?

To the people on the right that try to compromise and say marriage is only for a man and a woman, so the gay community should seek civil unions, I say the opposite! We should abolish marriage and everyone should be able to have a civil union legally, and then you and your church, and family and friends can decide what “marriage” is, without the aid of Congress. Church and State should be separated to protect one from the other, yet no one seems to catch on to the fact that marriage itself is a religious institution.

The gay community sees that a different group of people, heterosexuals, get to do something that they don’t, marriage. What they don’t realize is that they’re fighting for the civil right to have the same government yoke on them as the heterosexuals get. The more religious heterosexuals see it as a crown, but it is a yoke, an unnecessary, mostly unconstitutional title, and saying it’s only for men and women is discrimination.

So I’ve run into a problem. I have issue, with an issue, that no one else seems to have an issue with. We’re all about stopping monuments of the ten commandments from being built on a government site, but everyone pretends marriage is secular? No it isn’t. In my position, just do to the fact that it’s wrong for the government to favor one group over another , I ‘d have to vote yes for any gay marriage initiatives that come through, but make no mistake about it, I am against gay marriage.