Monday, March 8, 2010

American Conservatives - a third party for liberty and freedom

I was bored, so I decided to read the platform and talk about why their platform is nonsensical and the worst kind of selfish.

“We reject the practice of using Government powers for any purpose of social engineering, and we uphold the principle that the individual is sovereign; where social conduct involves personal choices, the People are best served when those choices are embraced and defended at the family and community level.”

One might read this and think: Government social engineering sounds communistic and socialistic and while I may not understand fancy things I know I prefer vaguely comforting words to vaguely menacing words; and the morons in congress want to ru(i)n my life. Although one needs to add “the morons in both parties” so it's reasonable.

Someone might see businesses that only serve certain races, or neighborhoods only accept a single race, or schools that only accept one race, and think how great everything is. They might even genuinely believe that the cost of preventing social engineering is watching through the window of a restaurant while “the blacks” eat out back. But I'd wager no one who has ever been turned away from every restaurant in their own city walks away thinking how great it is that they have the personal choice to be served from the back entrance of Denny's.

“Persons who are not citizens or resident aliens of the United States have no right to petition or benefit from any agency of the government except for petition of entry or asylum”

This makes perfect sense because people don't have intrinsic rights, they have rights because the government gives them rights and can take them away. Just don't look at the “the government doesn't give us rights we deserve them because we're people” section of the platform.

“Each adult citizen is responsible for the health, education and welfare of himself or herself and their family.”

And if some people happen to be born with a chronic illness, or in a neighborhood with broken schools, or a neighborhood where the only way to make money is to join a gang or deal drugs, and they are essentially doomed to a lifetime of poverty then that's just the cost of liberty. Don't forget, it's fair because the man making 300,000 dollars a year doesn't get to send his kids to free school either.

“We believe the proliferation of dangerous weapons (including WMD) has created a need to act against threats before they are capable of being fulfilled. We support preemption”

Once you establish suspicion as a basis for war, there's rarely any reason to ever not go to war. After all, what's the downside of sending young men to die for you overseas? Better safe than sorry, even if that means soldiers and civilians that don't look like you have to die.

“Eliminate the Department of Education, Terminate No Child Left Behind initiative and terminate federal support of the Head Start Programs”

If there's a bigger waste of money than trying to educate stupid poor people I have yet to see it. If they want to better themselves then they need to take responsibility for themselves and get their own kids private tutors like we do.

“The income tax on individuals can impose an undue burden on those earning minimal incomes. We believe a flat tax with significant personal exemptions offers the best opportunity to distribute the burden fairly.”

This makes sense as long as one assumed the problem with taxes is that the rich pay too much and the poor don't pay enough. Oh wait, their first sentence nullifies all real-world experience and studies about showing how the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer because they says so.


I hear a lot of conservatives say that they want America to be sovereign, and that means not adhering to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. They seem to imply that by joining we would be giving up our justice system, our very sovereignty, our ability to decide our own laws and punishment. There's two reasons why this is a ridiculous argument:

The ICC has received has indicted 14 people in it's 8 years of existence, and of those 14 only 5 are alive and have a court date. All of those indicted are indicted because they committed genocide or other egregious war crimes. The justice system in their nation has, for whatever reason, been unable to successfully prosecute them hence the ICC is. The implication that it will somehow usurp the US justice system is absurd once one knows the most basic facts about the ICC.

How can someone argue against the international rule of law? Specifically, how can someone argue for rule of law, just so long as we are exempt. In fact everyone else should follow it, but we don't have to because, you know, we we're such good people we don't need to anyway. How can we hope to have a moral superiority when we don't support prosecution of war criminals and people who commit genocide?