Palin’s inexperience is the best part
Everyone knows by now that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Although I haven't delved too much into the details of Palin's philosophy and her stands on the issues (since I don't particularly care much about either of the two state-sponsored parties and who they select to vie for the opportunity to violate the natural rights of everyone living within the borders of the American state and some of those outside), I have to comment on one facet of Palin's resume that I really appreciate. The media and the Democrats have immediately jumped on her inexperience as a fault. I agree that she's inexperienced in Washington politics and high-level politics in general---but I see that as a positive! How could you not? Do you want someone in the White House who's well-versed in the ways of using government power to oppress us and control our lives? Or do you want someone who has existed primarily outside the warped world of legalized coercion that permeates state and federal politics? I know where I fall. Don't get me wrong---I still recognize that John McCain is a statist, war-mongering parasite who doesn't understand the evil of government and wouldn't know an internally consistent philosophy if it slapped him in the face. Also, there are still plenty of items on Palin's resume that make a pure libertarian like me blanche. And I'll still do what I can do convince people not to vote for either him or his fellow parasitic, state-worshipping comrade-in-arms, Barack Obama. But I do find it amusing that Democrats are going after Palin for what is likely her best quality--her lack of experience oppressing people.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Libertarian take on Russo-Georgian War
I thought I would give my quick libertarian take on the recent Russo-Georgian War. Any libertarian analysis has to look at who is and isn't violating the non-initiation of force principle. First, government is an illegitimate institution that violates individuals' natural rights, so the people living in Abkhazia and South Ossetia had every right to declare themselves no longer under the authority of the Georgian government. Of course, any new government imposed by some the people in these regions on their fellow people, even if done "democratically" (i.e. tyranny of the majority) would be inherently illegitimate and deserving themselves of being overthrown. The Georgian government was wrong to attack these people--that was an initiation of force, which is morally unacceptable in a civilized world. The Russian government was wrong to attack the Georgian forces as a state military action (though it would have been morally permissable for private Russians to have helped Abkhazians or South Ossetians defend themselves, since it's really the use of illegitimately confiscated tax dollars to pay for the military that violates the non-initiation of force principle and makes all government military action unjust, regardless of how well-intentioned).
So, individual Abkhazians and South Ossetians--right; potential new governments in those regions--wrong; Georgian government--wrong; Russian government--wrong. I think that sums up my libertarian view of the Russo-Georgian War. What's your take?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!