On Libertarians

Contrary to what the media would have one believe, the right is not a monolith. Thanks to the media, when people refer to the right, they generally refer to conservatives. They reference those of us who are both fiscally and socially conservative. Indeed, it is the segment of the conservative movement most often caricatured, if only because traditional values lack an effective messenger.

Then there are the libertarians.

That probably sounded really general and vaguely offensive...and you would be right.  Too many conservatives too easily throw around the term "libertarian" in a vaguely pejorative way without trying to understand what libertarians believe.  Indeed, many would find there is little difference between the two groups at their core.

Now, when I refer to libertarians, I obviously refer to the modern political ideology and philosophy.  This is the philosophy that believes in minimal possible government and maximum possible personal liberties without descending into anarchy.  Libertarians and conservatives alike are grounded on this belief when it comes to governance and living our lives. Thus, on basic philosophy, we agree.  Yet, for some reason, it is smaller issues and ideas, ranging from marriage to pot, that causes rifts on the right.

The question is, what are the precise causes of these rifts? I do not speak of the details of each issue, however. Rather, it is the mindset, the way each issue is approached, that must be understood.

Like any ideological group, there are many different kinds of libertarians.  Of all the political "camps," libertarians are the hardest to pin down (in my personal opinion).  Libertarians can hold positions that can be considered right and left.  Personally, I believe the real problem lies with those who personally adhere to a socially liberal belief system.

What many left-leaning libertarians do not seem to understand is freedom is not an end unto itself.  Liberty requires wisdom and self-governance to be used effectively.  Right-leaning libertarians understand this.  Let's take pot for an easy example.  "Conservatarians" (as some call themselves) may favor its decriminalization.  Even I kind of do, as someone who identifies as "conservative."  However, they still recognize its potential to be destructive to those who use it.  So while they believe it is not within the [federal] government's power to make it illegal, they simultaneously espouse not using it, recognizing the realities of its use.

Leftist libertarians, on the other hand, believe, like progressives, that society does not need a moral code to function.  At least, not a Biblical-based one.  They believe that liberty means being able to do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences.  As a result, there is no morally sound society to hold people back from their excesses.  Sadly, many libertarians who believe in the goodness of a Judeo-Christian based society still seem reluctant to directly advocate for well-balanced living.

That is the primary problem with libertarianism today and often what puts off conservatives from joining forces with them (and vice versa).  Without a morally grounded society, liberty can be just as dangerous as tyranny.  Indeed, without a well-regulated heart, one often becomes a slave to his or her own desires.  Those who despise tyranny place themselves under the tyranny of that which is unhealthy and evil.

This should not be taken as an indictment of all libertarians.  There are many fine ones out there, wonderful people who are merely advocates for liberty.  The problem lies in those who view liberty as an end as opposed to the means to an end.

For the point of liberty is to use it to live a prosperous and happy life, free of external constraints.

(Obviously, this particular piece is somewhat touchy and based entirely on my personal experience and observations. If you feel I've misunderstood or just disagree, feel free to leave a comment).

On Intelligence

Warning: This article may contain generalizations and simplifications.  This is all for the sake of not writing a dissertation on this subject.  I am fully aware that no single statement can account for every possible situation, belief system, random chance, etc.  There is a point beyond that. Thank you.

It feels like a major problem among today's youth is arrogance.  For some reason (that can be difficult to pin down), many feel entitled to far more than they have earned in their life.  They assume that going to college is indicative of brilliance.  They assume that graduating college entitles them to a corner office.  They think it means they are smarter than their elders.

It creates a superiority complex, one that is completely undeserved.

Let us back up a bit.  What is at the root of the arrogance of modern youth?  For one, many young people today live in an age vastly different to those that have come before.  Innovation is exploding.  Knowledge has become commonplace.  The world has truly transformed, for better or for worse, in the past century.  Many youth assume this makes them more advanced than their parents and grandparents.  They assume they have "evolved" past their elders and this makes them “better,” whether morally or functionally.

However, there is an even deeper root, that goes beyond modern technology and "values." (Note: I did not go to a dictionary for this.  What follows is purely my interpretation and should only be considered in that light).

It comes down to intelligence. Normally, when we hear this word, we think of Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. Or we think of the straight A students at school. What many seem to miss is that there are many facets to "intelligence" that go beyond the superficial perception that someone is smart. In my personal opinion, the most basic of these are "head knowledge" and wisdom.

Head knowledge is much more objective.  It is the facts we know.  It is the skills we can utilize.  Head knowledge is what has become commonplace in the modern age.

Wisdom is much more subjective.  It is the lessons we have learned from experience.  It takes head knowledge and utilizes it to grow our intelligence.  Because it takes time, it grows slower than head knowledge.  This is why, as people get older, they are generally seen as wise.

The problem is that we live in a culture that sees having a lot of head knowledge, rather than having the wisdom to use that knowledge effectively, as "being smart."  This is why common sense is no longer so common.  We teach our kids what to think, not how to think.  We teach them facts, but not how to utilize those facts.  This is why I can watch a conversation where a 17 year-old girl thinks she's morally superior and smarter than a 30 year-old woman merely because she is bright enough to go to Rutgers.

This is the kind of arrogance our culture ends up breeding.  It churns out youth who think that a university degree is worth more than a decade's worth of experience, let alone a lifetime's.  We are turning out young adults who will demand more than they are worth and whine when they don't get it. They don't want to work hard to become successful and end up being functionally useless.

And this is the path we are on.

On the Bible

A question: What is the Bible?

The Bible is many things to many people.  Of course, like anything else in the world, the reality is that it can only be one thing to everyone.  There must be one absolute truth and observation to the Bible.  Otherwise, multiple interpretations would obviously contradict themselves.

The only question is, what is that thing?  What should the Bible be seen as to the people who read it?

Traditionally, the Bible is seen as the unerring, everlasting word of God.  It was God-inspired, indicates what we are to believe regarding Him and shows us how we are to live.  In the modern era, some say this interpretation is wrong.  Many seem to believe that the Bible is an allegorical, philosophy book.  This latter interpretation brings up two important questions.

Can it be and is it?

The answer to the former question is, technically, yes.  Though one should not detach God and Christ from the principles we have been given, His principles are still timeless.  We go much farther as human beings following them because God knows what is good and healthy for us.  Following those precepts without the Holy Spirit in our hearts and guiding us will only take us so far, however.

The answer to the latter question is no.

The Bible is far more than philosophical guide; it is a promise.  We are promised salvation from eternal damnation through Christ's sacrifice on the cross.  The Bible and Christianity itself mean nothing without that event.  Furthermore, that event is dependent on fulfilling hundreds of disparate prophecies scattered throughout the history that is the Old Testament.  If only one of these are untrue, if only one is allegorical, then our faith is for nothing.  Christ died for nothing.

If the Bible can not be counted on for its truthfulness, then God is a liar.  God claims to keep His promises, but if we cannot trust His words to us (as we are told in 2 Timothy 3:15-17), then we cannot trust Him.  The Bible would contradict itself if it was only meant to be taken as philosophical allegory, as God makes important promises to people in it, whether it is land to the Hebrews or salvation to all of mankind.  Also, if God lies to us, He has no reason to expect us to follow His commandments (Deuteronomy 5:6-21; note God Himself would be violating verse 20), as He would be holding us to a double standard.  If He is just, this cannot be so.

It also suggests that the millions of martyr's through history died for a simple philosophy.  It denies them the honor of having been executed for an unshakable faith in the saving power of Jesus.  Their deaths merely become trivial and possibly foolish.  This makes no sense.  For the 11 apostles, ten of whom were executed and the last exiled, it would be senseless to die for a mere philosophy.  As noted earlier, the Christian philosophy has no power without Jesus or God behind it.  For those men who walked with Jesus Christ, they would know better than anyone whether it would be worth dying for.

Under pressure, they did not renounce their faith.  They had found a line they would not cross in their lives and it was their faith in Jesus.  Not a faith in a nebulous philosophy, but faith in the son of God, who gives far more than mere words ever could.

A big part of why many people relegate Christianity and the Bible to "philosophical guide" status is that they assume it is a just like other religious texts.  However, this assumption creates false equivalency between Christianity and other world religions.  Other religions and philosophies are not dependent on having unerring accuracy or internal cohesion.  Indeed, most do depend on their philosophies, not their histories.  The Bible, however, is different.  As noted earlier, the Bible requires its history and prophecies in order for the New Testament to make sense.  Without either, it falls apart.

We should not be tempted to concede to the idea that the Bible is allegory or philosophy.  Doing so is to claim that God's promises are false and serve only to lead people astray from salvation.

On Conservatism's Future: News Media

The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is to protect us, the citizens of the United States, from federal encroachment on our personal freedoms.  The First Amendment in particular is well known for its protections, particularly of religion and speech.  Just as important as these well-known foundations of American freedom is the freedom of the press.

Something the Founding Fathers understood was the importance of a press independent of government control.  They lived in a time where independent sources of news truly became common place.  Indeed, the war for independence may never have gained support were it not for colonial newspapers spreading the news of the fight for liberty.  That was the beginning of the proud American tradition of the free press.

Governments can always be counted on to try and exceed their mandates.  Those in power often wish to keep power.  Even those who accept the limits on their power will try to push and circumvent those limits as they are best able.  The purpose of a free press is ensure that these abuses are caught and exposed, so that free people may hold their officials accountable.

In the modern day, a vast majority of media outlets have abdicated that responsibility.  Many have become poorly disguised or open advocates for (primarily liberal) agendas.  The way stories are reported seem to always put a positive spin on the liberal perspective.  Often, that is the only viewpoint that will be expressed, leaving many ignorant to the fact there is a counterpoint.  Most egregiously, the media's adoration of Barack Obama has caused serious journalism on his administration to take a back seat.  He can do no wrong.  Any real attempt to find out the truth on the numerous lies of this White House (Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Obama's radical past, etc.) are either ignored or met with skepticism and scorn.

The objective of the press is the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be to find.  Yet, the modern press lies.  Not directly, but by omission of relevant facts, opinions and entire stories.

As it operates now, the modern press is possibly the greatest threat to the republic.

Fortunately, this may also be the easiest problem for conservatives to solve.

While the mainstream media generally tries to discredit outlets that are less liberal-leaning, it is clear that there are already many fine sources for news that are not major networks and newspapers.  Many have been started by average citizens.  Indeed, becoming a journalist does not require schooling or any sort of credentials.  All it requires is a thirst for truth and a desire to find it, no matter the cost.  Bloggers tend to discover and blow open major stories long before any mainstream outlet is inclined to even start sniffing around.

One thing suggested is the creation of more conservative-leaning television networks to counter liberal dominance.  This is an excellent idea.  While there is Fox News, there are a couple of problems.  First, Fox is not particularly conservative.  While it does have a strong right-leaning commentary and host base, this is primarily because conservatives aren't welcome at other networks.  Second, a right-leaning network would also create for a place to get a clear conservative message out on television.  It would also help remove the "stigma" Fox currently receives, despite FNC being a good journalistic outfit.  Once people see an actual conservative network, the smears will no long stick.

The logo that launched a million progressive nightmares.  We need a million more nightmares.

Ultimately, conservatives need to circumvent the current media establishment.  As I noted just now, conservative points of view are often ignored, lent less credence or shut out.  Barring a dramatic change in the leadership of the networks and the newspapers, this will continue to be so.  Thus we must continue to make our own, as we have, and push harder than ever to make our outlets appear legitimate in spite of the left.

Only then can we begin to turn around the chaotic world that is the press.