Removing the mask

For years libertarians have described their philosophy in terms of allowing people to do as they wish so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. The less public face of their movement was to allow businesses to operate with as little government intervention as possible in order to maximize their profits.

So, while the one hand called for the freedom of individuals to have sex with whomever they wanted, to do recreational drugs in their homes and to be left alone by the nosy neighbors, the other hand called for an end to unionization, worker safety, environmental protection and the minimum wage. But, surprisingly enough, no one raised their voice about the price of a product reflecting its true cost.

Let me explain, gasoline is sold fairly cheaply compared to what it really costs society (but believe me, I'm none too happy to see that price edging upward whenever I have to fill up the tank). The price we pay at the pump doesn't take into account the cost of operating military bases in other countries in order to ensure the oil flows from the ground into tankers and into US ports. The price doesn't include the damage to the environment caused by extractive industry.

The libertarians aren't losing any sleep over this failure of the market. They don't care about the environmental damage because "the environment" isn't private property; therefore it's free to pollute to your heart's extent. Think of Adam Smith and the tragedy of the commons. And the libertarians are more than happy to use your tax dollars to fund the military occupation of other countries so long as it means the flow of oil continues uninterrupted.

Libertarians have always puffed their chests out proudly with their veneration and love for "the market." They have long preached the gospel of the unfettered market. Throw anything up against the wall - be it a good, a service, an idea - and the marketplace will sort it out and determine which goods, services and ideas are winners and which are losers. The idea was that the more stuff you put out there, the more options everyone had to choose from.

But now, as racism has become more acceptable with Donald Trump in the White House, the true face of libertarianism is making itself seen. Michelle Ray, who goes by the handle @GaltsGirl (an Ayn Rand reference for those of y'all not familiar with libertarian deities), thinks private businesses should be free to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or whatever other criteria they wish to use.

Michelle Ray‏Verified account @GaltsGirl

Don't look at me. I think a privately owned business should be able to discriminate for any reason at all. And then to deal with the market reaction to such discrimination.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that I doubt Ms. Ray spent her formative years in the American South in the 1950's and 60's. I'm also going to guess that Ms. Ray is white - again, not too much of a leap. According to Ms. Ray's philosophy, segregated schools, housing, restaurants, bus lines, trains, water fountains and restrooms are fine. If folks aren't happy with such discrimination, they are free to take their business elsewhere. Does she not understand history? Does she not understand that racial discrimination existed because the majority of (white) people were in favor of it?

So, in conclusion, I'd like to thank Ms. Ray -- and all those folks who liked her post - for speaking up and showing the world what libertarianism is really all about.

Two sides of the same coin

For the past couple of weeks about all we've heard from the presidential campaign are attacks on the personality and temperment of the candidates. There have been few mentions of actual policy differences (with the notable exception of immigration). Why is that?

I would posit that it's because there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. While they speak in generalities about economic, foreign and social policy, neither of them is going to challenge the basic tenets upon which American capitalism rests. Neither one of them is willing (or able) to acknowledge that we must rethink what passes for an energy policy. Drilling more holes in the ground will only make matters worse when it comes to the climate and our sustainability on this planet.

Neither candidate is going to change our petroleum driven foreign policy. Neither one is going to abandon autocrats and and dictators who either do our bidding or from whom we are dependent upon for resources (be they oil fields, minerals or landing rights).

Both candidates are beholden to the corporate ruling class - Clinton because she is dependent upon their campaign dollars and Trump because he is one of them.

Both candidates will sit and watch as our protections under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are watered down even further in the name of keeping the streets safe.

Oh, wait, you say. Now you're talking about the Supreme Court - there's where a difference exists between the candidates. Clinton will appoint judges who are left of center and Trump will appoint judges who are on the right. Those choices will affect jurisprudence for a long time to come.

Or will they?

The change in the composition of the court has done nothing to stop the constant erosion of the Fourth Amendment. The fact remains that bad facts make bad law. Most of the decisions that helped to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment were on cases in which the defendant had either done something really bad or had a lot of bad stuff in his possession. Lower courts (in which judges face the voters) will bend over backwards not to throw out the conviction. And, by the time the matter gets before the Supreme Court, the justices can find almost any justification for further restricting our rights.

And then there is the nagging little fact that what is constitutional or not is determined by the votes of nine men and women who attended Ivy League law schools and have little (or no) experience working in the trenches. What is a constitutional protection today could be gone tomorrow and put back in place a year from now. Let us also not forget that no one party is going to control 2/3 of the Senate. That means anyone who is nominated is going to go through a grueling process (and, by the way, the same holds true for other federal judicial appointments).

Let's not give in to the fear-mongering from both sides. The republic will not collapse upon the election of either Clinton or Trump. The Constitution will remain a document upon which a group of fallible men and women decide what the government can and cannot do.

Don't settle for the candidates being sold to us by the ideologically and morally bankrupt major parties. Go out on election day and vote your conscience. A vote cast for one candidate in order to prevent the other one from winning is a tacit surrender to a corrupt corporate system.

Don't wave the white flag in November.