Social Conservatism, not Immigration, is the Republican Party's Big Problem

The Republican Party's only hope of winning the White House in 2016 hinges on passing immigration reform, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

AP reports that Graham, one of the so-called "gang of eight" senators who wrote the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill, "told conservatives who are trying to block the measure that they will doom the party and all but guarantee a Democrat will remain in the White House after 2016’s election." "[I]f we don’t pass immigration reform. . . ," said Graham, "it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016. We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party. . . ."

Leaving aside the pros and cons of the current CIR bill, the Republican Party's problem is much broader than immigration reform: Its problem is the dominance in the party of social conservatives. These mostly religious conservatives seek to broadly violate rights by legally imposing their own moral agenda, which includes not only hostility toward immigrants but legally banning abortion and gay marriage, restricting or banning stem cell research, ongoing attempts to erode the separation of church and state, etc.

If the GOP wants to save itself, it must adopt a genuine right-wing, pro-liberty platform. This means, it must reject the authoritarian agenda of social conservatives and embrace social liberty.

By adopting social liberty—while also deepening its traditional commitment to free markets and economic liberty—the GOP could draw in liberty lovers from across the political spectrum, many of whom are suspicious of the Dems' economic authoritarianism but are  turned off by social conservatism. As for immigrants, most are drawn to America for the increased freedom, so a consistent, genuine platform of individual liberty would undoubtedly resonate with many of them as well.

But the GOP must orient its agenda around explicit principles—the principles of individual rights and limited, rights-protected government. If they merely pass an immigration bill for political expediency, they won't do much to tip the demographic scales or stem their continuing slide into political irrelevance. Voters can recognize a hollow gesture when they see one.

Purging its platform of the rights-violating elements of the social conservative agenda and embracing liberty across the board is the GOP's best and only path to political dominance in 2016 and beyond.

Related:

My Objective Standard Review: American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party

My Challenge to the GOP; a Philosophical Contract With America

An "Extremist" GOP is Just What We Need

Money is Not Speech, but a Means to Speech

This letter appeared in the NJ Star-Ledger on May 10, 2013:

Treat all money as free speech

The First Amendment guarantees the rights of free speech and government petition to all people subject to its laws. In fact, the entire democratic enterprise is founded upon the idea of communication of one’s ideas and opinions to government representatives and officials.Because a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that money is speech (Citizens United decision), it would seem that the laws against giving money to government officials, directly or indirectly, to influence their decisions is not bribery, but only the exercise of First Amendment rights.And if that is indeed the case, then laws criminalizing such monetary speech should be struck from the books and let participatory democracy run rampant.Jack Colldeweih, Somerset

I left these comments:

RE: "Treat all money as speech"

Jack, your comparison of people spending their own money on advocating their ideas to bribery is a moral perversion.

And you're also wrong about the Court's decision.

The court did not rule that money, as such, is speech. It ruled that money is a means to exercising free speech, and thus restricting spending for the purpose of speech violates the First Amendment.

The court is correct. The right to free speech, like all rights, implies the right to employ the means required to exercise that right. When people spend their own money on their own speech, whether as individuals or in voluntary association and cooperation with others--as with a corporation or a labor union--they are well within their moral and First Amendment rights.

Restricting people's right to spend their own money as they judge best is tantamount to restricting their free speech rights. The Supreme Court protected all of our vital free speech rights in the Citizens United case. They most certainly did not sanction actual bribery. If free speech is bribery, then the whole point of "participatory democracy" is bribery. What is the point of free speech and political advocacy, if not to influence the decisions of government officials?

*****

If there is a stench of covert bribery in political and issue advocacy, blame the mixed economy, in which government has the illegitimate power to dispense economic favors to some at the expense of others. If you want to stop that rampant, corrupt practice, reign in the government's power over the economy. Don't trash the First Amendment.

Dramatic Advance in Cloning Technology Holds Promise for Dramatic Advance for Medical Treatment

My latest post at The Objective Standard blog highlights a major breakthrough in cloning technology that will enable scientists to produce a virtually unlimited supply of stem cells derived from a patient's own DNA. This will enable personalized medical treatment in the form of replacement of diseased organs and cells without the threat of bodily rejection.

Read Scientists Advance Toward Genetically Perfect Replacements for Diseased Cells.

Cloning is controversial, however. Opposition to cloning comes mostly from religionists based on the mystic mythology that considers an embryo to be a person, in contravention to the obvious physical facts of reality. These opponents claim to be pro-life, even as they seek to subordinate the health of actual living human beings to a microscopic cluster of cells containing stem cells that haven't even begun differentiating into specialized human cells and organs, let alone become an actual human being.

Essentially, there are two types of cloning, reproductive and therapeutic. Most American scientists, reports Melissa Healy in the article I linked to, have (unfortunately) “squarely renounced” reproductive cloning, and 13 states have outlawed it, as have most industrialized countries (though not the U.S. federal government). But the work of the Oregon scientists falls under the category of “therapeutic cloning for research and medical treatment,” for which there is much less resistance among so-called “bioethicists.” Even President Bush’s 2002 The President’s Council on Bioethics, which urged a ban on reproductive cloning, refused to do the same regarding therapeutic cloning.

That doesn’t mean that therapeutic cloning is completely in the clear, however. Seven states ban it, and there are calls—such as from Johns Hopkins University bioethicist Jeffrey Kahn—to enforce “consistent national limits” on the practice. And some states have placed legal limits on compensation for egg donors. This could restrict the supply of donor eggs, which are critical to this avenue of research and treatment. Anyone who values their own and their loved one’s health should fight such rights-violating restrictions.

Still, therapeutic cloning is legal in most states, and that’s great news. While speculating about the ultimate practical benefits of theoretical science is always uncertain, the work of the heroic OHSU scientists should cheer every life-loving human being, for the door to treatments for currently untreatable or incurable diseases has just been cracked open wider—perhaps much wider.

For more of my Objective Standard posts, click here.

Related Reading:

Heroes at Harvard by Craig Biddle

The Eminent Domain Assault by Readington Against Solberg Land is Democracy in Action—and Un-American

My hometown of Readington Township, New Jersey, has been the scene of a long-running battle over a large swath of land surrounding Solberg Airport. This is a small local airport owned by the Solberg family, descendants of aviation pioneer Thor Solberg. The township wants to seize 725 acres of the Solberg's undeveloped land that surrounds its 102 acre facility, to preserve as "open space." Underlying the drive to keep Readington "green" is the fear that Solberg may eventually be expanded, possibly into a major regional jetport akin to JFK International.

In an article titled Readington continues legal battles to keep land around Solberg Airport green, Renee Kiriluk-Hill writes:

The process is driven, in part, by a $22 million bond ordinance that voters approved in 2006. The approval essentially requires the township to either acquire 625 open acres surrounding the airport and the development rights to about 100 acres used for airport operations, or to negotiate a settlement with the airport owners.This year the township is budgeting $275,000 for legal expenses for the Solberg case and routine business before the Township Committee, Planning Board and other local government bodies. 

I love the term "negotiate" in this context. The Solberg's choice is either to "agree" to "voluntarily" sell their land to Readington, or have it seized through eminent domain. If this sounds like a mob boss "making an offer you can't refuse," it is exactly that. To call that a "negotiation" is an insult to any rational person's intelligence.

The editors of the Hunterdon County Democrat subsequently argued that "Taxpayers have a right to decide for themselves if they are getting the value they deserve for continuing the legal dispute with the Solbergs." 

Both miss the crucial point. Both the editors and Kiriluk-Hill speak of "voters" and "taxpayers" as if they are homogeneous wholes; i.e., entities separate from and above individual voters and taxpayers. But what about taxpayers who oppose the entire initiative, rendering that question moot?

That question was the subject of my letter-to-the-editor published in the Hunterdon County Democrat under the heading The government is abusing its legal powers in Readington:

"To the editor:

"In a May 21 article on NJ.com about Readington continuing it legal battles to keep land around Solberg Airport green, Renee Kiriluk-Hill reported that this year Readington has budgeted thousands of dollars for 'legal expenses' related to this 'battle,' as has been the case over the past eight years. She notes that, 'The process is driven, in part, by a $22 million bond ordinance that voters approved in 2006.'

"But not all voters approved of this bond issue, which underpins the efforts to seize the Solberg’s land through eminent domain. That there are voters who didn't vote for the bond issue might seem obvious, but this fact deserves serious consideration.

"I oppose eminent domain on moral grounds. Whether the purpose is to keep land 'green' or to head off airport expansion, it is simply unjust to use government’s legal powers — essentially the power of the gun — to confiscate private land against the owner’s wishes. It is likewise unjust to force those who disagree to finance this outrage through their taxes.

"Some would say to me, 'That’s democracy, majority rules.' Yes, it is, and that is the most damning indictment of democracy: that it grants the majority the power to trample the rights and violate the consciences of the minority. The government should not have the power to impose any voting bloc’s desire to violate others’ rights.

"Government’s proper purpose is to protect individual rights, including rights to property and freedom of conscience, from criminals who violate rights by initiating force or fraud. The legal assault against the Solbergs, being pursued under the veneer of false legitimacy accorded by democracy, turns the government’s very reason for being on its head."  

The township claims the right to seize the land in order to preserve it as "open space" and to prevent the airport from being expanded. My sense is that using eminent domain to stop development is a much harder sell in the courts than the open space rational. But, make no mistake, fear of a larger airport is the driving force behind the issue. When  the issue first arose, it was controversial. The township was sprinkled with competing signs, some demanding "No Jets," and others stating "Stop Eminent Domain! It is Un-American." 

My wife and I plan to live in Readington for a long time, so I do not want to see Solberg expanded into a jetport. But  the erosion of property and other individual rights is the real threat to our well-being. The Solbergs have an inalienable right to use their property as they see fit, so long as that use doesn't violate the rights of others—that is, initiate force or fraud against others. If this means I may someday have to live in a town with a jetport, so be it.

Doesn't the community have a say in the matter? No. The "community," as such, has no rights, because it doesn't exist as an entity. Like any other group by any other name (voters, taxpayers), a community is a loose aggregate of individuals, who each possess rights individually. If the community has the right to impose its will on individuals, then in practice some individuals have the right to impose their will on other individuals. No one can have that right: That is, no one has the right to declare "the community, c'est moi," and impose "the community's" will on others at the point of a governmental gun.

Don't surrounding residents, as individuals, have rights? Of course; the same rights as the Solbergs. If they believe that airport operations pose an objective physical danger to their lives and property, beyond the normal risks associated with air travel, they can seek government action (through the courts) to have those risks remediated. For a good explanation of how the rights of surrounding residents play into this issue, listen to Yaron Brook answer the question Should the government regulate the use of private property if that use creates risks for its neighbors?  

The government does have a role in mediating disputes among individuals. But it has no role outside of the context of a physical threat to the lives and properties of others, and may not regulate or prohibit the use of property simply because some people feel that they may be inconvenienced.

Of course, what I just described is relevant in a free market, and we don't have a free market today. The government does regulate airports. In the current context, the Solbergs would have to apply to state and federal aviation agencies for any expansion plans. Be that as it may, that is their right, and so is it the local residents' right to participate in that process as proscribed by law. The threat to steal the Solberg's land should not be part of that process.

Related Reading:

Eminent Domain—Always an Abuse

Honoring American Heroes...Forgetting American Ideals

Is the Right to Life the "Right to Be?"

This letter appeared recently in the NJ Star-Ledger, under the heading "Bad Decisions":

More than 150 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the Dred Scott decision that blacks should be “considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings.” Fortunately, the 14th Amendment overturned that decision. 

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court declared in Roe v. Wade that a baby growing inside its mother should not be considered “human” but instead disposable. 

The Constitution, in guaranteeing all citizens “right to life,” assures we have the right to “be,” whether in the womb or outside. The Supreme Court does not always decide wisely. It’s time to overturn a bad decision. 

Carolyn Glodek, Colonia

I left the following comments:

RE: Bad Decisions

The Constitution, in guaranteeing all citizens “right to life,” assures we have the right to “be,” whether in the womb or outside. -- Carolyn Glodek, Colonia

The constitution guarantees no such thing. If the "right to life" meant simply the right to "be," then the rights of any political prisoner rotting in any dictator's dungeon are not being violated so long as he receives minimal food, water, and shelter. The same goes for any slave held for forced labor. 

Rights can not be understood except in their total context. The Declaration of Independence, the philosophical blueprint for the constitution, recognizes the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without the liberty to act on one's own judgment, one cannot pursue his own happiness, thus stifling his life. Life and liberty are inextricably interlinked. Clearly, this context applies to actual, living, born individuals, not potential or developing humans beings inside of a woman's womb. The 14th Amendment clearly supports this view: It refers specifically to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."

The right to life applies to the woman and the woman only.  There is no right to be, only the right to pursue one's own being; i.e., no right to life at the price of another person's life and liberty. If a fetus has  a "right to life" at the expense of the woman's rights to life and liberty, then her rights are not unalienable, and the whole concept that Americanism rests upon evaporates. Here again, the 14th Amendment: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If the "rights" of the unborn supersede the actual rights of the born person, then that person--the woman--is being denied "equal protection" of her rights if she is forbidden from deciding for herself on reproductive issues. We either have rights "in the womb" or "outside" the womb, but not both. 

The very idea that rights apply only inside the womb, then disappear at birth, is absurd on its face. If the woman doesn't have a right to her life, then on what basis do the unborn have rights?

The reference to slavery in Glodek's letter is indeed analogous: Compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is akin to slavery.

One final note: Glodek states that "Roe v. Wade [declared] that a baby growing inside its mother should not be considered 'human' but instead disposable." That's not what Rowe said. Of course, a fetus is human. The issue is rights.

Related Reading:

Abortion: It's When Rights, not Life, Begin

My 3-part Abortion Statement, listed in reverse order.

Immigration is Both Moral and Practical

On Immigration Reform, the GOP Gangs Up on Blue-Collar Workers, NJ columnist Paul Mulshine challenges the GOP's immigration reform supporters who argue that we need more immigrants to fill an alleged "labor shortage." 

Mulshine's retort: "There are no jobs Americans won’t do. There are only jobs Americans won’t pay to have done." 

He goes on to say that these GOPers support for immigration "amounts to a double-cross of America’s blue-collar workers."

Mulshine highlights the futility of relying on the collectivist utilitarian argument in support of a rights-based immigration policy, and avoiding the fundamental moral issues involved in the immigration debate. The utilitarian argument opened the door to Mulshine's attack.

I left these comments:

Fundamentally, the immigration issue doesn't revolve around utilitarian arguments. The question is moral: What right does anyone have to stop any person who poses no health, criminal, or national security risk from working and living in America (or any country), and employers from voluntarily hiring them?

Citizenship is another matter, and that issue should be separated from any immigration bill. While morally upstanding people have an inalienable right to live and work where they choose, their is no right to naturalized citizenship. Immigration and citizenship are separate issues.

I view freedom of migration and freedom of trade as inextricably linked. Just as free trade is a moral right, so too is free migration. There is no justification for saying we should have open borders for the flow of goods, but not people.

Americans are not a collective that owns the continent any more than the Indians owned it. Just as others rightfully immigrated here in the past, so too may others do so today. In crafting our immigration policy, we should remember the exalted status of the individual codified in the Declaration of Independence, and the plaque inside the Statue of Liberty stating the Land of the Free's openness to liberty-seekers.

Others replied to my comments, to which I added the following:

The struggling jobs market has to do with the increasingly crushing regulatory welfare state, not immigration or free trade. In the 19th Century, America grew from an impoverished third-rate colony to the world's greatest industrial power. There was no welfare state to speak of and minimal government interference into the economy. Yet the economy grew dramatically (despite the drag of high tariffs), particularly between the Civil War and WW I. Real wages rose steadily, life expectancy grew, the standard of living soared, and the middle class was born. All of this happened, and  jobs were plentiful, even as the country absorbed millions upon millions of mostly poor immigrants. Immigrants not only fill jobs, but start businesses and create them.

But again, the issue is moral, not utilitarian. And the moral is the practical, which is why a rational, just open immigration policy would be a boon to the economy. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Mr. Mulshine on this. We need to focus on reigning in statism within our borders, not people who want to live and work here.

Yes, Marylou, as people you can compare [past immigrants to today's]. The only difference is that many of today's immigrants are relegated to black market status by unfair immigration laws. (I realize that a growing percentage of immigrants come here to feed off of our welfare state. But, that's a welfare state problem, not fundamentally an immigration problem.)

No one should have to pay for food stamps, because no one is entitled to another person's wallet. Forced redistribution of wealth is immoral and corrupt in all of its forms, whether the recipient is from across the globe or across the street, legal or illegal.

Related Reading:

Time to Rethink Immigration

The Truth about Trade in History, CATO

Big Government vs. Big Business; or, Political Power vs. Economic Power

This letter appeared in the NJ Star-Ledger on April 26, 2013:

Tax rates don’t matter 

One need go no further than Page 11 of the April 25 Star-Ledger ("Corporate tax-dodging is simply unpatriotic") to refute the finding of PolitiFact N.J. on Page 9 of the same edition.
While it may be technically true that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, no corporation actually pays it. Factoring in creative accounting, subsidies, loopholes and offshore tax havens, corporations pay little or no tax.
A Feb. 7 Star-Ledger article states, "The amount of taxes that companies and wealthy individuals avoided paying in 2011 thanks to overseas tax havens would equal New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning’s reported salary for the next 185 years, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group found."
It is not big government that is the enemy. It is Big Business, Big Corporations and Big Banks that are bleeding the American taxpayer dry and destroying the middle class.
Barbara Wirkus, Kenilworth

I left the following comments:

RE: Tax Rates Don't Matter

"It is not big government that is the enemy. It is Big Business, Big Corporations and Big Banks that are bleeding the American taxpayer dry and destroying the middle class."

Barbara, how is it that companies legally keeping more of the money they earn by providing goods, services, and jobs is "bleeding the American taxpayer dry and destroying the middle class?" The money the government doesn't tax doesn't come out of other taxpayers pockets, and the middle class wouldn't exist if not for those goods, services, and jobs.

Your conclusion is morally inverted. It is those who want "Big Government" to seize more of these company's earnings who are looking to do the bleeding and destroying.

At the root of this letter is Wirkus's evasion of the difference between government and private entities; of force vs. non-force. She not only equivocates between the two; she inverts them. This is akin to pinning the badge of morality to the armed robber, and tagging his victim as the bad guy.

Related Reading:

Patriotism and the Welfare State

Obama, "the Lord's Work," and the Real Goliath

The Dollar and the Gun by Harry Binswanger