National Atheist Party – No Thanks

Recently I have been catching up on my commute-time podcasts.  Both The Thinking Atheist and The Non-Prophets talked with representatives of the National Atheist Party.

The NAP was founded last year as a reaction to the increasing theocratic rhetoric that is infesting American politics.  In all honesty I can understand the sentiment.  However while the goal is laudable I think the approach is flawed.  The problem is that atheism offers no insight into how one approaches anything else in the political sphere.  Both podcasts nailed this point but The Thinking Atheist really brought it to a head by asking what the NAP would say to a libertarian atheist look in on the NAP from the outside.

The NAP’s platform can be essentially boiled down to “Democrats without God.”  It is not surprising given that they arrived at that platform by a majority consensus of current members.  Meanwhile they claim to say that they would approach policy from a scientific stance.  IE, instead of doing what feels right, doing what is proven to give the desired results.  The problem is that the method of obtaining the platform and the stated method of creating policy are at odds.  The platform is created by a plurality of what the members feel is right vs. what is actually right.

Now, to their credit, when asked what they would say to an atheist libertarian they said they wanted inclusion into the process.  That such a person should join the NAP to have their voice be heard.  That if their ideas differ from the party’s platform they should lobby to get the platform changed but be willing to accept the consensus of the party members.  Well, being such an atheist libertarian I see two problems with this.

First, a scientific approach would not be formed on consensus.  Science doesn’t give a damn about consensus, all that matters are whether the results are repeatable.  If the consensus is that a certain action is correct and it is proven wrong, then the consensus is wrong and should be discarded, period.

Second, why would I want to make my voice heard in the NAP versus the Libertarian Party?  As a member of the Libertarian Party the sole major point of contention I might have is my atheism.  Even then it is fairly trivial as we have a basis of resolution in the form of the first amendment to the constitution.  However, as a member of the NAP the only point of unity is my atheism.  I would be striving to alter every plank of their platform.

It is this second point which is why I think the NAP is the wrong approach to the problem of under representation of atheists in American politics.  It cannot, nor ever will, address all atheists.  Our views outside of the god issue are diverse.  Our concerns in government, as a group, begin and end pretty much on church/state separation issues.  By creating a political party they are diluting their potential clout by alienating a good portion of people who do not agree with all of the non-religious rhetoric.

What should be put forth is a political organization which solely concerns itself with church/state separation issues.  Not a party as a party has to concern itself with everything which falls under the purview of politics.  Something which would lobby on church./state issues, provide information on candidates which are strong on church/state separation.

Of course we already have organizations like that.  Organizations like American Atheists and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I have no doubt that members of these organizations are politically in line with the current membership base of the NAP.  Even so I can support them because when it comes to other policy matters they are largely non-committal.

 

2011 – L.A.G.

Another quasi-revolution around the sun down, another started.  This blog is named for 3 main topics but actually has for.  Libertarian, Atheist, Gamer/Geek, Ferrets.  What did 2011 bring for each of those to my door?  Let’s just say it hasn’t been kind.

Libertarian – Ron Paul.  This past year has seen his star ascend like no other year before.  He’s one of the few politicians who I don’t only not hold in contempt, but actually respect.  So much so that the first time in my life I have contributed directly to a political candidate.  Not only that, but the media focus on him shows how biased and contemptible every major media outlet is.  He is the only voice of dissent on many major policy issues with any voice at the national level.  That it not something to be dismissed, laughed at, or treated with scorn.

Atheist – This one has been low-key.  As much as fellow Atheists may grouse about transgressions by the government, local to national, most of it has been small potatoes.  I can respect the work that several Atheist organizations have engaged in over the past year, but I can’t really get interested in it when I see otherwise rational Atheists become irrational ideologues over the small shit when we have much bigger issues facing us.  Refer to the paragraph above to get my meaning.

Gamer – Many great games were purchased and played this year.  My Steam account is closing in on 300 titles and I’ve recently become a fan of Gamer’s Gate.  But the year goes to TOR.  It was released the 13th of last month.  In the 20 days since Raptr has me at just shy of 200 hours.  I haven’t clocked that much time in any other game since such a short time since Aion.  Difference is, I’m not utterly pissed off at TOR as I was with Aion.

Geek – I still work in the tech sector.  It still sucks balls.  Linux still doesn’t get it’s just due.  I have become Google’s bitch.  My tablet computer now has a detachable keyboard which adds 8 hours of battery life.  So, win some, lose some.

Ferret – Worst year ever.  Ever.

Samson left us back in May.  He was quite old for a ferret.  Even though we knew he wouldn’t be with us long his passing was quite sudden.  But I could deal with it after a few days time.

Aesa followed her friend for life in August.  She too was old and I think she was tired of taking the medication that was helping her live day-by-day.  We fought to keep her going for two weeks but in the end did what was best for her.  Even though I held her as she passed away I think having faced up to the fact it was her time over those weeks helped ease the weight in my heart.

Come September Fex, our first ferret and youngest of our business, suddenly took ill.  He was gone less than 48 hours later.  It was completely unexpected.  For some reason it just hit me hard.  He wasn’t, isn’t, supposed to be gone yet I still find myself missing him, even now, far more than I missed Samson or Aesa.  I loved them no less.  I can only think it was that he was still appeared quite healthy for a ferret.  I never thought for an instant that he would be gone this year, or the next, or even the one after that.  Certainly not without us seeing it coming like we did with Aesa and to a lesser extent Samson.

We now have two cute-as-a-button girls, Xena and Xara.  At least they had some time with Aesa and Fex.  They never fail to put a grin on my face when I need it most.

Finally, one last event from 2012.  My wife’s mother, Ruthann, passed away back in October.  We lived in different states and my work schedule rarely gave me time to visit as often as my wife did.  But she accepted me into her home and her life.  She accepted my marriage to her daughter.  In a world where I hear of far too much strife between parents and their children’s spouse I was lucky to have had her as my mother-in-law.  She was taken from us too soon.

I know Ruthann would not approve of my words but I think she’d understand the sentiment.  Fuck you, 2011, you took more than your due.  I’m glad you’re gone.

Thoughts on Home Owner Associations

Another Reddit reply, this time to the question about what the Libertarian take was on HOAs.

The Libertarian position? Best to review some of the major players to see what they have written on the topic. Here we can pretty much offer up what some libertarians feel.

Personally, I have a neutral/hate relationship with them. Having recently purchased a house (my first) virtually all the properties my wife and I reviewed were associated with some sort of HoA. I’d say of the 30 or so homes we reviewed maybe 2 weren’t in HoAs. So the notion that one can opt out of an HoA by not buying into a neighborhood in an HoA is a tad iffy. Their ubiquity is startling.

The concept is ok, but in my experience the execution is horrible. HoAs today amount to little more than mandates for homogeneity in aesthetics often at the expense in progress in other areas. For example where I live has no lack of sunshine (Vegas). I’d love to look in to practical options for solar power. However any decision I make has to be approved by the HoA. The criterion? How much the proposed solution impacts the profile of my house.

I put up with it because, really, the house was a steal in this market and the chances of me getting into a neighborhood without an HoA are pretty much nil.

Addressing the second point I think there is a matter of scale. One of the problems with HoAs is that it takes time to investigate what, exactly, each HoA’s terms are prior to purchasing the home. On top of that the pace of real estate purchases means taking the time for a thorough review of HoA policies could mean missing the sale on the house. As such I am willing to wager that most people purchase the house first, then familiarize themselves with the rules and regs of the local HoA.

While there is an argument for local control I think HoAs are too local, the granularity too narrow. Especially since there is no clear marking of where any individual HoA’s jurisdiction begins and ends. What I mean by this is that when I was looking for a house to buy I could make a reasonable choice on local policies based on established and recognized geographical boundaries. If I have a problem with Las Vegas I could move to Henderson, Summerlin or N. Las Vegas and know exactly where one ends and the other begins. Similarly if I’m upset with county policies I can leave Clark county. State policies, leave Nevada. Each has clear lines marking where their policies end.

HoAs have no such clear indication. So while it may be easier to switch HoAs by moving the next subdivision over it is not as clearcut what HoA is control of which properties and what their policies are. You’ll often not know until you get there. Note, I am well aware of some exceptions, like the above mentioned Summerlin. But they are just that, exceptions.

Finally I think the policies that the local government concerns itself over and what HoAs concern themselves over differ radically. Or rather, the perception of such does. If the city of Las Vegas were to concern itself over the aesthetics of individual rooflines many people would object to the overbearing nature of government. Yet the same happens in HoAs all the time, in an unrepresentative structure, and it somehow becomes viable.

IE, my impression and feelings are that there’s something amiss with HoAs. I cannot clearly define it, but much like porn, I know it when I see it. I just don’t enjoy it nearly as much.

An Atheist For School Vouchers

This is a recent post to Reddit which sums up exactly why, as an atheist, I am not opposed to school vouchers on constitutional grounds.  Definitely my most refined thought on the topic to date so saving it here for future reference.  The quoted material is from the user sansimone.  S/He is reply to my example where a senior receiving social security tithes some of that money to a church.

April Fool’s, Bah Humbug

I really dislike April Fool’s online.  My RSS feed for gaming is full lame “jokes” that fool noone.  That’s only half the problem.  The other half is that my political RSS feeds is full of news which aren’t jokes but should be.  *sigh*

Countdown to Tyranny/Revolt

This is going to be a touchy topic.  It was sparked because of the events of in Arizona but doesn’t have anything directly to do with it.  All I ask is that, from the start, keep an open mind and read through to the end before judging the content.

As news filtered out of what happened in Az accusations began flying from all corners about the  motives of the shooter.  Most, well, almost all, were railing against Sarah Palin’s map specifically and the rhetoric of the right in particular.  Now, as I write this 2 days after the shooting in Tucson, the actual motives of the shooter are not known.  I am saying right now, I do not know the motives.  I am not defending his motives if and when they become known.  I am not defending his actions.

But the lashing out of individuals against the right for their rhetoric is reaching a fevered pitch.  Much of it is centered upon the Four Boxes meme, “There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order”.  It is the idea that armed revolt is an option of last resort.  It has crept into the rhetoric of the right as of late because they feel that the first two boxes aren’t working any more.  The people on the left whom I have either read or interacted with are attacking this notion that it is a viable option at all.

In one of those discussions I asked the following question.  At what point would you advocate a justified revolt? Work backwards through the amendments and tell me upon which one would you say “no more”?  Let’s just keep it confined to the original 10 so as not to be overly long.

I think this is an important thought exercise for people, on both sides of the political spectrum, to think about when discussing the validity of that final box in defense of liberty.  Most people are at least nominally aware of the Bill of Rights.  They should grasp, at some level, that it is important to us as Americans in defining the foundations upon which our liberty rests even though many think the freedoms are granted, not enumerated, by those 10 Amendments.  So it is my hope that at some level this provides a common measure upon which to gauge how threatened people feel about their liberty at these times so as to understand why that meme is resonating with many people.

But why a countdown?  Because when it comes to the Bill of Rights they do tend to decrease in importance.  Not that they aren’t all important and aren’t all intertwined but, let’s be honest, I think we can all agree that without the freedom of speech enumerated in the First Amendment it is hard to defend the other nine.

So, with the above in mind here are the Bill of Rights (presented in their summary).  However I am not going to just present them as a dry list.  After each I will explained why some feel some of the Amendments have been violated and no longer apply.  Note, I am not presenting these as my view but rather a view that is held by a good deal of people.  Views which are not hard to dig into in depth with judicious use of Google.  A practice I encourage anyone who reads this to engage, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they are.

This is an important step for understanding.  As you go through each of the Amendments, mentally ticking off that you can do without one or the other until the burden is too great and you feel at that time you would consider an armed revolt appropriate, keep a tally of how many some people feel have already been lost and see how you would fair.  Ok?  Here goes.

10. Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution. With the expanding scope of the commerce clause there are people who feel that this Amendment no longer applies to the federal government since any and all activities an individual may chose to engage or not engage in can have an effect on interstate commerce.  In fact the individual mandate of the PPACA which requires individuals to purchase health insurance is argued on the basis that people who don’t purchase health insurance are causing a burden to interstate commerce.

9. Asserts the existence of unenumerated rights retained by the people. This one is dicey as it is the only Amendment which isn’t too specific.  So a violation of it to one person is not a violation of it to another.  So it is hard to pin down specific examples to cite.

8. Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. Again, another dicey one as the definitions of excessive, cruel and unusual differ from person to person.  Again, hard to find specific examples.

7. Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law.  While we still have trial by jury the process by which juries are selected and instructed to perform their duties calls into question if this Amendment really applies.  Simply follow any discussion over the concept of Jury Nullification to see this view in action.  The short form is that the jury can judge not only the defendant but the law and choose to not convict someone on the basis of a bad law.  It is a practice some judges have explicitly states as not allowed to prospective jurors.  Note that this is one of the four boxes in the meme above so if you are someone who feels this no longer applies then the use of the jury box in defense of liberty is already lost.

6. Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel. This one is probably one of the easiest for those on the left to see as lost.  Fair and speedy public trial is often cited as a reason to close Guantanamo.  To be notified of accusations is seen as violated by no-knock and sneak & peek warrants.  Confront accusers has been stymied in the past two administrations by claims of national security concerns.

5. Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. Questions of due process come up all the time.  Kelo vs. New London is viewed as a clear overreach of eminent domain.

4. Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause. The recent TSA policies of invasive pat-downs or a near-nude body scanner is often cited as an example of unreasonable searches.  Unreasonable seizures have a much longer history under the name of Asset Forfeiture.  A concept which also could have been listed under the 6th and 5th Amendments because the notion is that a person isn’t on trial, their property is!

3. Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers. I am not aware of any clear cites of controversy, let alone violations, to this Amendment.

2. Protects the right to keep and bear arms. I don’t think I need to explain this to anyone who has any passing interest in politics.  The only thing to add is that here rests another one of the boxes to protect liberty, the one of last resort.

1. Protects the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government. Again, another one that is pretty much in the lime light all the time.  I don’t think I need to go into detail on how some might feel this one has been violated time and again as well from limits to speech, the press, the right to assemble and to petition the government.  I separate freedom of religion because this one, while seemingly violated all the time as told by the religious, really isn’t.  They just tend to forget that the Amendment starts off with “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion” and skip right to “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  On the other hand the 1950s were not kind to the leading clause of this Amendment.  This is where the third box of the meme rests.

So, here we are at the end of the countdown.  To some degree or another I hope I have presented examples on how some people can feel that 9 of the 10 Amendments which comprise the Bill of Rights are no longer applicable to the government as it currently stands.  So at which point (if at all) did you say “no more, this is too much” and felt that if that were to come to pass that armed revolt would be an appropriate response?  Keeping that point in mind can you understand that if someone feels the right enumerated here have been violated as described that they might feel they are already at that point?  You don’t need to agree, just understand.

Finally, to those who made it to the end of the list I have one final question.  If living in a state where you are not free to practice your religion, speak your mind, assemble with your peers, to keep arms, where authorities can take your property at a whim, without a trial, where your property and person are subject to searches at any time, for any reason, where you can be locked up without being told why nor to be presented with an opportunity to defend yourself and the national government can do anything and everything it wants isn’t enough for you to consider armed revolt, what would it take?  Because those conditions were more than sufficient justification for many a populace to take arms against their government in the past.

Youtube Atheists & Free Speech, A Nitpick

Many of the prominent Youtube Atheists are also staunch free speech advocates.  They rail against governments and quasi-government agencies which kowtow to the religious when it comes to “intolerance” in the form of legitimate criticism of religion.  On this I have no issue with them for obvious reasons.

However some of them have taken to proving how much they are for free speech by pointing out that they don’t block people on their channel, they don’t review video responses and don’t remove comments from their channel or video posts.  The implication being that people who do block, review and remove are somehow less committed to the notion of free speech.  It is this idea to which I take exception.

I believe in free speech.  Anyone has the right to say anything they want provided they’re willing to deal with the consequences.  Freedom of speech does not mean a guarantee of acceptance.  No, that is what the religious want and we’ll have none of that.

But I also believe in strong property rights.  Property rights derived from the individual.  IE, I own my body.  I can do with it as I choose.  By extension I own the labor of my body (property) and I can do with it as I choose.  The only exception is that I cannot do with either that which would directly harm another.  Basic libertarian stuff.

So with those two concepts in mind (and presuming we’re all atheists here, theists, play along) imagine someone in your house proselytizing to you.  Who’s rights take precedence?  His right to free speech or your right to do with as you wish with your property?  I would argue that his right to speak in that venue is limited by your indulgence.  At 3pm you might find it amusing to waste his time.  At 3am when you’re trying to sleep I’m willing to wager you’ll either politely ask him to leave or remove him by force (either your own or police, pick one).

Have you infringed on his right to free speech?  No!  He is free to speak on the corner of the street at 3am.  He’s free to speak in a church at 3am.  Or a pub (presuming you’re not in a hick state with blue laws) at 3am.  He has plenty of venues from which to choose, you have only restricted one venue, a venue over which you have rightful control.

Now, simply replace “house” with “youtube channel” and speech with video responses or comments.  Has anything changed?  No.  It is your channel.  You have spent the time to build it up, to gain subscribers.  It is your labor, your property, and those who interact with you in that venue do so by your indulgence.  If you block them, decline their video or comment responses that you have infringed on their freedom of speech?  No!  You have prevented them from one venue.  But they can post to other videos, other channels or even start their own.

Now, let me clarify.  I think it is a dick move to block people or remove comments which are valid and legitimately address the topic of the video or the channel.  I still defend the right of those people to do so.  Because without that right they would not have the ability to meaningfully removed spurious comments, spam, abusive comments and flat out trolls.