"Homework" without Fundamentals

Thursday, August 05, 2010

A news report out of Denver describes Colorado gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes's take on a plan by Denver's environmentalist mayor to "encourage" more people to "wean" themselves off cars with a variety of statist "incentives."

It is definitely wrong for the state to do this, but does a candidate who, like Maes, opposes such a plan, necessarily deserve the support of voters who want the government to protect individual rights? Not necessarily. Why such a candidate opposes such a program is a consideration that cannot be ignored, as we shall soon learn from his own mouth.

Maes acknowledged that some might find his theories "kooky," but he said there are valid reasons to be worried.

"At first, I thought, 'Gosh, public transportation, what's wrong with that, and what's wrong with people parking their cars and riding their bikes? And what's wrong with incentives for green cars?' But if you do your homework and research, you realize ICLEI is part of a greater strategy to rein in American cities under a United Nations treaty," Maes said.
Mayor John Hickenlooper's plan -- and you know this isn't a scene from an Ayn Rand novel by the fact that he doesn't have an equally odd first name -- is indeed wrong. However, it is not merely because it is part of a greater conspiracy (real or imagined) that it is wrong, but because the government regulations proposed violate individual rights. This, by the way, is also why public transportation systems run or financed by the government are wrong.

Maes, lacking a consistent, pro-individual rights political philosophy, obviously doesn't understand this. Indeed, it is probably fair to conclude that Maes would support a plan identical to Hickenlooper's so long as he didn't believe the U.N. to be involved.

Coloradan blogger Ari Armstrong put it well when, in June, he argued against Tea Party activists endorsing specific candidates:
[T]here is no principled candidate in any of the large races in Colorado. Many Tea Partiers favor Maes over [Scott] McInnis. But the simple fact is that both Maes and McInnis are unprincipled, pragmatic populists. Consider, for example, Maes's flip-flopping on guns and abortion. What, then, has been the basis for Tea Party endorsements? Generally those endorsements are rooted in anti-establishment sentiments, not in any careful comparison of how fully the candidates endorse liberty.
And another result of such an endorsement is that it is now easier for conspiracy theory kookiness like Maes's to be associated with grassroots efforts to support individual rights. This is something the leftist political establishment is going to try to do anyway. Why help them by getting behind actual kooks?

I'm all for a candidate doing his homework, but the first assignment is to grasp the nature and importance of individual rights, and to understand the nature and purpose of government as their protector. Fail this one and you're wasting the rest of your midnight oil.

Even if there were a conspiracy of the sort claimed by Maes, if the public demanded -- and more government officials were intent on -- protection of individual rights, it wouldn't stand a chance because the government wouldn't be in the business of "encouraging" people to do anything but live and let live.

-- CAV

4 comments:

mtnrunner2 said...

[Warning: lily-gilding ahead :)]

Not surprisingly, that's basically what I commented on a local Denver news site.

What's important is whether the government should be funding such things (of course I hold they should not). As it turns out, there was actually a fair amount of private financial support of this project, but also federal grant money and probably other public funds (I could not find a concise summary on this).

Is biking vs. driving a good idea? Sure, why not, if it works for you? I like bikes. Could it have been done privately? Probably.

Maes' response reminds me of conservative pundits like Glenn Beck, who are often maligned by liberals, but who often beg for mistreatment by their borderline paranoid conspiracy talk. Conspiracy theories are the stuff of those who lack philosophical principles and understanding.

What matters is our individual right to decide how to use our income, regardless of how worthy a cause may be.

Gus Van Horn said...

"Is biking vs. driving a good idea? Sure, why not, if it works for you? I like bikes. Could it have been done privately? Probably."

It could, and with mass transit, it has been, too.

I'm sort of a train buff, so when I first moved up here, I got a kick out of the subway system and trolleys. These things were originally privately-run.

Do I think everyone should use them? Of course not. That depends on where you live, and a host of other factors.

Getting back to the bicycling, initiative, something like that can and should be entirely a private endeavor. Lots of people like bikes and would love to be able to use them to get to work or run errands, myself included. I wonder, were the government not in charge of basically all roads, whether me might already have good places to bike.

Denver's mayor is an example of an increasingly common misconception, which is that, to "get something done," the government has to get involved.

Such matters are part of what I have called the "battle of imagination." Most politicians lack that faculty.

Steve D said...

“Why such a candidate opposes such a program is a consideration that cannot be ignored, as we shall soon learn from his own mouth.”

There is a difference between someone who supports the right idea because of the wrong reason vs. supporting it because of a non essential reason. The next question is to ask why Maes opposes the United Nations in the first place.

“Indeed, it is probably fair to conclude that Maes would support a plan identical to Hickenlooper's so long as he didn't believe the U.N. to be involved.”

I suppose he prefers a more home grown type of tyranny, typical of many conservatives. It is however; also possible that he opposes the plan for reasons bordering on principle but fears the response of people because he is either cowardly or simply uncertain of himself. Even if this is not the case for Maes, I suspect there are a number is the conservative/libertarian camp for which this is the case. Understanding differences in people’s motivations for supporting (or opposing) the right policies may be very helpful tactically for planning the best ways to advance the right ideas.

The ‘conspiracy’ in this case is probably just another example of how people with bad premises can come to the same bad conclusions and then advocate the same bad policies. Of course the United Nations and those that support it want to reign in American cities. Whether they sat together and conspire to make trouble or come to the same policies individually solely because of their horrible premises won’t I expect make much of a difference in the long run.

“Such matters are part of what I have called the "battle of imagination." Most politicians lack that faculty.”

If it were only the politicians the battle would almost be won. Like other aspects of their mental processes imagination in people is often a very compartmentalized trait.

Gus Van Horn said...

"The next question is to ask why Maes opposes the United Nations in the first place."

To be fair to Maes, that question does need asking. Offhand, I don't know the answer.

You also raise a good alternative hypothesis for why he's resorting to conspiracy theories.