It looks obvious

This is a month old but still worth watching. The people who cannot run a restaurant properly are now threatening to steal entire industry. It is sad to note that while china start understanding the importance of reducing government regulations and opening the market, we are in a fast lane of deterioration. Acknowledging the positive effect of liberal economy (i.e. free market) on establishing liberal-democracy we should consider also the opposite - attempts to centralize the control on the market are going hand in hand with other offenses against individual liberties.

When you restrict freedom of speech so it will not offend segment of the population how do you prioritize which segment’s feelings are more valuable? Is it not OK to insult Muslims for their believes but OK to insults evangelical christians? This is the kind of issues the NY Times usually ignores, mostly because it is pretty clear in the editorial room what should be considered acceptable.

I am as far as it can be from evangelical christian and I don’t agree with most of what they believe in, advocate for and even the tactic they are choosing to peruse their goals. However I accept their right to be wrong and primitive as long as they don’t force me to change my way of life. This is simple form of tolerance that Liberal Democracies should maintain. This is not, however, what Canada “human rights” commissioner vision of human rights:

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.

[...]

While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.

It is a peculiar world where the only criteria to choose which groups human rights are protected is the politicly corrected current fashion…

(via LRC)

Alisa’s disagreement with my assessment about McCain is a good reason to look at the remaining candidates and start theorizing who is the leaser evil. We can assume, with high level of certainty that the major parties candidates will be Obama and McCain and that two additional recognize candidates will be Ralph Nader and Bob Barr for the LP. This is a rather depressing list of candidates for me, where even the presumed libertarian candidate is basically a social conservative, which prevent me from the luxury of ideological, or protest, vote. I will not support, nor vote, for any of the candidates this election because I came to conclusion that voting for the leaser evil is a waste of a vote. However, the question which of the two major candidates is potentially less offensive is still worth exploring.

McCain is a very interesting candidate. His ability to attract the anti-war votes in NH is still a mystery to me. He has a pretty solid record of voting for balanced budget, controlled spending and opposing tax increases which mark him on the side of fiscal conservatives. However, this should not confuse us with the illusion that McCain is a “small government” supporter. His record indicates that he, very much like Hillary Clinton, believes in efficient government rather than small government. His voting record, his public statements and the initiatives he took over the years are clear demonstration of increasing the role of the federal government and limiting individual liberties. The famous Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feinglod act, is a clear example of his willingness to limit the freedom of speech (and make it harder for political competition) in favor of regulating behavior. McCain willingness to expand the role of the federal government, regulate behavior and social interactions, such as professional sport, is a clear indication that McCain is not a pro-liberty candidate.

My major opposition to McCain foreign policy agenda isn’t his position on the war in Iraq, or even on the approach he advocate to fight terrorism. What truly worries me is that McCain genuinely believe that in national greatness and greater good. It is not a hockish, but realistic, approach for use of power to achieve national interest goals, which one can argue with, but rather an ideological approach for spreading Americas goodness that is scary. It is the true ideology driven, rather than sober cynical politician, that is more dangerous.

It is the core ideology of McCain, in which he genuinely believe and advocate for, which should make us worry. His believe that individual should subject their interest for some greater good. No, he is not a socialist but the subjecting individual freedom for the collective interest is bad policy regardless its tag name:

“serving a cause greater than self-interest.”

[…]

“We are fast becoming a nation of alienating individualists, unwilling to put the unifying values of patriotism ahead of our narrow self-interests,” Mr. McCain warned in a speech during his 2000 presidential campaign. He added that “cynicism threatens to become a ceiling on our greatness.”

Obama is in many ways an enigma. His public image heavily marketed by his campaign, and by his opponents, is misleading. Obama, unlike the annoying, yet effective, slogan of change and unlike the claim that he is the most liberal, which is to mean socialist, member of the house is actually a main stream politician. The list of issues and policies that makes Obama a non-starter for me is very long. But it is the fact that he is a mainstream politician, even more than his saner foreign policy, that makes him less alarming candidate.

McCain, very much like Clinton and Chaney, is goal driven and the process is subject to achieving those goals. Obama, on the other hand, made the process his campaign main issue. I wrote in the past about the importance of the rules of the game in maintaing liberal-democracy, Obama, the politician and the Presidential candidate, seems more likely to preserve them.

We should really be proud about the results of our “Nation Building” and “Spreading Democracy” into Afghanistan. Thank to us the Afghans now enjoy freedom of speech - they have the freedom to say whatever they want and the government in return:

The NeoCon logic of “Spreading Democracy” tied together with alliances with tyrannic regimes doesn’t strike me as brilliant, successful or moral. And yet it is consider radical, outright stupid and fringe to suggest otherwise.